Learn: Auditing Theory and Auditing Problems

Overview

Welcome to our deep dive into key concepts of Auditing Theory and Auditing Problems, designed especially for CPALE candidates and those mastering professional audit standards. This guide will walk you through the critical thinking and frameworks behind typical audit scenarios, from audit opinions and procedures to professional skepticism, impairment, and reporting. By the end, you'll be equipped to analyze audit situations, apply relevant standards, and avoid common errors—without memorizing answers, but by truly understanding the "why" behind them.

---

Concept-by-Concept Deep Dive

1. Audit Opinions and Their Implications

What it is:
Audit opinions express the auditor’s conclusion about the fairness of a client’s financial statements. The type of opinion depends on the nature and extent of misstatements or the inability to obtain sufficient evidence.

Types of Audit Opinions:

• Unmodified (Unqualified) Opinion: States the financial statements are fairly presented.
• Qualified Opinion: Issued when there are material misstatements or limitations, but they are not pervasive.
• Adverse Opinion: Given when misstatements are both material and pervasive, rendering the financial statements misleading.
• Disclaimer of Opinion: Used when the auditor cannot obtain enough evidence and the possible effects could be both material and pervasive.

Reasoning Recipe:

1. Identify the Issue: Is there a misstatement, or is audit evidence lacking?
2. Assess Materiality: Is the issue material (significant to users)?
3. Assess Pervasiveness: Does the issue affect many elements of the statements?
4. Select the Opinion: Apply the above to the typology of opinions.

Common Misconceptions:

• Believing any misstatement leads automatically to an adverse opinion (it must also be pervasive).
• Confusing inability to gather evidence (leads to disclaimer) with known misstatements (leads to qualified or adverse).

---

2. Professional Skepticism and Analytical Procedures

What it is:
Professional skepticism is a critical, questioning mindset that auditors must maintain throughout the audit. Analytical procedures are evaluations of financial data using relationships and trends.

Professional Skepticism:

• Definition: A skeptical attitude means always questioning, never assuming, and being alert to evidence that may contradict documents or statements.
• Maintained: From planning to conclusion, especially when management assertions are significant.

Analytical Procedures:

• Types: Used in planning, as substantive tests, and near the end for overall review.
• Purpose: To identify unusual transactions, balances, or ratios that may indicate risks of material misstatement.

Step-by-Step:

1. Establish Expectations: What are normal trends or ratios?
2. Compare Actuals: Look for deviations.
3. Investigate: Follow up on significant or unexplained variances.

Common Misconceptions:

• Assuming analytical procedures can replace all substantive tests (they complement but do not substitute detailed testing).
• Treating professional skepticism as mere suspicion, rather than a balanced, evidence-based approach.

---

3. Audit Assertions and Procedures

What it is:
Audit assertions are implicit or explicit claims made by management regarding the financial statements. Audit procedures are designed to test these assertions.

Common Assertions:

• Existence/Occurrence: The assets and transactions exist or occurred.
• Completeness: All items that should be included are present.
• Valuation/Allocation: Items are properly valued.
• Rights and Obligations: The entity owns or controls the assets.
• Presentation and Disclosure: Items are appropriately classified and disclosed.

Procedures Example:

• Tracing: From source documents to journals (tests completeness).
• Vouching: From journals to source documents (tests occurrence).

Step-by-Step:

1. Identify Relevant Assertions: For each account or transaction.
2. Select Procedures: That best test those assertions.
3. Evaluate Evidence: Determine sufficiency and appropriateness.

Common Misconceptions:

• Confusing tracing with vouching.
• Assuming one procedure tests all assertions.

---

4. Impairment and Valuation Standards

What it is:
Impairment occurs when the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount, as per PAS 36. Valuation standards (such as PVS 1) provide the framework for how assets and liabilities are measured.

PAS 36 (Impairment of Assets):

• Carrying Amount: The value at which an asset is recognized on the balance sheet.
• Recoverable Amount: The higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use.

Valuation Principles:

• Market Value Principle: Based on what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller.
• Other Foundational Principles: Such as highest and best use, or orderly transaction assumptions.

Step-by-Step (Impairment):

1. Test for Indicators: Look for evidence that an asset may be impaired.
2. Estimate Recoverable Amount: Compare carrying amount to recoverable amount.
3. Recognize Loss: If carrying amount exceeds recoverable amount, recognize impairment.

Common Misconceptions:

• Mistaking carrying amount for recoverable amount.
• Ignoring the need for regular impairment testing.

---

5. Reporting and Communication

What it is:
Auditors must communicate findings—including prior period audits, uncertainties, and subsequent events—clearly in their reports, following standards like PSA 560 (subsequent events) and reporting frameworks.

Prior Period Statements:

• Different Auditor: Reference to prior auditor’s report may be required.
• Consistent Reporting: Changes or restatements must be disclosed.

Subsequent Events:

• Types: Adjusting (provide more info about conditions existing at balance sheet date) and Non-adjusting (arise after balance sheet date).
• Reporting: Disclose or adjust as appropriate, and comment in the audit report if significant.

Step-by-Step:

1. Identify Event or Condition: Prior period audit, subsequent event, or going concern issue.
2. Determine Reporting Requirement: Reference, disclose, or modify opinion as per standards.
3. Draft Communication: Ensure clarity, completeness, and compliance with applicable standards.

Common Misconceptions:

• Overlooking mandatory references to other auditors or significant uncertainties.
• Treating all subsequent events the same (adjusting vs. non-adjusting).

---

Worked Examples (generic)

Example 1: Assessing an Audit Opinion

Scenario:
An auditor finds a misstatement in inventory valuation. The misstatement is significant but isolated to inventory and does not affect the entire set of financial statements.

Process:

1. Consider materiality and pervasiveness.
2. Decide whether to modify the opinion (e.g., qualified vs. adverse).
3. Reference the relevant accounts and explain the reasoning in the audit report.

---

Example 2: Applying Analytical Procedures

Scenario:
The auditor compares the current year’s gross margin percentage to prior years and notices a sharp drop.

Process:

1. Develop an expectation based on prior years’ margins.
2. Note the significant decrease.
3. Investigate reasons (e.g., changes in sales mix, possible misstatement, or errors).

---

Example 3: Testing Assertions

Scenario:
The auditor selects entries from the purchases journal and examines the supporting documents.

Process:

1. Determine which assertion is being tested (e.g., occurrence).
2. Follow the path from journal entry to purchase order, receiving report, and invoice.
3. Evaluate if the transaction actually occurred as recorded.

---

Example 4: Evaluating Impairment

Scenario:
A machine’s carrying amount is $100,000. Its recoverable amount (higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use) is$80,000.

Process:

1. Compare carrying amount to recoverable amount.
2. Recognize impairment loss for the excess ($20,000).
3. Adjust the financial statements accordingly.

---

Common Pitfalls and Fixes

• Misapplying Opinion Types: Carefully distinguish between qualified, adverse, and disclaimer opinions by assessing both materiality and pervasiveness.
• Neglecting Professional Skepticism: Don’t take management explanations at face value; always seek corroborating evidence.
• Confusing Assertions: Know which audit procedure tests which assertion—tracing and vouching are not interchangeable.
• Improper Handling of Subsequent Events: Always determine whether an event is adjusting or non-adjusting and act accordingly in reporting.
• Overlooking Disclosure Requirements: Prior period audits by different auditors or significant uncertainties must be clearly referenced in your report.

---

Summary

• Understand the nuanced differences between audit opinion types and when each is appropriate.
• Maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit and use analytical procedures effectively to identify potential misstatements.
• Apply the correct audit procedures (tracing, vouching) to test specific assertions.
• Recognize and account for asset impairment according to standards, comparing carrying and recoverable amounts.
• Ensure audit reports properly communicate findings regarding prior period audits, subsequent events, and going concern uncertainties, in line with professional standards.

Mastering these concepts will enable you to analyze audit problems with confidence, ensuring both technical accuracy and professional judgment.