Explain How The International Standards Apply To Group Audit

It is extremely important for those responsible for planning and preparing EQA activities to be very thorough in its procedures. It is at this crucial step that the framework for all understanding of the particular problem or organisation is to be related to the system itself by the assurer. In this preparation, a clear explanation of the risks, benefits and validity of the processes are discussed and presented. Holistic and general compliance is the target and should be remembered as such during these preparations. Continued and flowing success is the ultimate result in this type of work.

b) Facilitating the reviews performed by supervisors, managers, engagement partners, engagement quality reviewers, and PCAOB inspectors.

Even if uniformity were to be reached, the IOSCO disclosure standards do not encircle all of the information required of an easy access to cross-border capital markets.

The clarity project was designed to improve the auditing standards, to make them easier to read, understand and apply. It also converged the standards with the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). The Auditing Standards Board started the project in 2004 after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was implemented. There was a need for clear standards for auditors after the events that brought the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Also the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board began working on clarifying the international auditing standards in 2003 and they went into effect in 2009. The purpose of the Clarity Project was to help CPA’s understanding of generally accepted auditing standards and complying with them and converged them with the international auditing standards.

The second type of engagement that provides no assurance is a compilation. According to AR-C 80, the objective of a compilation engagement is for the accountant “to apply accounting and financial expertise to assist management in the

According to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), The primary objective and responsibilities of auditor is to express an opinion on the fairness with which all financial statement including all of its (material aspects, financial position, the result of the company operation and its overall level of cash flows) AU Suction 110. Thus, what this means is that auditor must be fully independent and must be fully able and willing to apply professional judgment as it relates to the audit engagement under consideration.

In accordance with ASA 315.11 understanding the entity and its environment is a critical area that auditor should gain in the process of planning. The knowledge gain by the auditor helps the auditor to recognise the transactions as well as activities within the entity. Furthermore, it assists the auditor to understand the risk areas which can create a significant effect on the financial report and it also clarifies the appropriateness and reasonableness of accounting policies, estimates and assumptions used within the entity. Gay and Simnett (2015, p.265 ) defines that according to ASA 315.11 “the auditor’s knowledge should consist of consideration of factors such as its ownership, organizational structure, governance structures, objectives

According to Granof, “attestation engagements cover a broader scope of engagements than financial audits” (Granof, 2013). Attestation engagements examine, review, and/or preform agreed-upon procedures as to various types of subject matters or management assertions. The may include the following:

There are five key topics for comparison between ISA and U.S. Auditing Standards. The U.S. Auditing Standards is broken up between two groups: Auditing Standards Boards (ASB) and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). ASB is the authoritative group for non-public companies. PCAOB is the authoritative group for public companies. PCAOB was formed from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) (Lindberg & Seifert, 2011). The five key topics to compare ISA and US GAAS are: documentation of audit procedures, going concern considerations, internal control over financial reporting, risk assessment, and use of another auditor. Let’s discuss each of them below.

This standard provides guidance on performing audit procedures to obtain a broader understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, and on assessing risks of material misstatement. The IAASB recognises that there may be specific considerations relevant to the audit of small

Review engagements provide a moderate level of assurance that financial statements are in accordance with appropriate criteria, in all material respects. (paragraph 8100.05 of the CICA Handbook)

Auditors should plan the audit so that the engagement is conducted in an effective manner.

Abernethy and Chapman’s engagement team comprises of a partner-in-charge, a manager, a senior auditor, and one or more staff auditors. The partner-in-charge leads the engagement team and is responsible for all final decisions made while conducting the audit. The manager, senior auditor, and staff auditors are to perform the actual audit examination. The engagement team’s responsibility is to complete the audit with competency and objectivity.

Auditors having the appropriate competence and capabilities to perform the audit, and follow ethical requirements, and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

First, The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issues The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on U.S securities and exchange companies listed.