Audit Elective FAE 2012

notanocelot · 02-09-2012 6:56pm

Does anyone have anything about company laws they could put up?

I just looked at Interplant & Tangent, the case study about calculation of distributable reserves, which wants you to know about different treatments between plcs and limited companies. Cannot find that anywhere in my course material.

Similarly the other day looking at the exam q where you have to comment on the CLIENT's anti-money-laundering setup. M42 goes on in detail about our own responsibilities towards choosing our clients well and training our staff, but in all the stuff about 'powers and duties of companies' etc I can't see anything where it says what companies in general should have!

Clearly I'm just missing something, and if it comes up Thursday it's a big fat NC on that indicator.

starfair · 02-09-2012 9:32pm

Hi guys, would anyone be able to upload the Red Ireland Ltd case study? Can't see it on the list of attachments

I'm a repeat student and we didn't get that case study. I know Sean Murray mentioned it in his wrap up lecture as a good case to look at for Group Audits.

funkymonkey9 · 02-09-2012 10:31pm

notanocelot wrote: »

Does anyone have anything about company laws they could put up?

I just looked at Interplant & Tangent, the case study about calculation of distributable reserves, which wants you to know about different treatments between plcs and limited companies. Cannot find that anywhere in my course material.

Similarly the other day looking at the exam q where you have to comment on the CLIENT's anti-money-laundering setup. M42 goes on in detail about our own responsibilities towards choosing our clients well and training our staff, but in all the stuff about 'powers and duties of companies' etc I can't see anything where it says what companies in general should have!

Clearly I'm just missing something, and if it comes up Thursday it's a big fat NC on that indicator.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing that details a money laundering policy a company should have on our syllabus,can't see it coming up but I plan just using that case as my guide on the off chance it did come up!in terms of the distributable reserves,in the resource pack there's a few documents detailing directors duties,auditor duties etc under company law and go one of them it tells you how to calculate distributable reserves,can't remember which one but I can look tomorrow,if you don't find it let me know and I'll look into it

zamaramo99 · 02-09-2012 11:53pm

starfair wrote: »

Hi guys, would anyone be able to upload the Red Ireland Ltd case study? Can't see it on the list of attachments

I'm a repeat student and we didn't get that case study. I know Sean Murray mentioned it in his wrap up lecture as a good case to look at for Group Audits.

There you go pal!

starfair · 03-09-2012 12:20am

zamaramo99 wrote: »

There you go pal!

Thanks zamaramo99

Best of luck to everyone in the exams!

KenHy · 03-09-2012 10:33am

notanocelot wrote:

Similarly the other day looking at the exam q where you have to comment on the CLIENT's anti-money-laundering setup. M42 goes on in detail about our own responsibilities towards choosing our clients well and training our staff, but in all the stuff about 'powers and duties of companies' etc I can't see anything where it says what companies in general should have!

M42 is only guidance on how to comply with legislation, it's not specific to accountants. The same guidance would apply to other companies in Financial Services, which could be clients. So if anything comes up on AML setup for clients you can still apply M42.

zamaramo99 · 03-09-2012 12:50pm

If anyone has a copy of the 2012 mock paper and solutions could you please attach it here. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

macatax · 03-09-2012 12:54pm

zamaramo99 wrote: »

If anyone has a copy of the 2012 mock paper and solutions could you please attach it here. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Here ya go!

zamaramo99 · 03-09-2012 1:44pm

Thanks Macatax

figrolls · 03-09-2012 5:54pm

I was just flicking through the articles at the front of the resource pack

It says that if information comes to our attention when we are performing non audit work (and we are not the auditor) we do not have to report to the ODCE however if we discover doing non audit work (and we are also the auditor) we have to report

is this understanding correct??

KenHy · 03-09-2012 6:27pm

figrolls wrote: »

I was just flicking through the articles at the front of the resource pack

It says that if information comes to our attention when we are performing non audit work (and we are not the auditor) we do not have to report to the ODCE however if we discover doing non audit work (and we are also the auditor) we have to report

is this understanding correct??

Yep, that's my reading of it too, also have to consider what we know if we were to become the auditor! Something that we previously didn't have to report may become reportable.

I've wondered if this kinda goes against Ethical Standards though - we may not be required to do anything, but ethically maybe we should. I doubt there is a proper answer to that - if it comes up in the exam I'll probably say that we should report anyway as it's the "right" thing to do, even though we are not required to report anything.

limklass2011 · 03-09-2012 9:17pm

Hello everyone..jus wondering if anyone had an example of when to use ISRE 2400 Engagements to Review FS...would I be right in saying that its basically a poor mans audit...ie moderate assurance and negative assurances and explicitly saying that no audit was conducted..I fell down in the audit elective last yr over these damn reporting to 3rd parties so hoping for it to be crystal clear for Thurs

PattyMayo · 04-09-2012 8:15pm

I have a question in relation to ISRE 2410
If we disagree with an accounting policy and we consider "disagreement" do we have to discuss it with management and try to persuade them to change it before giving a modified report? Under ISA 700 we would modify as a last resort, does the same idea apply for IRSE 2410?
Thanks

figrolls · 05-09-2012 7:00pm

Soooo, anybody got any amazing tips for last minute revision for tomorrow?!?!

Also, what are the two provisions of the Irish annex that we need to report on?

Jamesw2 · 05-09-2012 7:17pm

Don't study. Get the creative juices flowing. If audit is anything like the core we will need to be full of bluff. Best to all ye auditors 2moro.:)

Jamesw2 · 05-09-2012 7:57pm

Some light reading:

http://www.charteredaccountants.ie/Members/Technical/Corporate-Governance/Corporate-Governance-Articles/Current-Financial-Reporting-Issues-for-Audit-Committees---Colm-OSe-ACA/

notanocelot · 06-09-2012 11:41am

Good luck everyone!
It was very strange last night rearranging my folders to only include audit-related stuff.
Remember... no bloody depth required!

Username2011 · 06-09-2012 5:59pm

Really liked that paper.
Although timing for sim 3 was ridiculous

Ex 88 · 06-09-2012 6:10pm

What did people do for the first one? I did assurance engagement and heard a few who did it that way so don't know if I'm wrong or right? Might have been an agreed upon procedures?

thisguy · 06-09-2012 6:15pm

Ex 88 wrote: »

What did people do for the first one? I did assurance engagement and heard a few who did it that way so don't know if I'm wrong or right? Might have been an agreed upon procedures?

I did it as agreed upon procedures anyway..

costacurta · 06-09-2012 6:26pm

thisguy wrote: »

Ex 88 wrote: »

What did people do for the first one? I did assurance engagement and heard a few who did it that way so don't know if I'm wrong or right? Might have been an agreed upon procedures?

I did it as agreed upon procedures anyway..

Did it not state that the partner wanted it don't as an agreed upon procedure?

Username2011 · 06-09-2012 6:26pm

Did agreed upon procedures
It said to do isrs4400

chursy · 06-09-2012 6:30pm

Username2011 wrote: »

Did agreed upon procedures
It said to do isrs4400

It was certainly an agreed upon procedure report . No doubts about it. Did anyone notice that a lot of the m39 report points were relevant ?

Ie dot have to follow the format etc? Wording etc?

I think I messed up the third sim big time.

chursy · 06-09-2012 6:33pm

No ethics!! Wtf!

thetrainee · 06-09-2012 6:37pm

chursy wrote: »

It was certainly an agreed upon procedure report . No doubts about it. Did anyone notice that a lot of the m39 report points were relevant ?

Ie dot have to follow the format etc? Wording etc?

I think I messed up the third sim big time.

I def dont think its that clear cut! The third party wanted you 2 give assurance!!

Username2011 · 06-09-2012 6:39pm

chursy wrote: »

It was certainly an agreed upon procedure report . No doubts about it. Did anyone notice that a lot of the m39 report points were relevant ?

Ie dot have to follow the format etc? Wording etc?

I think I messed up the third sim big time.

Yep - Appendix 2 M39 was brill. Sean Murray was great to point that out. What a great lecturer.

Third sim was soooo long. Wish I'd done a tabular format and addressed the three indicators together. As it was I gave them an adverse opinion.
Wasn't sure how to deal with the comparative information if they didnt adjust it so threw it in an Emphasis of Matter?

hegarty147 · 06-09-2012 6:40pm

Wasnt there ethic regarding the non audit for aup

chursy · 06-09-2012 6:40pm

thetrainee wrote: »

chursy wrote: »

It was certainly an agreed upon procedure report . No doubts about it. Did anyone notice that a lot of the m39 report points were relevant ?

Ie dot have to follow the format etc? Wording etc?

I think I messed up the third sim big time.

I def dont think its that clear cut! The third party wanted you 2 give assurance!!

You couldn't have given assurance to a third party directly as it was requested by the client of yours.m39 report would have been appropriate which is specifically for third parties . However this is replaced by 4400 which is aup. Plus it clearly said in the exam that you know that the partner is keen on 4400 report why would you over think ?

The whole point was to draft a factual report and the fact that we cannot provide assurance to them and will not. They cannot place reliance on our audit findings .

hegarty147 · 06-09-2012 6:42pm

Didnt do adverse just thought it was material uncertantity bit i dont know

Username2011 wrote: »

chursy wrote: »

It was certainly an agreed upon procedure report . No doubts about it. Did anyone notice that a lot of the m39 report points were relevant ?

Ie dot have to follow the format etc? Wording etc?

I think I messed up the third sim big time.

Yep - Appendix 2 M39 was brill. Sean Murray was great to point that out. What a great lecturer.

Third sim was soooo long. Wish I'd done a tabular format and addressed the three indicators together. As it was I gave them an adverse opinion.
Wasn't sure how to deal with the comparative information if they didnt adjust it so threw it in an Emphasis of Matter?

thetrainee · 06-09-2012 6:45pm

chursy wrote: »

You couldn't have given assurance to a third party directly as it was requested by the client of yours.m39 report would have been appropriate which is specifically for third parties . However this is replaced by 4400 which is aup. Plus it clearly said in the exam that you know that the partner is keen on 4400 report why would you over think ?

The whole point was to draft a factual report and the fact that we cannot provide assurance to them and will not. They cannot place reliance on our audit findings .

Not going to fight about this Ha

But they all fall under 3rd party reporting no? And if we did procedures on turnover we could give negative assurance no?

Audit Elective FAE 2012

Comments