“The accountant should consider the potential of being associated with pro forma financial information and the likelihood that the user may inappropriately infer, through that association, an unintended level of reliance on the information. If the accountant believes that he or she will be associated with the information, the accountant should consider issuing a compilation report so a user will not infer an unintended level of reliance on the information.”
I did read it cursorily, though it is muddled thinking (the guidance).
The reason for this is the history of pro-formas in fiancial reports. Management issued their own “pro-forma”, unaudited statements in the annual report, to supplant the audited statements (which did not look as good). Naturally, the SEC and the AICPA found this practice misleading, thus leading to restrictions and prohibitions.
I don't agree with the ACIPA on not requiring independence for compiled reports, while using the CPA title. One cannot be a “public” accountant while representing, or being part of the management. Granted, the not-independent clause is required, but not sufficient to my thinking.
And likely politics carved out this exception: CPAs becoming managers and still wanting the respect of CPAs. It does not work. It is best to think of this as the exception to the rule, rather than pro-forma statements as compiled statements.
The link makes that clear too:
“By definition, presentations of pro forma financial information are not financial statements.”
BA Mathematics, UC Berkeley
Certificates in CPA and EA preparation, College of San Mateo
CMA I 420, II 470
FAR 91, AUD Feb 2015 (Gleim self-study)