AuditAgain wrote: » Can there ever be an Ethical (specifically ES5) conflict when approached about an assurance (or AUP/Compilation) engagement? For most the objective is in the same line as an audit so I don't think there is. But is there ever a case where a client would ask you to do an engagement where you will end up auditing an area that you've already provided a report on (and would in appearance be less likely to challenge it), so you'd need to implement safeguards or not accept? For example, if a large client asked us to provide an assurance report over their revenue figures for the first 9 months of the year (for whatever reason). In practice I'd be inclined to think that's a bad idea - as if we come along at the year end and notice a load of adjustments we're going to look bad (clearly there's an incentive not to challenge the revenue figure there). But in an exam scenario, for an assurance (or AUP/Compilation) engagement on an audit client, do we always accept? This is definitely basic, but it's just something that's always confused me.
20 Times 20 Times wrote: » Just finished 2015 paper it was tougher than any other year ! But also manageable !! Hope we get a softer paper or otherwise pass rates will be down again
AuditAgain wrote: » Trying to think of different scenarios/indicators that could come up that would throw me. That's one way for me to **** up this exam. Seeing something I haven't considered before leading to me having to go researching for the answer or sitting pondering. Whether the exam's hard or not, I still think time is my biggest fault tbh. One I was thinking which I haven't noticed in any prior cases - New client, and in the background information it mentions something that clearly indicates a prior period figure seems materially misstated. Answer could cover opening balances/prior period comparatives, impact on the audit report etc.
Torres999 wrote: » Jesus id really hate anything prior year adjustment, always just avoided those standards even in FR and hoped they wouldn't come up. I was grand till I messed up a case pretty badly today then the panic starts again a bit. I think for the next 5 days now I'm gonna go over technical day on Planning, Engagment, Fieldwork, Audit Reports and non audit ****e, maybe a small case every morning to keep me sharp I feel like I'm not doing as much as I should be but there's only so much you can look at of the same subject each day
20 Times 20 Times wrote: » I feel the exact same should be doing more !! But I'm so bored of the audit now at this stage !! I will pAss if it's a fair paper ! The appendix last year killed me the whole paper was 18 pages !!!
Torres999 wrote: » Yeah I know it's just confusing, I answered questions from Sim 1 on the case from Sim 2 and realised after about 30 mins of picking business risks, anyway won't be happening again, I'm the same, fair paper and I pass going in fresh
Abbey14 wrote: » It came up in 2012 where there was a prior year adjustment and the effect on the audit report, but because there were 2 PY adj that netted to below materiality it did not give the effect on the audit report. I was just wondering do you qualify the audit report based on a material prior year adjustment? or if they prior year adjustment is made and a note included is this just an EOM paragraph? Thanks.
Dellboy2007 wrote: » Qualify soci and cash flow but don't qualify sofp
Dellboy2007 wrote: » Anyone got a solution for Town and Country Newspapers Limited?
Dellboy2007 wrote: » Checked on portal, it doesn't appear to be there although there is one file which isn't opening. Have you got a soft copy saved down?
AuditAgain wrote: » Where's that coming from sorry? My understanding of prior period errors (material) is: - if you audited the prior year FS, and they refuse to adjust/disclose = adverse or qualified. - if you audited the prior year FS and they do adjust/disclose in CY FS but the prior year audit opinion has not been re-issued = Emphasis of Matter para -if another firm audited prior year FS and you contact them and new prior period FS are issued with new audit report = no impact, you just audit CY figures. -if the prior year firm refuses to re-issue, but CY FS are adjusted/disclose = Other Matter para. The part I'm fuzzy on is if you audited both years, could you have prior year re-issued with new audit report and then have no impact on the current year audit report? Let me know if any of the above is incorrect, because it's what I was planning on going with!
Dellboy2007 wrote: » Can't see why in the mock paper for the payroll, where they went for a limitation of scope, that in the absence of control reliance that they would increase tests of detail. Am I missing something here? Is it because the wages and salaries are such a significant expense that they would not be able to gain sufficient evidence efficiently by doing tests of detail alone?
20 Times 20 Times wrote: » What Sim you referring too and indicator ? I will look at it now.
20 Times 20 Times wrote: » They are assuming the following : Potential implications for the auditor’s report In the event that we:- Cannot obtain a Type 2 Report; or Are denied access to PAS to carry out relevant testing ourselves; or The use of an alternative independent auditor to test such controls cannot be agreed.
Dellboy2007 wrote: » Yeah I understand how they have arrived at the conclusion for the report, I just don't see why they wouldn't say, well we can't rely on controls so we will have to increase tests of detail. It's as if they just skipped this part and went straight to impact on report.
