SPECIAL EDITION – AUDITING CLARITY PROJECT

SPECIAL EDITION – AUDITING CLARITY PROJECT

 

Many review courses charge you for the information we are giving you for free.  Please do us a favor. Forward this newsletter to friends, co-workers, HR/Training Specialist at your firm and be sure to let them know that you received the free updates fromCPAreviewforFREE.    So let's get started with the new updates that are effective July 1, 2013.  

 

The Auditing Standard’s Board (ASB) has spent the past several years rewriting virtually all of the official statements of auditing standards (SASs) used in the United States in a codification project.   Officially, the old standards were referred to by AU section numbers whereas the new standards are now identified using AU-C section numbers.   This Auditing Clarity Project was carried out for a number of reasons.   The rewriting and rearranging of sections was performed to make the standards easier to read, understand, and apply.   They are now more principles based and also bring together US standards with the International Standards of Auditing issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.  

 

The newly rewritten standards have been put into a consistent format somewhat like FASB’s Accounting Standards Codificationso that locating information will be quicker and periodic changes in standards can be made more easily.  

 

Although extremely extensive, many parts of this rewriting project had no real impact on the underlying requirements.   It is a “clarity project” rather than a creation project.   At other times, minor word changes have been made that are probably not important enough for coverage on the CPA Exam.  For example, a number of implied requirements have become explicit requirements.  

 

However, some changes are clearly important and should be noted when preparing for the Auditing and Assurance section of the CPA Exam.  The following information comes from a number of different sources but primarily from the AICPA’s “Summary of Differences Between Clarified SASs and Existing SASs” (as revised in February 2013) which can be found at the AICPA website.  That website is a great source of information.  However, do not get bogged down in the quantity of minor changes.

 

This list of differences below is not intended to be all-inclusive.   It is a list of the differences that seem most likely to be tested on the CPA Exam starting in the third testing window of 2013.  If you lose this newsletter in your inbox, you can find the changes in the CPA Exam Tips on CPAreviewforFREE.

 

1.  The overall objectives of the auditor and the audit process were established although they have not been radically altered from the past.

 

--To obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement (whether due to fraud or error) thereby enabling the auditor to express an opinion on whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework and

--To provide a report on the financial statements in accordance with the auditor’s findings.

 

2.   The auditor must obtain the agreement of management that it acknowledges and understands its responsibility for selecting the appropriate financial reporting framework (such as U.S. GAAP or IFRS), establishing and maintaining internal control, and providing adequate access and information to the auditor.   This is not a significant change but tightens up the wording (which is true for many things covered in this project).

 

3.   The auditor is now required to perform procedures to identify instances of noncompliance with those laws and regulations that may have a material effect on the financial statements.   To this end, the auditor must inspect correspondence, if any, with the relevant licensing or regulatory authorities.  

 

4.   When contacting the necessary parties about significant deficiencies and material weaknesses that have been identified in an audit client’s internal control, an explanation of the potential effect of those problems must be included.

 

5.   If management refuses to allow the auditor to send out a confirmation request (on an accounts receivable, for example), the auditor must communicate that information to those individuals charged with governance (but only if the auditor concludes that management’s refusal is unreasonable or if the auditor is unable to obtain relevant and reliable audit evidence from alternative audit procedures).   Once again, this change is not significant from the past but makes the requirement clearer.

 

6.   In an initial audit of a reporting entity, the question has been raised as to whether merely reviewing the previous auditor’s work papers is sufficient – the only work that needs to be performed – in regard to opening account balances.   The answer provided here is “no.”   Instead, a more general rule is applied.   The previous work papers can be helpful but other work should be performed.  The auditor must obtain audit evidence to ascertain the following:  

 

--Whether opening balances contain misstatements that materially affect the current period’s financial statements and

--Whether accounting policies reflected in the opening balances have been consistently applied in the current period’s financial statements and whether changes in the accounting policies have been properly accounted for and adequately presented.

 

**********

College Student Accounting Course Homework Apps

Did you know that we have smartphone apps (foriphone/ipad and android) for students in college studying for their accounting course quizzes and tests?  Now students have the luxury to practice hundreds of MCQs "on the go" for each of thesix apps. 

 

**********

7.  One of the most significant changes created by this project concerned engagements that involve more than one auditor.   Group financial statements are ones that are comprised of more than a single component.   A component is “an entity or business activity for which group or component management prepares financial information that should be included in the group financial statements.”  So, group financial statements are roughly equivalent to consolidated financial statements although distinct legal subsidiaries are not necessary.  (Three large stores in three different states might be viewed as three components, for example, even if not legally separate.)  The principal auditor is now known as the “auditor of the group financial statements” and any other auditors that are involved are referred to as “component auditors.”  The group engagement partner and team is responsible for:

 

--The direction, supervision, and performance of the group audit engagement in compliance with professional standards and other requirements and 

--The determination as to whether the auditor’s report that is issued is appropriate in the circumstances.

 

The group engagement team is defined as “partners, including the group engagement partner, and staff who establish the overall group audit strategy, communicate with component auditors, perform work on the consolidation process, and evaluate the conclusions drawn from the audit evidence as the basis for forming an opinion on the group financial statements.” Any auditors who are involved but do not meet the definition of a member of the group engagement team are considered to be component auditors.   Interestingly, that can include members of the group engagement team’s own firm as well as auditors from an entirely different firm.

 

The decision as to whether a group engagement partner can function in that capacity is based on determining whether that auditor believes he or she will be able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the group financial statements.  The decision also takes into consideration whether the group engagement team will have appropriate access to information.   This writing changes the emphasis from a “reliance on other (outside) auditors” to “can we get enough evidence to make essential judgments?”

 

The group engagement team might make reference in the audit report to the component auditor or auditors.

Reference is permitted when the “other” financial information is prepared using a different financial reporting framework than that used by the group.    However, if reference is made in that case, the auditor’s report on the group financial statements must disclose that it is the auditor of the group financial statements who is taking responsibility for evaluating the appropriateness of the adjustments to convert the component’s financial statements to the financial reporting framework used by the group.   This is important when a subsidiary uses IFRS, for example, but the financial statements as a whole are prepared based on U. S. GAAP or vice versa so that a conversion must be made from one framework to the other.

Cannot make reference to the audit of a component auditor in the auditor’s report of group financial statements unless the component auditor performed an actual audit that meets the relevant requirements of GAAS.   In other words, cannot make reference about random auditing techniques that were carried out.

 

The group engagement team is required to gain an understanding of the component auditor. This understanding includes certain aspects such as competence and independence that have long been performed at such situations.   The group engagement team should also make a determination of the extent to which the group engagement team will be able to be involved in the work of the component auditor.   Here, “involvement” pertains to decisions about materiality and risk assessment procedures. 

 

--Group engagement team must determine materiality for the group financial statements as well as materiality for the component.   Component materiality is normally lower than group materiality.

--Group engagement team (with or without the component auditors) must perform appropriate risk assessment procedures.

--After an understanding is gained of the component auditor, the group engagement partner can make reference to the component auditor (and not assume responsibility) or not make reference to the component auditor (and assume responsibility). 

 

Requirements and guidance are provided for work to be performed on all components for which the group engagement partner is assuming responsibility for the work of the component auditor (not making reference in the report).   These requirements are particularly important when performing work on significant components.

 

A significant component is defined as one that is identified by the group engagement team that is of individual financial significance to the group or is likely to include significant risks of material misstatement within the group financial statements.

 

For components that are “financially” significant, an audit of the component’s financial information is performed. For components considered significant due to their “likelihood of significant risks,” an audit or other audit procedures are performed.   In other words, in these cases, if the group auditor is not making reference to a component auditor, a considerable amount of work must be performed.

 

For components that are not significant, the group engagement team performs analytical procedures at the group level.

 

In order for reference to the component auditor to be made in the auditor’s report on the group financial statements, the component financial statements need to be prepared using the same financial reporting framework as the group financial statements and the component auditor has performed an audit on the financial statements of that component.

 

More Changes...

 

 

Practice, Practice, Practice

 

Okay, here are a few practice questions based on these new rules.

 

(1) – The audit firm of Slackto and Bennette is currently preparing an unmodified audit report for a company that is privately-held.   To whom should the report be addressed:

               a.   The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

               b.   The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)

               c.    The primary users of the report

               d.    The Auditing Standards Board (ASB)

 

 

(2) – The audit firm of ABcd is in the process of providing an unmodified report for the Missouri-Alabama Company, a nonissuer.   Which of the following are headings that would be found in that report?

               a.   Authoritative Accounting and Authoritative Auditing

               b.  Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements and Auditor’s Responsibility

               c.   U. S. GAAS and U. S. GAAP

               d.   Audit Testing and Internal Control

 

(3) – The new audit report for a nonissuer mentions the internal control for the reporting company.   Which of the following is NOT mentioned specifically?

               a.   No opinion on internal control is provided.

               b.   Consideration of internal control helps the auditor design appropriate audit procedures.

               c.   The overall quality of the reporting entity’s internal control

               d.   The only internal control considered is that which is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements.

 

 

 

 

Answers:

 

1.  Answer:   C    The audit report should be addressed to the parties who are most likely to make use of its contents.   That would be the board of directors and the stockholders.

 

2.  Answer:   B    The audit report for a nonissuer must have headings to indicate the purpose of each section and they include Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements, the Auditor’s Responsibility, and Opinion.

 

3.  Answer is C    Consideration of internal control helps the independent auditor decide what testing needs to be done but no opinion or indication of the specific quality of the internal control is provided.   That is not the purpose of a financial statement audit.