Two licensed CPAs on every engagement
Supervision in a firm this size works differently than in a firm with a staffing pyramid, and it is worth stating plainly rather than leaving it to be inferred. Audit procedures are performed by an experienced licensed CPA rather than assigned to junior staff, so procedures are not carried out by someone who has yet to understand why they are being performed.
The principal sets materiality and the risk assessment, designs the audit programs, performs the fieldwork, evaluates the evidence, drafts the statements and reports, and signs them. Because he performs the work himself, supervision is not a matter of reviewing another person’s judgment after the fact — it is exercised at the moment the procedure is designed and applied.
A documented pre-issuance review is the function Timothy Altman, CPA performs, and it operates as a genuine control rather than a formality. Planning documentation and the risk assessment are reviewed before fieldwork begins, while the plan can still change. The workpapers, the financial statements, and every report are reviewed before issuance. No report is released, and no report date is applied, until that review is complete and any objections are resolved.
Audit procedures are not delegated
No portion of the audit is performed by junior personnel, by outside contractors, or by offshore resources. The person who answers your questions is the person who plans the audit, performs the fieldwork, and signs the reports.
One function sits deliberately outside that: the pre-issuance technical and quality review, performed by a separately engaged licensed CPA who is not otherwise associated with the audit. That separation is the point of the control — a reviewer inside the engagement would not be an independent one.
No surprises at the exit conference
Any matter that appears likely to become a finding, a questioned cost, a material weakness, a significant deficiency, or an audit adjustment is raised with management in writing when it is identified — not held until the draft reports are issued. That gives you the opportunity to research the matter, produce additional support, or correct the condition while the audit is still in progress.
Anything that could threaten a reporting deadline is escalated promptly rather than discovered late.
Quality management
The firm’s system of quality management was designed and documented under SQMS No. 1 and has been in operation since December 15, 2025 — the date the standard set for firms to have the system implemented. Engagement quality reviews follow SQMS No. 2, and engagements are conducted under SAS No. 146. The standard also requires the firm to evaluate its own system at least annually; that first evaluation falls due by December 15, 2026.
None of that is a distinction to advertise. Every firm that performs audits is held to the same standards, and any firm that says otherwise is describing the floor as though it were a ceiling. What differs between firms is whether the system is genuinely operated or merely written down — which is exactly what an external peer reviewer tests, and this firm is reviewed on that cycle like any other.
Technology
Where the firm is lean on headcount it makes up for it in technology: modern, cloud-based audit software and data analytics carry the testing and documentation work, so CPA time goes to judgment and communication instead of paperwork. That is what lets one experienced CPA cover the ground a larger team would.
Engagement documentation and routine document exchange are maintained electronically, through a secure channel rather than as email attachments.