Audit Planning Report

Scoping and Evaluation Judgments in the Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 12.1 EyeMax Corporation . . Evaluation of Audit Differences

The chances of failures can be decreased by executing the checks on the systems. These keep an eye on the systems preventing risks from occurring, and these checks are avoided as the interior controls. The motivation behind the inner controls is to keep the organization safe from risks associated with the modernized accounting-system risks. Organizations change their manual accounting systems to computerized accounting systems for different reasons, this incorporates the points of interest, and the explanation behind utilizing electronic accounting information is instinct. The organizations embrace the policies of their

According to the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Act, it is the responsibility of the management to establish and maintain internal controls required for financial reporting. The company’s latest year assessment of

There are many rules companies must follow whenever documenting financial information or any other data which is gather during any business transactions. In order for said companies to report financial information internal controls have to be put in place as companies have to adhere to certain laws and regulations. Internal controls can be defined as a process which companies follow in order to ensure all financial reporting is done in a reliable and lawful manner. Some think of it as a system which works within a system as it plays a major role on the success of a company’s accounting system. At the organizational level, internal control objectives relate to the reliability of financial

DEFINED AS DATE OF DIRECTORS' DECLARATION OR APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL REPORT BY OWNERS OR CONTROLLING MANAGEMENT. AUDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER

SOX mandated an evaluation of the effectiveness of a company’s internal controls by both management and the company’s external auditor and formal written opinions about the effectiveness of those controls. In doing this evaluation, managers and auditors are required to examine a broad range of internal controls over financial reporting. The existence of a single material weakness requires managers and auditors to conclude that the company’s internal controls are not effective. SOX has had positive effects on both the quality of financial reporting and the quality of firm’s MCS. With SOX, the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures are improved. Also the federal government continues to refine SOX

Internal controls represent an organization’s processes and procedures used to meet its goals and objectives and serve as a defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors, fraud, and abuse. Effective internal controls provide reasonable assurance that an organization’s objectives are achieved through (1) reliable financial reporting, (2) compliance with laws and regulations, and (3) effective and efficient operations. The passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as the numerous corporate frauds and bankruptcies over the past decade—including some

Internal Controls are to be an integral part of any organization's financial and business policies and procedures. Internal controls consists of all the measures taken by the organization for the purpose of; (1) protecting its resources against waste, fraud, and inefficiency; (2) ensuring accuracy and reliability in accounting and operating data; (3) securing compliance with the policies of the organization; and (4) evaluating the level of performance in all organizational units of the organization. Internal controls are simply good business practices (Strauss, 2003). And, since internal controls can have many more meanings in the world of accounting, the more we understand what were dealing with, the better we can analyze internal

Audit planning details change from client to client, no matter the complications presented. Each evolution of society’s business world prompts rule makers to update authoritative accounting standards in order to allow for changes, auditors are then responsible to certify their client’s financial reports adhere within compliance according to current authoritative standards. Many cite the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 as being legislation that has had the most profound impact on the auditing profession; incidentally, an auditor’s job is to certify financial statements are a fair representation of a company’s financial position, at a given point in time, using current acceptable standards. Society deems auditors as gatekeepers and expects the auditing profession to find and report fraud, prevent fraud, and make certain financial statements are true, fair representation of a company’s financial position. Even though the rules, regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles can sometimes be difficult to find and translate, the public expects auditors to prevent events such as those that sparked SOX. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) developed the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) that became the authoritative source July 2009 (FASB, 2009). Perhaps the hardest impact auditors experience with FASB ASC is attempting to ascertain clients’ FASB ASC references in disclosures on financial statements; “management cannot delegate this function to the

     The second standard requires public accounting firms to audit internal controls in conjunction with an audit of financial statements. The second standard requires public accounting firms to attest that the internal controls documented and set forth by the company audited are sufficient to ensure the integrity of the financial statements (Griggs). This second standard is a real breakthrough in ensuring the financial statements of a company are sound. It is impossible for a public accounting firm to audit every detail of large multi-national company. Strong internal controls reduce the risk of material misstatements to a company’s financials caused by negligence or fraud. Maintaining internal controls is no longer enough. Companies must now analyze and document their internal processes (Calabro). When a public accounting firm issues an unqualified opinion on the internal controls of a company, which will be required starting November 15, they are stating that the internal checks set forth adequately protect the assets of a company from negligence or fraud.

As a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a variety of methods used by auditors in the past to enhance audit efficiency and effectiveness will no longer be acceptable for integrated audits of public companies. Auditors sometimes used cycle rotation to test controls, this involved testing of controls in several areas of a firm's transaction cycles while doing a transaction walk-through to confirm the absence of control changes in the remaining cycles. This practice will no longer be acceptable in public company audits, since auditors must now report comprehensively on the effectiveness of management's internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. Due to inherent limitations of internal controls, and the risk of management override, auditors will have to perform tests of details and analytical procedures for each material account balance or class of

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a

The final responsibility for the integrity of an SEC registrant’s internal controls lies on the management team. U.S. companies need to refer to a comprehensive framework of internal control when assessing the quality of financial reporting to determine that financial statements are being presented under General Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP. The widely used framework is referred as COSO, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, sponsored by the following organizations American Accounting Association, the American Institute of CPA’s, Financial Executives International, the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the Institute of Management Accountants. COSO’s defines internal control as:

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.

Effective internal controls protect a company’s assets, maintain compliance, improve operations, prevent fraud, and promote accuracy in financial reporting. In 1992 the