01No Cyprus company escapes assurance
Every Cyprus-registered company, regardless of size, must have its financial statements independently examined. There is no small-company exemption from assurance altogether, unlike some other jurisdictions. The only variable is the type of engagement: a full statutory audit, or, for companies that qualify, a review engagement performed under ISRE 2400 (Revised).
A review is a lower-scope engagement: limited assurance built mainly on analytical procedures and inquiry, rather than the reasonable-assurance testing a statutory audit performs. A company that does not meet the eligibility criteria stays on a full audit. Meeting the criteria is what changed.
02What changed, the numbers
The new eligibility criteria for a review engagement:
The two figures work together, not as alternatives, a company needs turnover under €300,000 and total assets under €500,000, in both of the two consecutive financial years being assessed.
03Who the raised threshold actually reaches
Because both criteria must be met together, raising the turnover cap while leaving the €500,000 asset cap unchanged mainly widens eligibility for revenue-heavy, asset-light small companies, service businesses and trading intermediaries with modest balance sheets, rather than asset-heavy ones sitting closer to the cap already.
Two mechanics worth flagging to clients: a newly incorporated company still needs the two-year track record before it can qualify, so the change does not shortcut year one. And a company that later exceeds either threshold for two consecutive years reverts to a full statutory audit, qualifying for review is a status to monitor annually, not a one-time decision.
04What a review engagement changes, and what it doesn't
An ISRE 2400 review is still an assurance engagement performed by a licensed auditor, it is not the same as unaudited or compiled accounts, and it is not a rubber stamp. What changes is scope and the form of the conclusion: a review gives limited assurance, typically a negative-form conclusion ("nothing has come to our attention to indicate the financial statements are not fairly presented"), rather than the positive opinion a full audit expresses.
In practice that usually means less transaction-level testing and more analytical review, which can lower both the fee and the calendar time a company spends on the engagement. It does not remove the auditor's ability to ask for underlying documentation when something needs resolving, so the quality of a company's records still shapes how smoothly the engagement runs, audit or review.
05The record-keeping angle: clean source documents matter either way
Nothing about the assurance route changes what a small company should be keeping in order. The habits that make either engagement painless:
- Legible source documents matched to the ledger , every invoice and receipt traceable to the entry it supports.
- VAT treatment recorded per line, not assumed , so a reviewer or auditor can see the basis for the rate applied, not just the total.
- Bank reconciliations kept current , not reconstructed retroactively when the engagement letter arrives.
- Supporting schedules for accruals and provisions , with the workings kept, not just the final figure.
- A visible trail from source document to posted entry , so a clarifying question can be answered by pointing, not searching.
A reviewer asking a clarifying question needs the same underlying evidence an auditor would, just for fewer items. None of that changes based on which route a company qualifies for.
This describes publicly announced thresholds and legislative changes, not professional advice on which engagement type applies to a specific company. Confirm eligibility and transition timing with your auditor, or with ICPAC, before any engagement-letter decision.
The habits that make a review engagement painless are the same ones the VAT working papers guide describes for a defensible VAT file: source document, treatment, and posted entry, kept together.