Advanced Audit Reporting — Practice

Question 1

An auditor identifies goodwill impairment testing as a key audit matter, given the significant judgement involved in the underlying assumptions, but concludes management's impairment assessment is appropriate and issues an unmodified opinion. Explain why including this matter as a KAM is entirely consistent with an unmodified opinion, and what a KAM communication is actually meant to convey.

Accepted Answer

A key audit matter is a matter that, in the auditor's professional judgement, was of most significance in the audit, typically because it involved significant judgement, a higher assessed risk, or significant auditor attention, and is selected specifically to give users of the financial statements insight into which areas the audit concentrated its greatest effort and judgement on; it is not, in itself, any form of qualification, and its inclusion says nothing about whether the auditor has residual concerns about the final treatment. Here, goodwill impairment testing is genuinely a KAM because of the significant judgement inherent in the underlying assumptions (discount rates, cash flow projections, growth rates), which is exactly the kind of area SA 701 intends KAM reporting to highlight for users, but the auditor's own conclusion, having performed the necessary work, is that management's assessment is appropriate, supporting an unmodified opinion; the KAM communication describes the nature of the significant judgement and the audit response applied to it, giving users transparency into what the audit focused on, while the unmodified opinion itself confirms that, having applied that focus, the auditor found no basis for concluding the financial statements are materially misstated in this respect.

Question 2

An auditor identifies that a company has failed to recognise a material provision for a known, probable legal liability, and management refuses to record it despite the auditor's request. The amount involved is material to the financial statements but is confined to this single, well-defined item, with no broader implications for other areas of the financial statements. Determine the nature of this issue, its pervasiveness, and the resulting opinion type.

Accepted Answer

The nature of this issue is a material misstatement, not a scope limitation, since the auditor has sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude a provision should have been recognised (a probable, known liability) but management has simply declined to record it, meaning the auditor has reached a definite conclusion that the financial statements are misstated, rather than being unable to obtain evidence at all. On pervasiveness, since the effect is confined to this single, well-defined item, the receivable/liability recognition issue itself, with no broader implications for other areas of the financial statements or the statements' overall presentation, this is material but not pervasive, since a pervasive effect requires the misstatement to affect a substantial portion of the financial statements, or to represent a substantial proportion of the financial statements' elements, or to be fundamental to users' understanding of the financial statements as a whole, none of which applies to a single, well-defined, confined item like this specific unrecognised provision. Given a material misstatement that is material but not pervasive, the appropriate opinion is a qualified opinion, using 'except for' language specifically identifying this unrecognised provision and its quantified effect on the financial statements, rather than an adverse opinion, which would only be appropriate if the effect were both material and pervasive.

Question 3

An auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about a company's inventory, which represents a substantial proportion of total assets, because the company's records were destroyed in a fire and no alternative procedures could provide adequate assurance about the inventory's existence or valuation. Determine the nature of this issue, its pervasiveness, and the resulting opinion type.

Accepted Answer

The nature of this issue is an inability to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, a scope limitation, since the auditor genuinely cannot form a conclusion about inventory at all due to the destroyed records and the failure of alternative procedures to provide adequate assurance, rather than having reached a definite conclusion that a specific misstatement exists. On pervasiveness, since inventory represents a substantial proportion of total assets, the auditor's inability to obtain evidence about it is likely to be assessed as pervasive, since the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive given how significant a proportion of total assets this specific item represents; the inability to verify such a substantial component of the balance sheet undermines the auditor's ability to form any meaningful conclusion about the financial statements as a whole, not merely about one confined, isolated item. Given a scope limitation that is both material and pervasive, the appropriate opinion is a disclaimer of opinion, under which the auditor does not express an opinion on the financial statements at all, rather than a qualified opinion, which would only be appropriate if the scope limitation's possible effects were material but confined to a specific, well-defined portion of the financial statements without pervasive implications for the statements as a whole.

Question 4

In a single audit, the auditor identifies two separate issues: (a) a material but not pervasive misstatement relating to an inventory valuation error confined to one product line; (b) a material but not pervasive scope limitation relating to an inability to confirm a foreign subsidiary's cash balance, also confined and not affecting other areas. Explain how the auditor should determine the overall opinion, addressing whether these two separately assessed, individually material-but-not-pervasive issues could combine to change the overall reporting conclusion.

Accepted Answer

Each issue, considered individually, would call for a qualified opinion on its own: the inventory valuation misstatement, being material but not pervasive, warrants a qualification for that specific matter, and the scope limitation on the foreign subsidiary's cash balance, also material but not pervasive, would similarly warrant a qualification for that separate matter. Since a single audit report expresses one overall opinion, not two separate, issue-by-issue opinions, the auditor must consider the two issues' combined effect on the financial statements as a whole before finalising the overall opinion: if, considered together, the cumulative extent of what is affected by the misstatement and the scope limitation remains genuinely confined and does not, in combination, represent a substantial portion of the financial statements or fundamentally undermine users' ability to understand the statements as a whole, the appropriate overall opinion remains a qualified opinion, addressing both matters together in the basis for qualified opinion section, describing each issue and its respective effect. However, if the auditor's professional judgement concludes that the combined effect of both issues together is now sufficiently extensive to be considered pervasive, even though neither issue alone would have reached that threshold, the overall opinion could instead need to be an adverse opinion (if the combined effect is best characterised as arising from misstatements) or a disclaimer of opinion (if the combined effect is best characterised as arising from an inability to obtain evidence, or a mix of both types of issue, requiring careful judgement about which characterisation, or combination, most fairly reflects the overall situation); the specific facts given here, describing both issues as confined and not affecting other areas even considered together, would most likely still support only a qualified opinion addressing both matters, but the auditor's professional judgement on this combined assessment, not merely defaulting to whichever conclusion each issue would produce in isolation, is what determines the final answer.

Question 5

In one audit, the financial statements adequately disclose a genuine, material uncertainty related to going concern, and the auditor wishes to draw attention to this disclosure. In a separate, unrelated audit, the auditor wishes to state that the prior period's financial statements were audited by a different auditor whose report is not being reissued or reproduced, a fact not otherwise disclosed anywhere in the current financial statements. Classify each situation as calling for an Emphasis of Matter or an Other Matter paragraph, and explain the distinction.

Accepted Answer

The going concern disclosure situation calls for an Emphasis of Matter paragraph, since the matter, the material uncertainty related to going concern, is already appropriately presented and disclosed within the financial statements themselves, and the auditor's paragraph draws users' attention to that existing disclosure, which the auditor judges fundamental to users' understanding, without expressing any modification to the opinion. The predecessor auditor situation calls for an Other Matter paragraph instead, since the fact that a different auditor audited the prior period, and that their report is not being reissued or reproduced, is not a matter presented or disclosed within the financial statements at all, it is information about the audit itself, specifically about the audit of the comparative period, that is relevant to users' understanding of the auditor's responsibilities and the audit performed, but has no corresponding disclosure inside the financial statements for the paragraph to be drawing attention to. This distinction, a matter already inside the financial statements (Emphasis of Matter) versus a matter about the audit not otherwise reflected in the financial statements (Other Matter), is precisely the conceptual line separating the two paragraph types, and both can appear within an otherwise entirely unmodified audit report.

Question 6

A predecessor auditor issued a qualified opinion on the prior period's financial statements due to an inventory valuation issue. In the current period, under a new auditor, that same inventory valuation issue has now been fully corrected, with the correction properly reflected as a restatement of the comparative figures. Explain whether the current auditor needs to refer to the predecessor's prior period qualification in the current report.

Accepted Answer

Since the matter giving rise to the predecessor's prior period qualification has now been fully corrected, and the correction has been properly reflected as a restatement of the comparative figures presented in the current period's financial statements, the underlying issue no longer exists in the financial statements as currently presented; the current auditor generally does not need to refer to or repeat the predecessor's prior period qualification in the current audit report, since doing so would be referring to an issue that has, in substance, already been resolved and correctly reflected. The current auditor should, however, obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the restatement itself has been properly and correctly made, given SA 710's requirements regarding comparative information, and if the current auditor is satisfied the restatement is appropriate and complete, no reference to the resolved prior period matter is needed in the current report; a reference would only become necessary again if the matter had not genuinely been resolved, or if the restatement itself introduced some new issue the current auditor identified during this evaluation.

Question 7

An auditor identifies that the chairman's statement, included in the annual report alongside the audited financial statements, describes the company's revenue growth for the year using a figure materially higher than the actual revenue figure reported in the audited financial statements themselves, apparently due to a drafting error in the chairman's statement. Management declines to correct this inconsistency. Explain the auditor's reporting response under SA 720.

Accepted Answer

SA 720 requires the auditor to read the other information accompanying the audited financial statements specifically to identify material inconsistencies between that other information and the financial statements, or with the auditor's own knowledge obtained during the audit; here, the chairman's statement's materially overstated revenue growth figure is precisely such a material inconsistency, since it directly conflicts with the actual, audited revenue figure. Since this inconsistency exists in the other information itself, not in the audited financial statements, the auditor does not modify the audit opinion on the financial statements on account of this issue, since the auditor's opinion covers the financial statements themselves, which remain correctly stated, not the other information. Instead, since management declines to correct the material misstatement of the other information despite the auditor raising the matter, SA 720 requires the auditor to describe the uncorrected material misstatement of the other information in an Other Matter paragraph (or, under some reporting frameworks, a section specifically dealing with other information) in the auditor's report, explaining the nature of the inconsistency identified; this ensures users are alerted to the specific inconsistency in the other information without the auditor's actual opinion on the correctly stated financial statements being modified, since the auditor's report is specifically designed to distinguish between issues residing in the audited financial statements themselves and issues residing only in the surrounding, unaudited other information.

Question 8

Explain the specific criteria SA 701 directs an auditor to consider when determining which matters, from those communicated with those charged with governance, should ultimately be selected and described as key audit matters in the report.

Accepted Answer

SA 701 directs the auditor to consider areas that involved significant auditor attention in performing the audit, including areas of higher assessed risk of material misstatement or identified significant risks; significant auditor judgements relating to areas involving significant management judgement, including accounting estimates identified as having high estimation uncertainty; and the effect on the audit of significant events or transactions that occurred during the period. Not every matter communicated to those charged with governance automatically becomes a KAM; the auditor exercises professional judgement to determine which of those matters were of most significance in the audit of the current period specifically, meaning routine matters or matters that, while communicated, did not genuinely demand the auditor's greatest attention or involve the most significant judgement, are appropriately excluded from the final KAM selection even though they were part of the broader governance communication, ensuring the KAM section genuinely highlights the audit's most significant areas rather than becoming an exhaustive list of every matter discussed with governance during the engagement.

Question 9

An auditor concludes that a company has systematically and pervasively misapplied its revenue recognition policy across nearly all of its major revenue streams, resulting in a material overstatement of revenue and profit that affects the overall fairness of the financial statements taken as a whole. Explain why this scenario calls for an adverse opinion rather than a qualified opinion, and what the auditor's report must specifically state in this case.

Accepted Answer

This scenario calls for an adverse opinion, not a qualified opinion, because the misapplication of the revenue recognition policy is described as systematic and pervasive across nearly all of the company's major revenue streams, meaning the material misstatement's effects are not confined to a single, well-defined item but instead permeate a substantial portion of the financial statements, affecting the overall fairness of the statements taken as a whole; this is precisely the pervasive threshold that distinguishes an adverse opinion from a qualified opinion, since a qualified opinion is reserved for material misstatements that, while material, remain confined and do not undermine the statements' overall fairness to this degree. The auditor's report must specifically state, in the opinion section itself, that in the auditor's opinion, because of the significance of the matter described in the basis for adverse opinion section, the financial statements do not present fairly (or do not give a true and fair view), in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework, a materially different, and considerably stronger, statement than the 'except for' qualifying language a qualified opinion would use; the basis for adverse opinion section must describe the nature and pervasive extent of the revenue recognition misapplication in sufficient detail for users to understand why the auditor has concluded the financial statements as a whole cannot be relied upon as fairly presented.

Question 10

Explain why a disclaimer of opinion is fundamentally different in character from an adverse opinion, even though both are considered the most severe forms of opinion modification.

Accepted Answer

An adverse opinion is a definite, affirmative conclusion that the financial statements are not fairly presented, based on sufficient appropriate audit evidence the auditor has actually obtained, evidence that specifically demonstrates a material and pervasive misstatement exists; the auditor has done sufficient work to reach a clear, negative conclusion about the financial statements' fairness. A disclaimer of opinion, by contrast, is not a conclusion about the financial statements' fairness at all; it reflects the auditor's inability to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to form any opinion whatsoever, meaning the auditor is not stating that the financial statements are wrong, only that the auditor genuinely cannot determine whether they are right or wrong given the scope limitation encountered, whether due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, a restriction imposed by management, or some other reason preventing the audit from being completed as required. This distinction matters because an adverse opinion tells users the financial statements are affirmatively unreliable, while a disclaimer tells users the auditor simply cannot say either way, a materially different, and in some respects more troubling, message since it indicates the audit process itself could not be completed to the standard required, leaving the fundamental question of the financial statements' reliability genuinely unresolved rather than definitively answered in the negative.

Question 11

An auditor issues a qualified opinion due to a specific inventory valuation issue. The auditor also separately identifies deferred tax estimation as an area of significant judgement warranting KAM treatment, unrelated to the inventory issue. Explain how the auditor should present the KAM section given that the opinion is already modified, and whether the matter giving rise to the qualification itself should also be described as a KAM.

Accepted Answer

SA 701 specifically addresses this situation: where the auditor's opinion is modified, SA 701 still permits and generally expects the auditor to communicate KAMs for other, unrelated significant matters, such as the deferred tax estimation here, describing them in a KAM section as usual, since KAM communication and opinion modification serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive; the deferred tax estimation, being genuinely significant and unrelated to the qualification, should be described as a KAM in the ordinary way. Regarding the matter that itself gave rise to the qualification, the inventory valuation issue, SA 701 specifically states that a matter giving rise to a modified opinion is a required disclosure addressed in the basis for qualified (or adverse) opinion section, and the auditor should not also describe this same matter as a KAM in a separate section, since doing so would be redundant and could confuse users about the relationship between the KAM section and the modification itself; instead, the auditor's report should include a statement directing readers to the basis for qualified opinion section, clarifying that the auditor has also determined the matters described there to be matters that would otherwise have been determined to be key audit matters, addressing the overlap explicitly rather than duplicating the same matter's description in two separate sections of the report.

Question 12

An auditor encounters a scope limitation so severe and so pervasive, imposed deliberately by management, that the auditor believes a disclaimer of opinion may not be a sufficient response to the circumstances. Explain the alternative course of action SA 705 identifies, and the specific circumstances in which withdrawing from the engagement, rather than issuing a disclaimer, might be considered appropriate.

Accepted Answer

SA 705 acknowledges that in some circumstances, where possible and permitted under applicable law or regulation, the auditor may consider withdrawing from the audit engagement altogether rather than proceeding to issue a disclaimer of opinion, specifically where the scope limitation is imposed deliberately by management (rather than arising from circumstances beyond anyone's control) and is so severe and pervasive that the auditor concludes that continuing the engagement to the point of merely issuing a disclaimer would not adequately address the seriousness of the situation; a deliberate management-imposed restriction of this severity can itself raise broader concerns about management's integrity and the overall reliability of dealing with this client, considerations extending beyond simply the specific financial statement items affected by the scope limitation. Where withdrawal is legally and practically possible, and the auditor concludes it is the more appropriate response given the severity and the deliberate nature of the imposed restriction, the auditor would withdraw from the engagement rather than complete the audit and issue a disclaimer; however, withdrawal is not always possible, for instance where local law or regulation requires the auditor to complete the audit and issue a report regardless (as is often the case for certain regulated entities or under specific statutory audit requirements), in which case the auditor must proceed to issue a disclaimer of opinion instead, since withdrawal is simply not available as an option in such circumstances, illustrating that this decision depends on both the auditor's professional judgement about the severity of the situation and the specific legal and regulatory constraints applicable to the engagement.

Question 13

A KAM relating to a complex, ongoing legal dispute was reported in the prior year's audit report. In the current year, the dispute remains ongoing and unresolved, with broadly similar characteristics to the prior year. Explain whether the auditor should mechanically report this as a KAM again in the current year, or exercise fresh judgement.

Accepted Answer

The auditor should exercise fresh judgement for the current period rather than mechanically repeating the prior year's KAM designation simply because the matter is broadly similar and remains ongoing; SA 701 requires KAM determination to be based on matters of most significance in the audit of the current period specifically, and while an ongoing matter that remained significant in the current year, requiring continued significant auditor attention and judgement, would likely again be determined to be a KAM, this conclusion should be reached through a fresh assessment of the current period's specific circumstances, not through an assumption of automatic continuity from the prior year. If circumstances have genuinely changed such that this matter, while still present, no longer demands the same degree of significant auditor attention or judgement in the current period, for instance if the dispute's likely outcome has become considerably clearer and less uncertain than in the prior year, the auditor might reasonably conclude it should no longer be reported as a KAM this year, or should be described differently reflecting its now-reduced significance, illustrating that KAM determination is a fresh, period-specific judgement each year, not a mechanically continued designation carried forward simply because a matter previously qualified.

Question 14

Before the auditor's report is finalised, the auditor identifies a material misstatement in the other information (a non-financial narrative section of the annual report) and management agrees to correct it before the annual report is issued. Explain the auditor's reporting obligation in this specific situation, distinct from the scenario where management refuses to correct such a misstatement.

Accepted Answer

Where the auditor identifies a material misstatement in the other information before the auditor's report is issued, and management agrees to correct it before the annual report is actually issued, SA 720 does not require the auditor to include any Other Matter paragraph or any other special reporting reference to this matter at all, since the misstatement has been corrected and the final other information the auditor's report will accompany no longer contains the identified inconsistency; the auditor should, however, obtain evidence confirming that the correction has genuinely been made as agreed before the annual report is actually issued, since agreeing to make a correction and actually making it are two different things the auditor should verify rather than simply accept on faith. This differs materially from the scenario where management refuses to correct an identified material misstatement of the other information despite the auditor raising it, which, as covered in an earlier problem in this chapter, requires the auditor to describe the uncorrected material misstatement in an Other Matter paragraph within the audit report itself, since in that scenario the inconsistency remains present in the final other information that will actually accompany the financial statements when issued, requiring the auditor's report to alert users to it specifically because it was not, in fact, resolved before issuance.

Question 15

Explain why SA 700 requires the opinion section to be presented before the basis for opinion section in the auditor's report, rather than the reverse ordering.

Accepted Answer

Presenting the opinion first ensures that a reader encounters the auditor's actual conclusion immediately, without needing to first read through potentially lengthy or technical reasoning before reaching the bottom-line answer to the single question most users of the report are actually seeking: what did the auditor conclude about these financial statements. Placing the basis for opinion after the opinion itself allows a reader who wants only the conclusion to obtain it immediately, while still making the full reasoning available directly afterward for any reader who wants to understand how the auditor arrived at that conclusion; this deliberate ordering choice reflects a user-centred design of the report, prioritising the answer over the reasoning in the report's actual structure, rather than following a more traditional narrative structure that might build up to a conclusion only after presenting all the surrounding analysis first.

Practice — Advanced Audit Reporting

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities