What Is The Role Of Professional Skepticism In Auditing Financial Audit Case Study

) There was a lack of adequate cut-off procedures to ensure the timely recording of certain period-end accruals. This resulted in an audit adjustment of $3,578,000. The benchmark for overall materiality is $3,508,000, I would consider the audit adjustment of $3,578,000 a material misstatement. Control environment, principle 2 the board of directors and management exercise oversight of development and performance of internal controls. Due to the severity and material weakness of lack of adequate cutoff procedures to ensure timely recording of period end accruals. Management and the board of directors should evaluate performance of internal control activities including adherence to standards of conduct and expected levels of competence. In

According to an article in the CPA Journal, the auditor considers reliability of audit evidence collected and the reliability of that evidence to reduce the risk of financial statements containing undetected material errors. Compare and contrast at least two (2) types of evidence, and make a recommendation as to which you believe is the most reliable in reducing risk. Support your position.

To conduct the audit, the firm must acquire sufficient understanding of the internal control processes to help determine the nature and timing of the audit. However, the audit is not designed to identify deficiencies in internal control or provide assurance. The firm will make the audit committee aware of any significant deficiencies that come to Anderson, Olds, and Watershed’s attention during the audit.

Evaluating the Reasonableness of the Accounting Estimates, and Determining Misstatements: the auditor shall evaluate, based on the audit evidence, whether the accounting estimates in the financial statements are either

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate (Louwers & Reynolds, 2007). We believe that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

“ In order to prevent fraudulent financial reports and statements, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants(AICPA) has created ethical standards” (Ethical standards in a financial statement, 2011). These standards aim to make financial professionals accountable for their accounting practices. This includes the integrity of financial reporting and ensuring financial reporting is done fairly and factually. Financial accountants and professionals should maintain professional integrity, objectivity, and independence to reduce the risk of resulting legal action, loss of profits, and a poor reputation if improper financial reporting is done (Ethical standards in a financial statement, 2011).

PCAOB describes professional skepticism as a general duty of care that needs to be applied by the auditor throughout the duration of the audit engagement. Professional skepticism involves the auditor having a clear and questioning mind regarding the assertions that are presented by management or other client personnel. The auditor is instructed to not take the words or data presented by management as sufficient and appropriate audit evidence but rather the auditor needs to thoroughly audit the evidence with a questioning mind to achieve reasonable assurance about the persuasiveness of the evidence. Skepticism is composed of three elements; auditor attributes, mindset and actions. The PCAOB

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

The Model of Trust Enhancement was established to enhance and maintain the public’s trust in the accounting profession. Over the last two decades, the ethics of the accounting profession has been questioned and public trust destabilized, in particular for auditors, due to the Enron debacle. The fact that an auditing firm would assist their clients with publishing an inadequate set of financial statements shows their willingness to violate laws and regulations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). According to the textbook, “Because trust is essential, even the appearance of an accountant’s honesty and integrity is important. The auditor, therefore, must not only be trustworthy, but he or she must also appear trustworthy” (Duska, Duska & Ragatz, 2011, p. 116). The majority of statements filed inadequately have a substantial impact on the credibility of the accounting profession as a whole. Sullivan (n.d.10) states that a CPA must possess a high level of trust, by applying professional judgment and enhancing the three trustworthy characteristics (ability, benevolence, and integrity) when resolving accounting ethics dilemmas (slide 3).

Professional skepticism practices as neutral but discipline approach to detection and investigation. Per SAS No. 1 it suggests that an auditor neither assumers that management is dishonest or assumes unquestionable honesty. Professional skepticism requires fraud examiners to “pull on thread” in which means Red flags are warning signal or something that demands attention or provokes an irate reaction. Red Flag symptoms of fraud may be divided into at least six categories: unexplained accounting anomalies, exploited internal control weaknesses, identified analytical anomalies where non

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

The presence of an external auditor allows creditors, investors or bankers to use financial statements that have been prepared with confidence. Although it does not guarantee the accuracy of a financial statement, it provides users with some reassurance that a company’s financial statements give a true and fair view of its financial position and its business operations. It also provides credibility, where in business, is a major asset. With credibility, the willingness of investors, bankers and others to relate and undertake business projects with a company increases. Credibility is also important to build positive reputations.

An important function of the accounting field is to provide external users of financial statements with assurance that the financial information being presented is both reliable and accurate. This basic function of accounting is so important that there is an entire field of experts, called auditors, dedicated to assuring its proper performance. Throughout history there have been many instances in which the basic equilibrium between an institution and current/potential investor has been threatened due to a lack of accountability and trust between the two parties. This issue has been the catalyst for many discussions regarding the proper procedures a firm should follow in order to provide

Since reliable financial information is essential for investors and other stakeholders to take adequate decisions, this reliability must be backed by independent review performed by independent and certified auditing firms, which are supposed to verify and certify financial statements issued by a company’s management. If the auditor is not competent and independent from management, the audit of the financial statements loses its credibility (Schelker, 2013, p.295). According to Impastato (2003), because of audit failures, accountants are to blame for investors losing billions of dollars in earnings in addition to market capitalization (as cited in Grubbs & Ethridge 2007).

Audit risk, as defined in SAS No. 47, under “Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit”, is the kind of risk that an auditor may unknowingly take by failing to make corrections as per their opinions on financial statements that are materially misstated (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34). SAS represents audit risk in the form of a model that comprises three different risks. There is the control risk, the inherent risk and detection risk. This is known as the Audit Risk Model (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34).