INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING 330
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN
RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
(Effective for audits of financial statements for periods
beginning on or after June 15, 2006)?
CONTENTS
Paragraph Introduction ....................................................................................................1-3 Overall Responses ..........................................................................................4-6 Audit Procedures Responsive to Risks of Material Misstatement
at the Assertion Level .............................................................................7-65 Evaluating the Sufficiency and Appropriateness of
Audit Evidence Obtained ........................................................................66-72 Documentation .. (73)
Effective Date (74)
International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 330, “The Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks” should be read in the context of the “Preface to the International Standards on Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance and Related Services” which sets out the application and authority of ISAs.
?ISA 230, “Audit Documentation” gave rise to conforming amendments to ISA 330. These amendments are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after June 15, 2006 and have been incorporated in the text of ISA 330.
The IAASB’s clarity drafting conventions have been applied to this ISA. ISA 330 (Redrafted), “The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks” can be found on page 1087.
ISA 330 398
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 399A U D I T I N G
Introduction
1.The purpose of this International Standard on Auditing (ISA) is to establish
standards and provide guidance on determining overall responses and
designing and performing further audit procedures to respond to the assessed
risks of material misstatement at the financial statement and assertion levels in
a financial statement audit. The auditor’s understanding of the entity and its
environment, including its internal control, and assessment of the risks of
material misstatement are described in ISA 315, “Understanding the Entity and
Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement.”
2.The following is an overview of the requirements of this standard:
?Overall responses. This section requires the auditor to determine overall responses to address risks of material misstatement at the financial
statement level and provides guidance on the nature of those responses.
?Audit p rocedures resp onsive to risks of material misstatement at the assertion level. This section requires the auditor to design and perform
further audit procedures, including tests of the operating effectiveness of
controls, when relevant or required, and substantive procedures, whose
nature, timing, and extent are responsive to the assessed risks of material
misstatement at the assertion level. In addition, this section includes
matters the auditor considers in determining the nature, timing, and extent
of such audit procedures.
?Evaluating the sufficiency and ap p rop riateness of audit evidence obtained. This section requires the auditor to evaluate whether the risk
assessment remains appropriate and to conclude whether sufficient
appropriate audit evidence has been obtained.
?Documentation. This section establishes related documentation requirements.
3.In order to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level, the auditor should
determine overall responses to assessed risks at the financial statement
level, and should design and perform further audit procedures to respond
to assessed risks at the assertion level. The overall responses and the nature,
timing, and extent of the further audit procedures are matters for the
professional judgment of the auditor. In addition to the requirements of this
ISA, the auditor also complies with the requirements and guidance in ISA 240,
“The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial
Statements” in responding to assessed risks of material misstatement due to
fraud.
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
Overall Responses
4.The auditor should determine overall responses to address the risks of
material misstatement at the financial statement level. Such responses may
include emphasizing to the audit team the need to maintain professional
skepticism in gathering and evaluating audit evidence, assigning more
experienced staff or those with special skills or using experts,1 providing more
supervision, or incorporating additional elements of unpredictability in the
selection of further audit procedures to be performed. Additionally, the auditor
may make general changes to the nature, timing, or extent of audit procedures
as an overall response, for example, performing substantive procedures at
period end instead of at an interim date.
5.The assessment of the risks of material misstatement at the financial statement
level is affected by the auditor’s understanding of the control environment. An
effective control environment may allow the auditor to have more confidence
in internal control and the reliability of audit evidence generated internally
within the entity and thus, for example, allow the auditor to conduct some
audit procedures at an interim date rather than at period end. If there are
weaknesses in the control environment, the auditor ordinarily conducts more
audit procedures as of the period end rather than at an interim date, seeks more
extensive audit evidence from substantive procedures, modifies the nature of
audit procedures to obtain more persuasive audit evidence, or increases the
number of locations to be included in the audit scope.
6.Such considerations, therefore, have a significant bearing on the auditor’s
general approach, for example, an emphasis on substantive procedures
(substantive approach), or an approach that uses tests of controls as well as
substantive procedures (combined approach).
Audit Procedures Responsive to Risks of Material Misstatement at the Assertion Level
7.The auditor should design and perform further audit procedures whose
nature, timing, and extent are responsive to the assessed risks of material
misstatement at the assertion level. The purpose is to provide a clear linkage
between the nature, timing, and extent of the auditor’s further audit procedures
and the risk assessment. In designing further audit procedures, the auditor
considers such matters as the following:
?The significance of the risk.
?The likelihood that a material misstatement will occur.
1The assignment of engagement personnel to the particular engagement reflects the auditor’s risk assessment, which is based on the auditor’s understanding of the entity.
ISA 330 400
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 401A U D I T I N G
?The characteristics of the class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure involved.
?The nature of the specific controls used by the entity and in particular whether they are manual or automated.
?Whether the auditor expects to obtain audit evidence to determine if the entity’s controls are effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting,
material misstatements.
The nature of the audit procedures is of most importance in responding to the
assessed risks.
8.The auditor’s assessment of the identified risks at the assertion level provides a
basis for considering the appropriate audit approach for designing and
performing further audit procedures. In some cases, the auditor may determine
that only by performing tests of controls may the auditor achieve an effective
response to the assessed risk of material misstatement for a particular assertion.
In other cases, the auditor may determine that performing only substantive
procedures is appropriate for specific assertions and, therefore, the auditor
excludes the effect of controls from the relevant risk assessment. This may be
because the auditor’s risk assessment procedures have not identified any
effective controls relevant to the assertion, or because testing the operating
effectiveness of controls would be inefficient. However, the auditor needs to be
satisfied that performing only substantive procedures for the relevant assertion
would be effective in reducing the risk of material misstatement to an
acceptably low level. Often the auditor may determine that a combined
approach using both tests of the operating effectiveness of controls and
substantive procedures is an effective approach. Irrespective of the approach
selected, the auditor designs and performs substantive procedures for each
material class of transactions, account balance, and disclosure as required by
paragraph 49.
9.In the case of very small entities, there may not be many control activities that
could be identified by the auditor. For this reason, the auditor’s further audit
procedures are likely to be primarily substantive procedures. In such cases, in
addition to the matters referred to in paragraph 8 above, the auditor considers
whether in the absence of controls it is possible to obtain sufficient appropriate
audit evidence.
Considering the Nature, Timing, and Extent of Further Audit Procedures Nature
10.The nature of further audit procedures refers to their purpose (tests of controls
or substantive procedures) and their type, that is, inspection, observation,
inquiry, confirmation, recalculation, reperformance, or analytical procedures.
Certain audit procedures may be more appropriate for some assertions than
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
others. For example, in relation to revenue, tests of controls may be most
responsive to the assessed risk of misstatement of the completeness assertion,
whereas substantive procedures may be most responsive to the assessed risk of
misstatement of the occurrence assertion.
11.The auditor’s selection of audit procedures is based on the assessment of risk.
The higher the auditor’s assessment of risk, the more reliable and relevant is
the audit evidence sought by the auditor from substantive procedures. This
may affect both the types of audit procedures to be performed and their
combination. For example, the auditor may confirm the completeness of the
terms of a contract with a third party, in addition to inspecting the document.
12.In determining the audit procedures to be performed, the auditor considers the
reasons for the assessment of the risk of material misstatement at the assertion
level for each class of transactions, account balance, and disclosure. This
includes considering both the particular characteristics of each class of
transactions, account balance, or disclosure (i.e., the inherent risks) and
whether the auditor’s risk assessment takes account of the entity’s controls
(i.e., the control risk). For example, if the auditor considers that there is a
lower risk that a material misstatement may occur because of the particular
characteristics of a class of transactions without consideration of the related
controls, the auditor may determine that substantive analytical procedures
alone may provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. On the other hand, if
the auditor expects that there is a lower risk that a material misstatement may
arise because an entity has effective controls and the auditor intends to design
substantive procedures based on the effective operation of those controls, then
the auditor performs tests of controls to obtain audit evidence about their
operating effectiveness. This may be the case, for example, for a class of
transactions of reasonably uniform, non-complex characteristics that are
routinely processed and controlled by the entity’s information system.
13.The auditor is required to obtain audit evidence about the accuracy and
completeness of information produced by the entity’s information system
when that information is used in performing audit procedures. For example, if
the auditor uses non-financial information or budget data produced by the
entity’s information system in performing audit procedures, such as
substantive analytical procedures or tests of controls, the auditor obtains audit
evidence about the accuracy and completeness of such information. See ISA
500, “Audit Evidence” paragraph 11 for further guidance.
Timing
14.Timing refers to when audit procedures are performed or the period or date to
which the audit evidence applies.
15.The auditor may perform tests of controls or substantive procedures at an
interim date or at period end. The higher the risk of material misstatement, the ISA 330 402
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 403A U D I T I N G
more likely it is that the auditor may decide it is more effective to perform
substantive procedures nearer to, or at, the period end rather than at an earlier
date, or to perform audit procedures unannounced or at unpredictable times
(for example, performing audit procedures at selected locations on an
unannounced basis). On the other hand, performing audit procedures before the
period end may assist the auditor in identifying significant matters at an early
stage of the audit, and consequently resolving them with the assistance of
management or developing an effective audit approach to address such matters.
If the auditor performs tests of controls or substantive procedures prior to
period end, the auditor considers the additional evidence required for the
remaining period (see paragraphs 37-38 and 56-61).
16.In considering when to perform audit procedures, the auditor also considers
such matters as the following:
?The control environment.
?When relevant information is available (for example, electronic files may subsequently be overwritten, or procedures to be observed may occur only
at certain times).
?The nature of the risk (for example, if there is a risk of inflated revenues to meet earnings expectations by subsequent creation of false sales
agreements, the auditor may wish to examine contracts available on the
date of the period end).
?The period or date to which the audit evidence relates.
17.Certain audit procedures can be performed only at or after period end, for
example, agreeing the financial statements to the accounting records and
examining adjustments made during the course of preparing the financial
statements. If there is a risk that the entity may have entered into improper
sales contracts or transactions may not have been finalized at period end, the
auditor performs procedures to respond to that specific risk. For example,
when transactions are individually material or an error in cutoff may lead to a
material misstatement, the auditor ordinarily inspects transactions near the
period end.
Extent
18.Extent includes the quantity of a specific audit procedure to be performed, for
example, a sample size or the number of observations of a control activity. The
extent of an audit procedure is determined by the judgment of the auditor after
considering the materiality, the assessed risk, and the degree of assurance the
auditor plans to obtain. In particular, the auditor ordinarily increases the extent
of audit procedures as the risk of material misstatement increases. However,
increasing the extent of an audit procedure is effective only if the audit
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
procedure itself is relevant to the specific risk; therefore, the nature of the audit
procedure is the most important consideration.
19.The use of computer-assisted audit techniques (CAATs) may enable more
extensive testing of electronic transactions and account files. Such techniques
can be used to select sample transactions from key electronic files, to sort
transactions with specific characteristics, or to test an entire population instead
of a sample.
20.Valid conclusions may ordinarily be drawn using sampling approaches.
However, if the quantity of selections made from a population is too small, the
sampling approach selected is not appropriate to achieve the specific audit
objective, or if exceptions are not appropriately followed up, there will be an
unacceptable risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be
different from the conclusion reached if the entire population was subjected to
the same audit procedure. ISA 530, “Audit Sampling and Other Means of
Testing” contains guidance on the use of sampling.
21.This standard regards the use of different audit procedures in combination as
an aspect of the nature of testing as discussed above. However, the auditor
considers whether the extent of testing is appropriate when performing
different audit procedures in combination.
Tests of Controls
22.The auditor is required to perform tests of controls when the auditor’s risk
assessment includes an expectation of the operating effectiveness of controls or
when substantive procedures alone do not provide sufficient appropriate audit
evidence at the assertion level.
23.When the auditor’s assessment of risks of material misstatement at the
assertion level includes an expectation that controls are operating
effectively, the auditor should perform tests of controls to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that the controls were operating effectively at
relevant times during the period under audit. See paragraphs 39-44 below
for discussion of using audit evidence about the operating effectiveness of
controls obtained in prior audits.
24.The auditor’s assessment of risk of material misstatement at the assertion level
may include an expectation of the operating effectiveness of controls, in which
case the auditor performs tests of controls to obtain audit evidence as to their
operating effectiveness. Tests of the operating effectiveness of controls are
performed only on those controls that the auditor has determined are suitably
designed to prevent, or detect and correct, a material misstatement in an
assertion. Paragraphs 104-106 of ISA 315 discuss the identification of controls
at the assertion level likely to prevent, or detect and correct, a material
misstatement in a class of transactions, account balance or disclosure.
ISA 330 404
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 405A U D I T I N G
25.When, in accordance with paragraph 115 of ISA 315, the auditor has
determined that it is not possible or practicable to reduce the risks of
material misstatement at the assertion level to an acceptably low level with
audit evidence obtained only from substantive procedures, the auditor
should perform tests of relevant controls to obtain audit evidence about
their operating effectiveness. For example, as discussed in paragraph 115 of
ISA 315, the auditor may find it impossible to design effective substantive
procedures that by themselves provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence at
the assertion level when an entity conducts its business using IT and no
documentation of transactions is produced or maintained, other than through
the IT system.
26.Testing the operating effectiveness of controls is different from obtaining audit
evidence that controls have been implemented. When obtaining audit evidence
of implementation by performing risk assessment procedures, the auditor
determines that the relevant controls exist and that the entity is using them.
When performing tests of the operating effectiveness of controls, the auditor
obtains audit evidence that controls operate effectively. This includes obtaining
audit evidence about how controls were applied at relevant times during the
period under audit, the consistency with which they were applied, and by
whom or by what means they were applied. If substantially different controls
were used at different times during the period under audit, the auditor
considers each separately. The auditor may determine that testing the operating
effectiveness of controls at the same time as evaluating their design and
obtaining audit evidence of their implementation is efficient.
27.Although some risk assessment procedures that the auditor performs to
evaluate the design of controls and to determine that they have been
implemented may not have been specifically designed as tests of controls, they
may nevertheless provide audit evidence about the operating effectiveness of
the controls and, consequently, serve as tests of controls. For example, the
auditor may have made inquiries about management’s use of budgets,
observed management’s comparison of monthly budgeted and actual expenses,
and inspected reports pertaining to the investigation of variances between
budgeted and actual amounts. These audit procedures provide knowledge
about the design of the entity’s budgeting policies and whether they have been
implemented, and may also provide audit evidence about the effectiveness of
the operation of budgeting policies in preventing or detecting material
misstatements in the classification of expenses. In such circumstances, the
auditor considers whether the audit evidence provided by those audit
procedures is sufficient.
Nature of Tests of Controls
28.The auditor selects audit procedures to obtain assurance about the operating
effectiveness of controls. As the planned level of assurance increases, the
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
auditor seeks more reliable audit evidence. In circumstances when the auditor
adopts an approach consisting primarily of tests of controls, in particular
related to those risks where it is not possible or practicable to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence only from substantive procedures, the auditor
ordinarily performs tests of controls to obtain a higher level of assurance about
their operating effectiveness.
29.The auditor should perform other audit procedures in combination with
inquiry to test the operating effectiveness of controls. Although different
from obtaining an understanding of the design and implementation of controls,
tests of the operating effectiveness of controls ordinarily include the same
types of audit procedures used to evaluate the design and implementation of
controls, and may also include reperformance of the application of the control
by the auditor. Since inquiry alone is not sufficient, the auditor uses a
combination of audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence
regarding the operating effectiveness of controls. Those controls subject to
testing by performing inquiry combined with inspection or reperformance
ordinarily provide more assurance than those controls for which the audit
evidence consists solely of inquiry and observation. For example, an auditor
may inquire about and observe the entity’s procedures for opening the mail and
processing cash receipts to test the operating effectiveness of controls over
cash receipts. Because an observation is pertinent only at the point in time at
which it is made, the auditor ordinarily supplements the observation with
inquiries of entity personnel, and may also inspect documentation about the
operation of such controls at other times during the audit period in order to
obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
30.The nature of the particular control influences the type of audit procedure
required to obtain audit evidence about whether the control was operating
effectively at relevant times during the period under audit. For some controls,
operating effectiveness is evidenced by documentation. In such circumstances,
the auditor may decide to inspect the documentation to obtain audit evidence
about operating effectiveness. For other controls, however, such
documentation may not be available or relevant. For example, documentation
of operation may not exist for some factors in the control environment, such as
assignment of authority and responsibility, or for some types of control
activities, such as control activities performed by a computer. In such
circumstances, audit evidence about operating effectiveness may be obtained
through inquiry in combination with other audit procedures such as
observation or the use of CAATs.
31.In designing tests of controls, the auditor considers the need to obtain audit
evidence supporting the effective operation of controls directly related to the
assertions as well as other indirect controls on which these controls depend.
For example, the auditor may identify a user review of an exception report of
credit sales over a customer’s authorized credit limit as a direct control related ISA 330 406
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 407A U D I T I N G
to an assertion. In such cases, the auditor considers the effectiveness of the user
review of the report and also the controls related to the accuracy of the
information in the report (for example, the general IT-controls).
32.In the case of an automated application control, because of the inherent
consistency of IT processing, audit evidence about the implementation of the
control, when considered in combination with audit evidence obtained
regarding the operating effectiveness of the entity’s general controls (and in
particular, change controls) may provide substantial audit evidence about its
operating effectiveness during the relevant period.
33.When responding to the risk assessment, the auditor may design a test of
controls to be performed concurrently with a test of details on the same
transaction. The objective of tests of controls is to evaluate whether a control
operated effectively. The objective of tests of details is to detect material
misstatements at the assertion level. Although these objectives are different,
both may be accomplished concurrently through performance of a test of
controls and a test of details on the same transaction, also known as a dual-
purpose test. For example, the auditor may examine an invoice to determine
whether it has been approved and to provide substantive audit evidence of a
transaction. The auditor carefully considers the design and evaluation of such
tests to accomplish both objectives.
34.The absence of misstatements detected by a substantive procedure does not
provide audit evidence that controls related to the assertion being tested are
effective. However, misstatements that the auditor detects by performing
substantive procedures are considered by the auditor when assessing the
operating effectiveness of related controls. A material misstatement detected
by the auditor’s procedures that was not identified by the entity ordinarily is
indicative of the existence of a material weakness in internal control, which is
communicated to management and those charged with governance.
Timing of Tests of Controls
35.The timing of tests of controls depends on the auditor’s objective and
determines the period of reliance on those controls. If the auditor tests controls
at a particular time, the auditor only obtains audit evidence that the controls
operated effectively at that time However, if the auditor tests controls
throughout a period, the auditor obtains audit evidence of the effectiveness of
the operation of the controls during that period.
36.Audit evidence pertaining only to a point in time may be sufficient for the
auditor’s purpose, for example, when testing controls over the entity’s physical
inventory counting at the period end. If, on the other hand, the auditor requires
audit evidence of the effectiveness of a control over a period, audit evidence
pertaining only to a point in time may be insufficient and the auditor
supplements those tests with other tests of controls that are capable of
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
providing audit evidence that the control operated effectively at relevant times
during the period under audit. Such other tests may consist of tests of the
entity’s monitoring of controls.
37.When the auditor obtains audit evidence about the operating effectiveness
of controls during an interim period, the auditor should determine what
additional audit evidence should be obtained for the remaining period. In
making that determination, the auditor considers the significance of the
assessed risks of material misstatement at the assertion level, the specific
controls that were tested during the interim period, the degree to which audit
evidence about the operating effectiveness of those controls was obtained, the
length of the remaining period, the extent to which the auditor intends to
reduce further substantive procedures based on the reliance of controls, and
the control environment. The auditor obtains audit evidence about the nature
and extent of any significant changes in internal control, including changes in
the information system, processes, and personnel that occur subsequent to the
interim period.
38.Additional audit evidence may be obtained, for example, by extending the
testing of the operating effectiveness of controls over the remaining period or
testing the entity’s monitoring of controls.
39.If the auditor plans to use audit evidence about the operating effectiveness
of controls ob tained in prior audits, the auditor should ob tain audit
evidence about whether changes in those specific controls have occurred
subsequent to the prior audit. The auditor should obtain audit evidence
ab out whether such changes have occurred b y performing inquiry in
combination with observation or inspection to confirm the understanding
of those specific controls. Paragraph 23 of ISA 500 states that the auditor
performs audit procedures to establish the continuing relevance of audit
evidence obtained in prior periods when the auditor plans to use the audit
evidence in the current period. For example, in performing the prior audit, the
auditor may have determined that an automated control was functioning as
intended. The auditor obtains audit evidence to determine whether changes to
the automated control have been made that affect its continued effective
functioning, for example, through inquiries of management and the inspection
of logs to indicate what controls have been changed. Consideration of audit
evidence about these changes may support either increasing or decreasing the
expected audit evidence to be obtained in the current period about the
operating effectiveness of the controls.
40.If the auditor plans to rely on controls that have changed since they were
last tested, the auditor should test the operating effectiveness of such
controls in the current audit. Changes may affect the relevance of the audit
evidence obtained in prior periods such that there may no longer be a basis for
continued reliance. For example, changes in a system that enable an entity to
receive a new report from the system probably do not affect the relevance of ISA 330 408
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 409A U D I T I N G
prior period audit evidence; however, a change that causes data to be accumulated or calculated differently does affect it.
41.If the auditor plans to rely on controls that have not changed since they
were last tested, the auditor should test the operating effectiveness of such
controls at least once in every third audit. As indicated in paragraphs 40 and
44, the auditor may not rely on audit evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls obtained in prior audits for controls that have changed
since they were last tested or controls that mitigate a significant risk. The auditor’s decision on whether to rely on audit evidence obtained in prior audits
for other controls is a matter of professional judgment. In addition, the length
of time period between retesting such controls is also a matter of professional
judgment, but cannot exceed two years.
42.In considering whether it is appropriate to use audit evidence about the
operating effectiveness of controls obtained in prior audits, and, if so, the length of the time period that may elapse before retesting a control, the auditor
considers the following:
?The effectiveness of other elements of internal control, including the control environment, the entity’s monitoring of controls, and the entity’s
risk assessment process.
?The risks arising from the characteristics of the control, including whether controls are manual or automated (see ISA 315, paragraphs 57-63 for a
discussion of specific risks arising from manual and automated elements
of a control).
?The effectiveness of general IT-controls.
?The effectiveness of the control and its application by the entity, including the nature and extent of deviations in the application of the control from
tests of operating effectiveness in prior audits.
?Whether the lack of a change in a particular control poses a risk due to changing circumstances.
?The risk of material misstatement and the extent of reliance on the control.
In general, the higher the risk of material misstatement, or the greater the reliance on controls, the shorter the time period elapsed, if any, is likely to be.
Factors that ordinarily decrease the period for retesting a control, or result in
not relying on audit evidence obtained in prior audits at all, include the following:
? A weak control environment.
?Weak monitoring of controls.
? A significant manual element to the relevant controls.
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
?Personnel changes that significantly affect the application of the control.
?Changing circumstances that indicate the need for changes in the control.
?Weak general IT-controls.
43.When there are a number of controls for which the auditor determines
that it is appropriate to use audit evidence obtained in prior audits, the
auditor should test the operating effectiveness of some controls each audit.
The purpose of this requirement is to avoid the possibility that the auditor
might apply the approach of paragraph 41 to all controls on which the auditor
proposes to rely, but test all those controls in a single audit period with no
testing of controls in the subsequent two audit periods. In addition to providing
audit evidence about the operating effectiveness of the controls being tested in
the current audit, performing such tests provides collateral evidence about the
continuing effectiveness of the control environment and therefore contributes
to the decision about whether it is appropriate to rely on audit evidence
obtained in prior audits. Therefore, when the auditor determines in accordance
with paragraphs 39-42 that it is appropriate to use audit evidence obtained in
prior audits for a number of controls, the auditor plans to test a sufficient
portion of the controls in that population in each audit period, and at a
minimum, each control is tested at least every third audit.
44.When, in accordance with paragraph 108 of ISA 315, the auditor has
determined that an assessed risk of material misstatement at the assertion
level is a significant risk and the auditor plans to rely on the operating
effectiveness of controls intended to mitigate that significant risk, the
auditor should obtain the audit evidence about the operating effectiveness
of those controls from tests of controls performed in the current period.
The greater the risk of material misstatement, the more audit evidence the
auditor obtains that relevant controls are operating effectively. Accordingly,
although the auditor often considers information obtained in prior audits in
designing tests of controls to mitigate a significant risk, the auditor does not
rely on audit evidence obtained in a prior audit about the operating
effectiveness of controls over such risks, but instead obtains the audit evidence
about the operating effectiveness of controls over such risks in the current
period.
Extent of Tests of Controls
45.The auditor designs tests of controls to obtain sufficient appropriate audit
evidence that the controls operated effectively throughout the period of
reliance. Matters the auditor may consider in determining the extent of the
auditor’s tests of controls include the following:
?The frequency of the performance of the control by the entity during the period.
ISA 330 410
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 411A U D I T I N G
?The length of time during the audit period that the auditor is relying on the operating effectiveness of the control.
?The relevance and reliability of the audit evidence to be obtained in supporting that the control prevents, or detects and corrects, material
misstatements at the assertion level.
?The extent to which audit evidence is obtained from tests of other controls related to the assertion.
?The extent to which the auditor plans to rely on the operating effectiveness of the control in the assessment of risk (and thereby reduce
substantive procedures based on the reliance of such control).
?The expected deviation from the control.
46.The more the auditor relies on the operating effectiveness of controls in the
assessment of risk, the greater is the extent of the auditor’s tests of controls. In
addition, as the rate of expected deviation from a control increases, the auditor
increases the extent of testing of the control. However, the auditor considers
whether the rate of expected deviation indicates that the control will not be
sufficient to reduce the risk of material misstatement at the assertion level to
that assessed by the auditor. If the rate of expected deviation is expected to be
too high, the auditor may determine that tests of controls for a particular
assertion may not be effective.
47.Because of the inherent consistency of IT processing, the auditor may not need
to increase the extent of testing of an automated control. An automated control
should function consistently unless the program (including the tables, files, or
other permanent data used by the program) is changed. Once the auditor
determines that an automated control is functioning as intended (which could
be done at the time the control is initially implemented or at some other date),
the auditor considers performing tests to determine that the control continues
to function effectively. Such tests might include determining that changes to
the program are not made without being subject to the appropriate program
change controls, that the authorized version of the program is used for
processing transactions, and that other relevant general controls are effective.
Such tests also might include determining that changes to the programs have
not been made, as may be the case when the entity uses packaged software
applications without modifying or maintaining them. For example, the auditor
may inspect the record of the administration of IT security to obtain audit
evidence that unauthorized access has not occurred during the period. Substantive Procedures
48.Substantive procedures are performed in order to detect material misstatements
at the assertion level, and include tests of details of classes of transactions,
account balances, and disclosures and substantive analytical procedures. The
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
auditor plans and performs substantive procedures to be responsive to the
related assessment of the risk of material misstatement.
49.Irrespective of the assessed risk of material misstatement, the auditor
should design and perform substantive procedures for each material class
of transactions, account balance, and disclosure. This requirement reflects
the fact that the auditor’s assessment of risk is judgmental and may not be
sufficiently precise to identify all risks of material misstatement. Further, there
are inherent limitations to internal control including management override.
Accordingly, while the auditor may determine that the risk of material
misstatement may be reduced to an acceptably low level by performing only
tests of controls for a particular assertion related to a class of transactions,
account balance or disclosure (see paragraph 8), the auditor always performs
substantive procedures for each material class of transactions, account balance,
and disclosure.
50.The auditor’s substantive procedures should include the following audit
procedures related to the financial statement closing process:
?Agreeing or reconciling the financial statements with the underlying accounting records; and
?Examining material journal entries and other adjustments made during the course of preparing the financial statements.
The nature and extent of the auditor’s examination of journal entries and other
adjustments depends on the nature and complexity of the entity’s financial
reporting process and the associated risks of material misstatement.
51.When, in accordance with paragraph 108 of ISA 315, the auditor has
determined that an assessed risk of material misstatement at the assertion
level is a significant risk, the auditor should perform sub stantive
procedures that are specifically responsive to that risk. For example, if the
auditor identifies that management is under pressure to meet earnings
expectations, there may be a risk that management is inflating sales by
improperly recognizing revenue related to sales agreements with terms that
preclude revenue recognition or by invoicing sales before shipment. In these
circumstances, the auditor may, for example, design external confirmations not
only to confirm outstanding amounts, but also to confirm the details of the
sales agreements, including date, any rights of return and delivery terms. In
addition, the auditor may find it effective to supplement such external
confirmations with inquiries of non-financial personnel in the entity regarding
any changes in sales agreements and delivery terms.
52.When the approach to significant risks consists only of substantive procedures,
the audit procedures appropriate to address such significant risks consist of
tests of details only, or a combination of tests of details and substantive
analytical procedures The auditor considers the guidance in paragraphs 53-64 ISA 330 412
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 413A U D I T I N G
in designing the nature, timing, and extent of substantive procedures for
significant risks. In order to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the
substantive procedures related to significant risks are most often designed to
obtain audit evidence with high reliability.
Nature of Substantive Procedures
53.Substantive analytical procedures are generally more applicable to large
volumes of transactions that tend to be predictable over time. Tests of details
are ordinarily more appropriate to obtain audit evidence regarding certain
assertions about account balances, including existence and valuation. In some
situations, the auditor may determine that performing only substantive
analytical procedures may be sufficient to reduce the risk of material
misstatement to an acceptably low level. For example, the auditor may
determine that performing only substantive analytical procedures is responsive
to the assessed risk of material misstatement for a class of transactions where
the auditor’s assessment of risk is supported by obtaining audit evidence from
performance of tests of the operating effectiveness of controls. In other
situations, the auditor may determine that only tests of details are appropriate,
or that a combination of substantive analytical procedures and tests of details
are most responsive to the assessed risks.
54.The auditor designs tests of details responsive to the assessed risk with the
objective of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to achieve the
planned level of assurance at the assertion level. In designing substantive
procedures related to the existence or occurrence assertion, the auditor selects
from items contained in a financial statement amount and obtains the relevant
audit evidence. On the other hand, in designing audit procedures related to the
completeness assertion, the auditor selects from audit evidence indicating that
an item should be included in the relevant financial statement amount and
investigates whether that item is so included. For example, the auditor might
inspect subsequent cash disbursements to determine whether any purchases
had been omitted from accounts payable.
55.In designing substantive analytical procedures, the auditor considers such
matters as the following:
?The suitability of using substantive analytical procedures given the assertions.
?The reliability of the data, whether internal or external, from which the expectation of recorded amounts or ratios is developed.
?Whether the expectation is sufficiently precise to identify a material misstatement at the desired level of assurance.
?The amount of any difference in recorded amounts from expected values that is acceptable.
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
The auditor considers testing the controls, if any, over the entity’s preparation
of information used by the auditor in applying analytical procedures. When
such controls are effective, the auditor has greater confidence in the reliability
of the information and, therefore, in the results of analytical procedures.
Alternatively, the auditor may consider whether the information was subjected
to audit testing in the current or prior period. In determining the audit
procedures to apply to the information upon which the expectation for
substantive analytical procedures is based, the auditor considers the guidance
in paragraph 11 of ISA 500.
Timing of Substantive Procedures
56.When sub stantive procedures are performed at an interim date, the
auditor should perform further substantive procedures or substantive
procedures combined with tests of controls to cover the remaining period
that provide a reasonable basis for extending the audit conclusions from
the interim date to the period end.
57.In some circumstances, substantive procedures may be performed at an interim
date. This increases the risk that misstatements that may exist at the period end
are not detected by the auditor. This risk increases as the remaining period is
lengthened. In considering whether to perform substantive procedures at an
interim date, the auditor considers such factors as the following:
?The control environment and other relevant controls.
?The availability of information at a later date that is necessary for the auditor’s procedures.
?The objective of the substantive procedure.
?The assessed risk of material misstatement.
?The nature of the class of transactions or account balance and related assertions.
?The ability of the auditor to perform appropriate substantive procedures or substantive procedures combined with tests of controls to cover the
remaining period in order to reduce the risk that misstatements that exist
at period end are not detected.
58.Although the auditor is not required to obtain audit evidence about the
operating effectiveness of controls in order to have a reasonable basis for
extending audit conclusions from an interim date to the period end, the auditor
considers whether performing only substantive procedures to cover the
remaining period is sufficient. If the auditor concludes that substantive
procedures alone would not be sufficient, tests of the operating effectiveness of
relevant controls are performed or the substantive procedures are performed as
of the period end.
ISA 330 414
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 415A U D I T I N G
59.In circumstances where the auditor has identified risks of material
misstatement due to fraud, the auditor’s response to address those risks may
include changing the timing of audit procedures. For example, the auditor might conclude that, given the risks of intentional misstatement or manipulation, audit procedures to extend audit conclusions from an interim
date to the period end would not be effective. In such circumstances, the auditor might conclude that substantive procedures need to be performed at or
near the end of the reporting period to address an identified risk of material
misstatement due to fraud (see ISA 240).
60.Ordinarily, the auditor compares and reconciles information concerning the
balance at the period end with the comparable information at the interim date
to identify amounts that appear unusual, investigates any such amounts, and
performs substantive analytical procedures or tests of details to test the intervening period. When the auditor plans to perform substantive analytical
procedures with respect to the intervening period, the auditor considers whether the period end balances of the particular classes of transactions or account balances are reasonably predictable with respect to amount, relative
significance, and composition. The auditor considers whether the entity’s procedures for analyzing and adjusting such classes of transactions or account
balances at interim dates and for establishing proper accounting cutoffs are
appropriate. In addition, the auditor considers whether the information system
relevant to financial reporting will provide information concerning the balances at the period end and the transactions in the remaining period that is
sufficient to permit investigation of: significant unusual transactions or entries
(including those at or near period end); other causes of significant fluctuations,
or expected fluctuations that did not occur; and changes in the composition of
the classes of transactions or account balances. The substantive procedures
related to the remaining period depend on whether the auditor has performed
tests of controls.
61.If misstatements are detected in classes of transactions or account balances at
an interim date, the auditor ordinarily modifies the related assessment of risk
and the planned nature, timing, or extent of the substantive procedures covering the remaining period that relate to such classes of transactions or
account balances, or extends or repeats such audit procedures at the period end.
62.The use of audit evidence from the performance of substantive procedures in a
prior audit is not sufficient to address a risk of material misstatement in the
current period. In most cases, audit evidence from the performance of substantive procedures in a prior audit provides little or no audit evidence for
the current period. In order for audit evidence obtained in a prior audit to be
used in the current period as substantive audit evidence, the audit evidence and
the related subject matter must not fundamentally change. An example of audit
evidence obtained from the performance of substantive procedures in a prior
period that may be relevant in the current year is a legal opinion related to the
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
structure of a securitization to which no changes have occurred during the
current period. As required by paragraph 23 of ISA 500, if the auditor plans to
use audit evidence obtained from the performance of substantive procedures in
a prior audit, the auditor performs audit procedures during the current period to
establish the continuing relevance of the audit evidence.
Extent of the Performance of Substantive Procedures
63.The greater the risk of material misstatement, the greater the extent of
substantive procedures. Because the risk of material misstatement takes
account of internal control, the extent of substantive procedures may be
increased as a result of unsatisfactory results from tests of the operating
effectiveness of controls. However, increasing the extent of an audit procedure
is appropriate only if the audit procedure itself is relevant to the specific risk.
64.In designing tests of details, the extent of testing is ordinarily thought of in
terms of the sample size, which is affected by the risk of material
misstatement. However, the auditor also considers other matters, including
whether it is more effective to use other selective means of testing, such as
selecting large or unusual items from a population as opposed to performing
representative sampling or stratifying the population into homogeneous
subpopulations for sampling. ISA 530 contains guidance on the use of
sampling and other means of selecting items for testing. In designing
substantive analytical procedures, the auditor considers the amount of
difference from the expectation that can be accepted without further
investigation. This consideration is influenced primarily by materiality and the
consistency with the desired level of assurance. Determination of this amount
involves considering the possibility that a combination of misstatements in the
specific account balance, class of transactions, or disclosure could aggregate to
an unacceptable amount. In designing substantive analytical procedures, the
auditor increases the desired level of assurance as the risk of material
misstatement increases. ISA 520, “Analytical Procedures” contains guidance
on the application of analytical procedures during an audit.
Adequacy of Presentation and Disclosure
65.The auditor should perform audit procedures to evaluate whether the
overall presentation of the financial statements, including the related
disclosures, are in accordance with the applicab le financial reporting
framework. The auditor considers whether the individual financial statements
are presented in a manner that reflects the appropriate classification and
description of financial information. The presentation of financial statements in
conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework also includes
adequate disclosure of material matters. These matters relate to the form,
arrangement, and content of the financial statements and their appended notes,
including, for example, the terminology used, the amount of detail given, the
classification of items in the statements, and the bases of amounts set forth. ISA 330 416
THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS
ISA 330 417A U D I T I N G
The auditor considers whether management should have disclosed a particular
matter in light of the circumstances and facts of which the auditor is aware at
the time. In performing the evaluation of the overall presentation of the
financial statements, including the related disclosures, the auditor considers the
assessed risk of material misstatement at the assertion level. See paragraph 17
of ISA 500 for a description of the assertions related to presentation and
disclosure.
Evaluating the Sufficiency and Appropriateness of Audit Evidence Obtained
66.Based on the audit procedures performed and the audit evidence
obtained, the auditor should evaluate whether the assessments of the risks
of material misstatement at the assertion level remain appropriate. 67.An audit of financial statements is a cumulative and iterative process. As the
auditor performs planned audit procedures, the audit evidence obtained may
cause the auditor to modify the nature, timing, or extent of other planned audit
procedures. Information may come to the auditor’s attention that differs
significantly from the information on which the risk assessment was based. For
example, the extent of misstatements that the auditor detects by performing
substantive procedures may alter the auditor’s judgment about the risk
assessments and may indicate a material weakness in internal control. In
addition, analytical procedures performed at the overall review stage of the
audit may indicate a previously unrecognized risk of material misstatement. In
such circumstances, the auditor may need to reevaluate the planned audit
procedures, based on the revised consideration of assessed risks for all or some
of the classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures and related
assertions. Paragraph 119 of ISA 315 contains further guidance on revising the
auditor’s risk assessment.
68.The concept of effectiveness of the operation of controls recognizes that some
deviations in the way controls are applied by the entity may occur. Deviations
from prescribed controls may be caused by such factors as changes in key
personnel, significant seasonal fluctuations in volume of transactions and
human error. When such deviations are detected during the performance of
tests of controls, the auditor makes specific inquiries to understand these
matters and their potential consequences, for example, by inquiring about the
timing of personnel changes in key internal control functions. The auditor
determines whether the tests of controls performed provide an appropriate
basis for reliance on the controls, whether additional tests of controls are
necessary, or whether the potential risks of misstatement need to be addressed
using substantive procedures.
国际审计中文准则对应的英文准则--超有用ISA 200“独立审计师的总体目标及根据国际审计准则执行审计” 中国注册会计师审计准则第1101号——注册会计师的总体目标和审计工作的基本要求(2010年11月1日修订) 总则第一章 第一条为了规范注册会计师按照中国注册会计师审计准则执行财务报表审计工作，确立注册会计师的总体目标，明确注册会计师为实现总体目标而需要执行审计工作的性质和范围，以及在执行财务报表审计业务时承担的责任，制定本准则。 审计准则适用于注册会计师执行财务报表审计业务。第二条 当执行其他历史财务信息审计业务时，注册会计师可以根据具体情况遵守适用的相关审计准则，以满足此类业务的要求。 第二章定义 第三条注册会计师，是指取得注册会计师证书并在会计师事务所执业的人员，通常是指项目合伙人或项目组其他成员，有时也指其所在的会计师事务所。 当审计准则明确指出应由项目合伙人遵守的规定或承担的责任时，使用“项目合伙人”而非“注册会计师”的称谓。 第四条本准则所称财务报表，是指依据某一财务报告编制基础对被审计单位历史财务信息作出的结构性表述，包括相关附注，旨在反映某一时点的经济资源或义务或者某一时期经济资源或义务的变化。相关附注通常包括重要会计政策概要和其他解释性信息。财务报表通常是指整套财务报表，有时也指单一财务报表。整套财务报表的构成应当根据适用的财务报告编制基础的规定确定。
第五条历史财务信息，是指以财务术语表述的某一特定实体的信息，这些信息主要来自特定实体的会计系统，反映了过去一段时间内发生的经济事项，或者过去某一时点的经济状况或情况。 第六条适用的财务报告编制基础，是指法律法规要求采用的财务报告编制基础;或者管理层和治理层(如适用)在编制财务报表时，就被审计单位性质和财务报表目标而言，采用的可接受的财务报告编著基础。 财务报告编制基础分为通用目的编制基础和特殊目的编制基础。 通用目的编制基础，是指旨在满足广大财务报表使用者共同的财务信息需求的财务报告编制基础，主要是指会计准则和会计制度。 特殊目的编制基础，是指旨在满足财务报表特定使用者对财务信息需求的财务报告编制基础，包括计税核算基础、监管机构的报告要求和合同的约定等。 第七条管理层，是指对被审计单位经营活动的执行负有经营管理责任的人员。在某些被审计单位，管理层包括部分或全部的治理层成员，如治理层中负有经营管理责任的人员，或参与日常经营管理的业主(以下简称业主兼经理)。 第八条治理层，是指对被审计单位战略方向以及管理层履行经营管理责任负有监督责任的人员或组织。治理层的责任包括监督财务报告过程。在某些被审计单位，治理层可能包括管理层，如治理层中负有经营管理责任的人员，或业主兼经理。 第九条与管理层和治理层责任相关的执行审计工作的前提(以下简称执行审计工作的前提)，是指管理层和治理层(如适用)认可并理解其应当承担下列责任，这些责任构成注册会计师按照审计准则的规定执行审计工作的基础: (一)按照适用的财务报告编制基础编制财务报表，并使其实现公允反映(如适用);
浅析中国审计准则与国际审计准则的异同 孙晖吴申昊薛超薛林伟 （南京理工大学泰州科技学院2010级会计4班 225300） [摘要] 2006年新审计准则体系的发布标志着我国已建立起一套适应中国社会主义市场经济发展要求、顺应国际趋同大势的审计准则体系。本文采用对比和比较分析方法，在充分研究、分析、总结的基础上，对我国新审计准则体系与国际审计准则体系进行了趋同分析和差异分析。 [关键词]审计；准则；趋同；差异 1 引言 注册会计师审计准则是衡量注册会计师审计业务质量的标准，用以规范审计事务所与审计人员的执业行为，建立一套与国际趋同的高质量的审计准则，是经济全球化发展趋势的必然要求，并且对于降低投资者的决策风险，实现资源的有效合理配置，推动经济发展和保持金融稳定有着重要作用。 2006 年2 月15 日，财政部发布了中国新审计准则体系——《中国注册会计师执业规范准则》。中国新审计准则体系的发布标志着我国已建立起一套适应中国社会主义市场经济发展要求、顺应国际趋同大势的审计准则体系。有利于提高注册会计师行业的执业质量，推动注册会计师行业的健康发展，提升财务信息质量，突出了保护社会公众利益的宗旨，强化了注册会计师的执业责任，体现了先进的审计理念和实务，严格了审计程序。 本文采用对比和比较分析方法，在充分研究、分析、总结的基础上，对我国新审计准则体系与国际审计准则体系进行了趋同分析和差异分析。 2 中国审计准则的结构和内容 我国注册会计师审计准则是中国注册会计师协会在对《独立审计基本准则》修订后形成的。中国注册会计师协会拟订了《中国注册会计师鉴证业务基本准则》等22项准则，修订了《中国注册会计师审计准则第1142号——财务报表审计中对法律法规的考虑》等26项准则，自2007年1月1日起施行，《独立审计基本准则》等相关准则同时废止。 2006年发布的审计准则结构为：第一部分审计、审阅与其他鉴证业务准则（45个），具体包括中国注册会计师鉴证业务基本准则（1个）、中国注册会计师
国际审计准则(ISAs) 的列表 责任分工 ISA 200 财务报表审计的目标和一般原则 ISA 210 审计业务约定书条款 ISA 220R 审计工作的质量控制 ISA 230 审计的文档纪录 ISA 240 财务报表查核时，将舞弊纳入考量是查核人员的责任ISA 250 财务报表查核时，法律和规章的考虑 ISA 260 审计人员与管理层的沟通 审计计划 ISA 300 财务报表审计计划 ISA 310 企务知识 ISA 315 了解被审计单位及其环境并评估重大错报风险 ISA 320 在审计识别和评价错报中运用重要性 ISA 330 审计师针对风险评估水平应采取的程序 内部控制 ISA 400 风险评估和内部控制 ISA 401 电脑信息系统环境下的审计 ISA 402 对被审计单位外判服务机构工作的的审计考虑 审计证据 ISA 500 审计证据 ISA 501 审计证据之对特殊项目的考虑 ISA 505 External Confirmations ISA 510 首次接受委托之期初余额 ISA 520 分析性程序 ISA 530 审计抽样及其他测试方法 ISA 540 会计估计的审计 ISA 545 公允价值计量和披露的审计 ISA 550 关联方及其交易 ISA 560 期后事项 ISA 570 继续经营的假定 ISA 580 管理当局的书面陈述书 利用其他专材 ISA 600 查核集团财务报表时，与其他审计人员的工作 ISA 610 利用内部审计工作的问题 ISA 620 利用专家工作的问题 审计总结及查核报告 ISA 700 为财务报表而发出的查核报告 ISA 710 对比资讯 ISA 720 其他有关财务报表审计的资讯 特殊种类的独立审计 ISA 800 The Auditor's Report on Special Purpose Audit Engagements （注：本资料素材和资料部分来自 网络，仅供参考。请预览后才下载 ，期待您的好评与关注！） 1 / 1
国际审计准则与中国2010审计准则的主要差异 我国注册会计师审计准则与国际审计准则的差异主要集中在以下四个方面：1.准则体系：多3 个准则，《中国注册会计师鉴证业务基本准则》、《中国注册会计师审计准则第1153 号——前任注册会计师和后任注册会计师的沟通》、《中国注册会计师审计准则第1602 号——验资》。 关于鉴证业务基本准则IAASB 将其放在准则序言部分加以强调的，我国注册会计师审计准则将则其单独列示。鉴证业务基本准则统驭审计准则、审阅准则和其他鉴证业务准则，该准则规定了鉴证业务的定义和目标、业务承接、鉴证业务的三方（注册会计师、责任方、预期使用者）关系、鉴证对象、标准、证据、鉴证报告等内容。 2.未加区分审计准则与审计实务公告 IAASB 将国际审计准则与国际审计实务公告区分，在对历史财务信息的审计和检查的规范中分别列示。我国注册会计师审计准则未将审计准则与实务公告加以区分，而是将其并入准则体系中。 把以下六个国际审计实务公告“IAPS 1000银行间函证程序，IAPS 1004银行监管机构与银行外部审计师的关系，IAPS 1006银行财务报表审计，IAPS 1010财务报表审计中对环境的考虑，IAPS 1012衍生金融工具审计，IAPS 1013电子商务对财务报表审计的影响”归为《中国注册会计师审计准则第1612 号——银行间函证程序》，《中国注册会计师审计准则第1613号——与银行监管机构的关系》，《中国注册会计师审计准则第1611 号——商业银行财务报表审计》，《中国注册会计师审计准则第1631号——财务报表审计中对环境事项的考虑》，《中国注册会计师审计准则第1632号——衍生金融工具的审计》，《中国注册会计师审计准则第1633号——电子商务对财务报表审计的影响》。 3.部分准则存在差异，《审计报告》。 我国报告准则与国际报告准则的区别：①报告名称差异：我国审计报 告均称为“审计报告”未加“独立”二字；国际审计报告均称为“独立审计 报告”，在标题中增加“独立”一词，强调审计师的“独立性”。②审计
国际审计准则三 摘要：本文主要介绍了国际审计准则的主要内容。 AU8003节指导审计工作的基本原则 1980年9月 引言 ·01本准则叙述的基本原则，规定了审计人员的职业责任，在执行审计业务时，必须遵循之。 ·02审计是指对任何单位的财务信息的独立检查，不论该单位是否以盈利为目的，不论其规模大小，也不论其法定组织形式，凡检查后需要发表评语的，均适用本准则。 ·03其他各节的国际审计准则，将对本节所制定的原则作进一步阐述，以指导审计方法和报告书编制的实务。 ·04贯彻执行这些原则，需要按照具体情况运用审计程序和审计报告书。 正直、客观和独立性 ·05审计人员在执行业务工作中，必须坦白、诚实和恳切。审计必须公正，决不容许偏袒和偏见凌驾于客观性之上。审计人员必须保持公正的态度，在实际上和表现上都不能有任何牵连，这种牵连可以被人认为与正直和客观不能相容(不论其实际影响如何)。 保密
·06审计人员对工作过程中所获得的信息，必须遵守保密原则。如未经特定的授权行为，并在法律上或职业上无反映的责任的，不得将该项信息透露给第三者。 技术和能力 ·07执行审计业务和编拟报告书的人员，必须经过审计方面的适当训练，并具有经验和能力，以职业上的认真态度进行该项工作。 ·08审计人员要求有专业技术和能力。这些技术和能力的获得是：接受普通教育，经过正规课程的学习和通过合格考试而获得专业知识，并在合适的指导下取得实际经验等各项条件的综合。此外，审计人员必须经常注意事物的发展，包括国际和国内有关会计和审计事项的文件，以及有关的法令和条例的规定。 他人所做的工作 ·09凡审计人员将工作委派给助理人员，或利用其他审计人员或专家所做的工作时，审计人员对于财务报表所提出的发表的评语，仍应负责。 ·10审计人员将工作委派给助理人员时，应作认真的指导、监督和检查。审计人员应确定：其他审计人员或专家所做的工作，是否确实适合其用途。 记录 ·11对于证明审计工作系按照基本原则进行的重要事项，应作成记录。 计划
审计准则国际趋同:国际审计准则是由谁制 定的 随着经济的全球化，许多重要国际组织都强调全球资本市场需要高质量、统一的准则，提出了审计准则国际趋同的要求，我国也采取积极态度应对当前审计准则国际趋同的潮流。这样做一是有利于促进我国经济引进来与“走出去”相结合的新发展战略的实现，随着经济全球化和资本的跨国流动，遵守国际通行的准则日益成为各国经济交往的基础。与国际准则趋同，有助于改善我国的经济环境，增强国内投资者的信心。二是有利于提高准则质量，落后的审计准则可能导致审计失败，国际上已有先例。三是有利于缩短制定准则的时间，国际审计准则是各国注册会计师执业经验的结晶，与国际审计准则趋同，可以加快发展。趋同(convergence)指的是收敛、缩小差异,现在不同，经过一段时间后会逐步相同,最后消除差异。审计准则的国际趋同都是指各国审计准则,在一个特定的时间内从不同逐步走向相同的收敛过程。如今,“趋同”已从“概念”发展为一种共识和行动,在某些国家和地区甚至已经成为现实。在全球经济一体化的今天,跨国公司在不断进入中国市场,中国企业也在不断走出国门拓展海外业务,国际资本的流动也带动了注册会计师审计的跨国界发展。从这层意义上讲,审计是没有国界的。任何一个国家的审计准则的国际趋同都是顺应世界历史发展我国审计准则国际趋同的基本原
则是,按照我国市场经济发展进程,顺应经济全球化和国际审计准则趋同的大趋势,着力完善中国审计准则体系,加快实现与国际准则的趋同。对于我国新审计准则体系的国际趋同问题,处处体现了此基本原则。对于国际趋同的理解,则可以通过对我国新审计准则体系与国际审计准则体系的比较分析得出。2007年1月1日，我国施行了新审计准则体系———《中国注册会计师执业规范规则》，新体系是以与国际审计准则体系趋同的理念制定的。那么新体系与国际审计准则体系趋同状况如何，存在哪些差异，这些差异哪些体现为创新，哪些可能存在着潜在问题，则是我们当前最需关注的。我国新体系共48个项目，针对于注册会计师的有47个项目：1个鉴证业务基本准则、41个审计准则、1个审阅准则、2个其他鉴证业务准则、2个相关服务准则； 针对于会计师事务所的质量控制准则1个。IAASB体系45个项目，针对于注册会计师的有44个项目：31个审计准则、8个审计实务公告、1个审阅准则、2个其他鉴证业务准则、2个相关服务准则； 针对于会计师事务所的质量控制准则1个。数量上看，我国新体系多3个准则。具体是多1个鉴证业务基本准则、10个审计准则，但少8个审计实务公告。我国新体系与IAASB体系趋同状况如下（1）规范对象相同。均为会计师事务所质量控制和注册会计师业务两方面。（2）业务分类标准相同。均把业务分为鉴证业务与相关业务； 鉴证业务又进一步细分为历史财务信息审计业务和审阅业务，以及其他鉴证业务。（3）非审计业务类准则高度趋同。即，审阅准则、其他
国际舞弊审计准则的最新变化及其启示 2004年2月，国际会计师联合会（IFAC）下属的国际审计与鉴证准则委员会（IAASB）在综合理论界、实务界众多建议的基础上，颁布了《国际审计准则240号-审计师在财务报表审计中对舞弊考虑的责任》（以下简称新ISA240），取代了2002年颁布的《国际审计准则240-审计师在财务报表审计中对错误和舞弊考虑的责任》（以下简称旧ISA240）。单从准则的名称上就可以看出，新ISA240没有涉及“审计师在财务报表审计中对错误考虑的责任”，而专门就“审计师在财务报表审计中对舞弊考虑的责任”制订了基本原则、基本程序和提供指南。在当前世界范围内财务报告舞弊案件层出不穷的大背景下，IAASB新ISA240的出台是形势所需，其目的是要提高注册会计师执行财务报告审计时发现和揭露公司舞弊财务报告的能力。 一、新ISA240简要介绍 新ISA240首先区分了舞弊和错误，并描述了与审计师有关的两种类型的舞弊-产生于非法挪用资产的错报和产生于欺诈财务报告的错报，描述了被审计单位的董事和管理当局对防止和发现舞弊各自应承担的责任，描述了舞弊审计中的固有局限，并阐述了审计师发现因舞弊导致的重大错报的责任。 新ISA240着重强调了职业怀疑，要求审计师要抱着职业怀疑的态度去发现因舞弊导致重大错报的可能性，尽管审计师凭过去的经验认为被审计单位的管理当局和董事是诚实和正直的。
另外，新准则还提供与监管和执法等权力机构沟通的指南；提供了审计师遇到的因舞弊或可能的舞弊对其继续履行审计产生影响的异常情况如何进行处理的指南，并提出了审计师要建立工作底稿的要求。 新ISA240还多次强调，为了将审计风险降低到一个可接受的低水平，审计师在计划和实施审计中应考虑因舞弊导致财务报表重大错报的风险。 二、新ISA240的主要变化 和旧ISA240相比，新ISA240主要有以下八个方面的新变化： 第一，进一步提升了“职业怀疑”精神。 新ISA240指出，职业怀疑是一种对审计证据的怀疑和批判评价的态度。职业怀疑要求，尽管审计师凭过去的经验认为被审计单位管理当局和董事是诚实和正直的，但也要根据获得的信息和实施的审计程序来判断因舞弊导致的重大错报是否存在，并保持持续的怀疑。这和以往准则中“注册会计师既不能认为管理层不可靠，也不能认为完全可靠”的较为“中性”的看法有了很大改变，要求审计师在整个审计过程中都要保持职业怀疑精神。 第二，共享集体智慧的结晶，积累识别舞弊的经验。 为了增强审计师审计舞弊的意识及对舞弊的敏感性，改进其评估舞弊风险的过程，新ISA240特别强调审计小组成员在审计计划阶段要集中讨论因舞弊导致重大错报的财务报表的敏感之处，就他们认为被审计单位财务报表可能会怎样或最有可能在哪些方面舞弊、管理当局
国际审计准则第16号计算机辅助审计技术 一、引言 1.正如国《际审计准则第15号》所指出的，在电子数据环境下，审计的总体目标和范畴没有改变。然而，在电子数据处理环境中，审计程序的应用可能要求审计人员考虑使用运算机作为审计的工具;这方面的各种运算机使用技术即称之为运算机辅助审计技术。 2.《国际审计准则第15》讨论了如下一些运算机辅助审计技术: ·输入文档资料和可见审计线索的缺乏可能要求在符合性测试和实质性测试程序应用时采纳运算机辅助审计技术; ·利用运算机辅助审计技术可能改善审计程序的成效和效率。 3.本准则的目的在于为运算机辅助审计技术的应用提供指南。它适用于所有涉及任何类型和大小的运算机的利用运算机辅助审计技术的场合。关于小型商用运算机环境的专门考虑，在第24条中予以讨论. 二、运算机辅助审计技术讲明 4.本准则只讲明两种普遍应用的运算机辅助审计技术:用于审计目的审计软件和测试数据。然而本准则提供的指南也适用于所有类型的运算机辅助审计技术。 审计软件 5.审计软件由审计人员使用的运算机程序构成，作为其审计程序的一部分，用来处理被审单位会计系统的重要审计数据。它可能由程序包、为特定目的而编制的程序和有用程序组成。不管程序的来源如何，审计人员应在使用之前证实其关于审计目的的有效性。 ·程序包是用来执行数据处理功能的通用运算机程序，其功能包括读取运算机文件、选择信息、完成运算、建立数据文件以及以审计人员规定的格式打印报告。 ·为特定目的而编制的程序是为在专门环境下完成审计任务而设计的运算机程序。这些程序能够由审计人员、被审单位或审计人员托付的外部
程序设计人员编制。在某些情形下，审计人员能够利用被审单位的程序或将其略加修改加以利用，如此可能比开发单独的程序更为有效。 ·有用程序是被审单位使用的、用来完成一样的数据处理功能的一组程序。例如排序、建立和打印文件等程序。这些程序一样并非为审计目的而设计的，因此，可能不具有诸如自动合计记录数或生成操纵总数等功能. 测试数据 6·测试数据技术是在实施审计程序时通过向被审单位运算机系统输入数据(如业务样本)，并将运算机处理结果与预先确定的结果进行比较的方法。其用途举例如下: ·测试数据用于测试运算机程序的专门的操纵，如联机口令和数据存取操纵; ·从往常处理的业务中选择部分业务，或由审计人员设计模拟的业务，用于测试被审单位运算机系统的专门的功能特点。一样将这些业务与被审单位的正常业务分开进行处理; ·将测试数据用于整个测试程序，通过建立一个虚拟单位(例如一个部门或职工)，并在正常业务处理过程中将测试业务归入该虚拟单位。 三、计汀机辅助审计技术的利用 7.运算机辅助审计技术能够被用于完成各种审计程序，包括： ·业务和金额的细节测试，例如，利用审计软件测试运算机文件中的所有或部分业务； ·分析检查程序，例如，利用审计软件鉴不非正常的波动或项目； ·一样操纵的符合性测试，例如，利用测试数据来测试程序资料室的存取手续; ·应用操纵的符合性测试，例如，利用测试数据测试程序化操纵的功能。 四、利用运算机辅助审计技术时应注意的咨询题
《国际审计准则专题》课程教学大纲 一、课程性质 课程名称国际审计准则专题课程类型选修课 总学时34学时学分2学分 适用专业会计学开课单位会计学院 二、教学目的 使学生了解和掌握国际审计准则的基本内容框架和前沿理论，进一步把握国际审计准则与我国审计准则的异同点，提高学生比较分析国际审计准则与我国审计准则的能力，运用准则分析会计师事务所及其签字注册会计师的质量控制和业务准则的遵循性，旨在提升学生对审计准则的运用能力。 三、教学要求 根据教学内容、学生特点及学时安排，采取课堂授课、案例分析、文献研讨等相结合方式组织教学，要求学生课下阅读大量的相关资料并撰写文献综述和阅读笔记，完成相关的学习、研讨资料的准备等教学环节，培养学生的独立研读能力。 四、教学内容及学时分配 课程内容与学时分配 课程内容学时分配 专题 1 审计准则的国际趋同 4 专题 2 审计准则项目的中外对比 2 专题 3 质量控制准则 6 专题 4 审计风险准则 6 专题 5 舞弊准则 6 专题 6 分析程序 4 专题7 审计报告准则 6
五、课程考核及成绩评定 课程考核形式：期末写一篇专业论文。 成绩评定：平时成绩30%，期末成绩70%。 平时成绩的评定依据：撰写文献阅读笔记10%，上课参与讨论10%，课堂考勤10%。 六、推荐教材和教学参考书 推荐教程作者出版社及出版时间《国际审计准则》2012 中注协中国财政经济出版社，2013 中译本 教学参考书作者出版社及出版时间会计数字游戏：美国十 黄世忠中国时代经济出版社，2003 大财务舞弊案例剖析 告密者：看穿华尔街史 上最恶名昭著的公司欺 辛西娅·库珀东方出版社，2009 诈案 《国际职业会计师道 中注协中国财政经济出版社，2012 德守则》2012中译本 国际内部审计专业实务 张红英立信会计出版社，2010 框架 国际审计准则-阐释与应 邓川等立信会计出版社，2009 用 上市公司虚假会计报表 刘姝威机械工业出版社，2013 识别技术 七、教学具体内容和要求 专题 1 审计准则的国际趋同 一、基本要求 本专题主要简介国际审计准则的颁布机构——国际审计实务委员会（International Auditing Practices Committee,简称：IAPC）及其工作,了解国际审计准则的发展历程、 国际鉴证业务框架，审计准则国际趋同的必要性，我国注册会计师审计准则趋同的理 念、趋同后的执业准则体系。 二、授课方法 讲授，案例 三、教学内容
国际审计准则——ＡＵ８００１节财务报表审计的目的和范围 PDF转换可能丢失图片或格式，建议阅读原文 https://www.doczj.com/doc/8c11535659.html,/html/86/s_86017_86.htm 引言０１本准则叙述独立审计人员审核一个单位财务报表的总的目的和范围。根据国际会计标准委员会所下定义，“财务报表”一词，包括资产负债表、收益表或损溢报告书、财务状况变动表和被认为财务报表组成部分的注解，其他报表和说明材料。审计目的０２财务报表审计的目的，就是要使审计人员对该项报表能作出评语；该项财务报表，系根据公认会计政策的规定范围编制。０３审计人员的评语，有助于建立财务报表的可信程度。然而，使用者不应认为审计人员的评语，就是该单位今后生存和发展的保证；也不能认为该项评语，就是对该单位经理人员经营事业的效率和效果的保证。对财务报表的责任０４审计人员负责构思和发表对财务报表的评语，编制报表的责任应属于该单位的经理人员。经理人员的责任包括作出适宜的会计记录和内部控制，选择和应用会计政策，和保护该单位资产的安全。对财务报表的审计，并不解除经理人员的这些责任。审计的范围０５审计人员一般应根据法令、条例和职业团体的要求，确定审计范围。０６单位的一切方面，凡与被审核的财务报表有关者，必须恰当地组织在审计范围之内。为了对财务报表作出评语，审计人员必须充分地明确：基础性的会计记录和其他来源的
资料中所包含的信息是否可靠，是否足以成为编制财务报表的基础。在作出评语时，审计人员还必须断定有关信息是否在财务报表中恰当地反映。０７审计人员依据下列各点来衡量主要的基础性的会计记录和其他来源的资料所包含的信息是否可靠和是否充分：（１）对会计制度和需要作为依据的内部控制，必须进行研究和评价，测试这些内部控制，以确定其他审计程序的性质、范围和时间，以及（２）审计人员在特定情况认为适宜时，对于会计事项和帐户余额，可进行其他测试、查询和别的检查程序。０８审计人员用下列办法，确定有关的信息是否得到恰当表达：（１）将财务报表同基础性的会计记录和其他来源的资料相比较，了解其中记载的业务和事项是否得到恰当的概括，以及（２）研究经理人员在编制报表中所作的判断。为此，审计人员要估量会计政策的选择及其一贯的运用情况，信息的分类方式，以及表达的恰当性。０９审计人员的整个工作过程自始至终都要通过判断。例如，决定审计程序的深广度，衡量经理人员在编制财务报表中所作的判断和估计的合理程度。而且审计人员所能得到的证据很多是说服性的，而不是结论性的。由于上述原因，审计难以做到绝对的肯定。１０审计人员对财务报表作出评语时所应用的程序，要做到合理地保证财务报表在一切重要方面都能恰当表述。由于审计工作的测试性质和其他固有的局限性，以及任何一种内部控制制度的固有的局限性，甚至有些重要的反映失实，可能未曾发现，所以风险总是免不了的。但是当发现有任何迹象表明错误和弊端可能已经发生，并会导致重要的反映失实时，审计人员必须扩大审计程序，以证实问题或排除疑点。１１财务报表审计范围受到
[收稿日期]2006-12-13 [修订日期]2007-02-06 [作者简介]吕跃金(1979 ),男,浙江金华人,浙江理工大学经济管理学院会计系教师,中南财经政法大学会计学硕士,从事社会审计、国际审计比较研究。 第22卷 第2期2007年3月审计与经济研究AUD I T &ECONOMY RESE ARC H V o.l 22,No .2 M ar .,2007 国际审计准则第320号和450号的新发展 及其对我国的启示 吕跃金 (浙江理工大学经济管理学院,浙江杭州 310018) [摘 要]本文介绍和分析了经过重新修订和起草的ISA 320 计划和实施审计工作时的重要性 和ISA 450 对审计过程中已识别错报的评估 的征求意见稿的主要内容,通过与2004年12月发布的征求意见稿的比较,重点介绍其最新发展情况,并总结出对我国审计准则制定的几点启示。 [关键词]重要性;错报;评价;更正;沟通[中图分类号]F239.43 [文献标识码]A [文章编号]1004-4833(2007)02-0047-05 继2004年12月国际审计与鉴证准则委员会(In ternati onal A uditi ng and A ssurance Standards Board ,I AA SB)发布了经过修订的I SA 320 在识别和评估错报中的重要性 的征求意见稿后,I AA SB 又于2006年11月15日发布了经过重新修订和起草的I SA 320 计划和实施审计工作时的重要性 和I SA 450 对审计过程中已识别错报的评估 的征求意见稿。本文拟介绍经过重新修订和起草的I SA 320和ISA 450的主要内容,通过两次征求意见稿的比较来分析其重大改进,为我国审计准则的进一步完善提供借鉴。 一、准则修订背景 自从1994年发布现行的ISA 320 审计重要性 以来,有些国家的准则制定机构已经修订了重要性准则和指南。为此,I AA SB 于2004年12月发布了经过修订的I SA 320 在识别和评估错报中的重要性 的征求意见稿。征求意见稿发布以后,I AA SB 收到了48份来自包括监管者、国际会计师联合会(I F A C)会员团体和会计师事务所在内的反馈者的评论。I AA SB 在仔细考虑了收到的这些评论并与 I AA SB 的咨询顾问小组进行深入探讨之后于2006年11月15日发布了经过重新修订和起草的I SA 320 计划和实施审计工作时的重要性 和I SA 450 对审计过程中已识别错报的评估 的征求意见稿。 二、ISA320 计划和实施审计工作时的重要性 的主要内容 [1] 重新修订和起草的I SA 320解决的是计划和执行财务报表审计时重要性水平的确定及其应用问题,主要对审计环境下的重要性概念、计划审计工作时重要性水平的确定、随审计工作推进需作的考虑等作出规定。 (一)审计环境下的重要性概念 财务报告框架经常讨论编制和提交财务报告环境下的重要性概念。尽管财务报告框架会以不同的专业术语来讨论重要性,但是其讨论的重要性概念一般具有下列特点:如果一项错报(包括漏报)单独或连同其他错报(包括漏报)预期会影响财务报表使用者依据财务报表作出的经济决策,则该项错报(包括漏报)是重大的;对重要性的判断取决于周围的环
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING 330 THE AUDITOR’S PROCEDURES IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSED RISKS (Effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after June 15, 2006)? CONTENTS Paragraph Introduction ....................................................................................................1-3 Overall Responses ..........................................................................................4-6 Audit Procedures Responsive to Risks of Material Misstatement at the Assertion Level .............................................................................7-65 Evaluating the Sufficiency and Appropriateness of Audit Evidence Obtained ........................................................................66-72 Documentation .. (73) Effective Date (74) International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 330, “The Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks” should be read in the context of the “Preface to the International Standards on Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance and Related Services” which sets out the application and authority of ISAs. ?ISA 230, “Audit Documentation” gave rise to conforming amendments to ISA 330. These amendments are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after June 15, 2006 and have been incorporated in the text of ISA 330. The IAASB’s clarity drafting conventions have been applied to this ISA. ISA 330 (Redrafted), “The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks” can be found on page 1087. ISA 330 398
国际审计准则与中国注册会计师审计准则对应关系 ISA CSA 1.国际鉴证业务框架 1.中国注册会计师鉴证业务基本准则 2.ISA 210“商定审计业务约定书” 2.CSA1111——就审计业务约定条款达成一致意见 3.ISA 220“财务报表审计的质量控制” 3.CSA1121——对财务报表审计实施的质量控制 4.ISA 230“审计工作底稿” 4.CSA1131——审计工作底稿 5.ISA 240“审计师在财务报表审计中对舞弊 的责任” 5.CSA1141——财务报表审计中与舞弊相关的责任 6.ISA 250“财务报表审计中对法律法规的考 虑” 6.CSA1142——财务报表审计中对法律法规的考虑 7.ISA 300“计划财务报表审计”7.CSA1201——计划审计工作 8.ISA 315“了解被审计单位及其环境以识别和评估重大错报风险”8.CSA1211——通过了解被审计单位及其环境识别和评估重大错报风险 9.ISA 330“审计师对已评估风险的应对”9.CSA1231——针对评估的重大错报风险采取的应对措施 10.ISA 500“审计证据”10.CSA1301——审计证据 11.ISA501“审计证据——对选定项目的特殊考虑”11.CSA1311——对存货等特定项目获取审计证据的具体考虑 12.ISA 510“首次审计业务——期初余额”12.CSA1331——首次审计业务涉及的期初余额 13.ISA 520“分析程序”13.CSA1313——分析程序 14.ISA 530“审计抽样”14.CSA1314——审计抽样 15.ISA 560“期后事项”15.CSA1332——期后事项 16.ISA 570“持续经营”16.CSA1324——持续经营 17.ISA610“利用内部审计师的工作”17.CSA1411——利用内部审计师的工作 18.ISA 700“对财务报表形成审计意见和出具审计报告”18.CSA1501——对财务报表形成审计意见和出具审计报告 19.ISA 710“比较信息——对应数和可比财 务报表” 19.CSA1511——比较数据 20.ISA 720“审计师对含有已审计财务报表的文件中其他信息的责任”20.CSA1521——注册会计师对含有已审计财务报表的文件中的其他信息的责任 21.ISA 265“内部控制缺陷的沟通”21.CSA1153——向治理层和管理层通报内部控制缺陷 22.ISA 200“独立审计师的总体目标及根据国际审计准则执行审计”22.CSA1101——注册会计师的总体目标和按照审计准则执行审计工作的要求 23.ISA 260“与治理层的沟通”23.CSA1151——与治理层的沟通 24.ISA 320“计划和执行审计中的重要性”24.CSA1221——计划和执行审计工作时的重要性 25.ISA 402“对被审计单位使用第三方服务 机构的审计考虑” 25.CSA1212——对被审计单位使用服务机构的考虑 26.ISA 450“评价在审计中识别的错报26.CSA1241——评价审计过程中识别出的错报
国际审计准则 【颁布部门】 【颁布时间】1979-07-01 【效力属性】有效 【正文】 国际审计准则 引言 国际审计准则系由“国际会计师联合会”“国际审计实务委员会”所颁布。国际审计准则与美国公证执业会计师协会“职业道德规范”不同，并非必须执行标准。 国际审计准则序言（8000节）说明：某一特定国家内财务信息审计，由该国国内条例和说明所规定。国际审计准则条款，如应用于美国审计工作，就要由审计标准委员会专门通过。就这点而论，凡在国际审计准则发表时，应与美国公认审计标准相对比，研究其是否存在重大分歧。如无重大分歧，则按照美国公认审计标准审核财务信息，即已自动遵守国际审计准则。如有重大分歧，则审计标准委员会应及早加以考虑，以期取得协调。 国际审计实务委员会印行准则，列入美国会计师协会“职业标准”之内，同时指出：在国际审计准则与美国公认标准之间是不是有重大分歧。因此，如国际审计实务委员会所订准则，比之美国公认审计标准要求更高，或有相互矛盾之处，则在准则之后，加以附注，以说明此种情况。 ＡＵ8000节国际会计师联合会国际审计准则序言 1979年7月1日 国际审计准则这篇序言，是为了有助于理解国际审计实务委员会目标和工作程序，以及该委员会所发布准则范围和权威性而编写。本序言经国际会计师联合会理事会核准于1979年7月印发。本序言核准本由国际会计师联合会用英文出版。 ·01第一部分国际会计师联合会对国际审计实务委员会简介 1、国际会计师联合会（下文简称“联合会”）经63个会计团体代表49个国家签订协议，于1977年10月7日成立。该会章程第二条规定总目标是：“用统一标准来发展和加强会计专业全球协作”。 国际审计实务委员会
【法规名称】国际审计准则 【颁布部门】 【颁布时间】 1979-07-01 【效力属性】有效 【正文】 国际审计准则 引言 国际审计准则系由“国际会计师联合会”的“国际审计实务委员会”所颁布。国际审计准则与美国公证执业会计师协会的“职业道德规范”不同，并非必须执行的标准。 国际审计准则序言（8000节）说明：某一特定国家内的财务信息审计，由该国国内的条例和说明所规定。国际审计准则的条款，如应用于美国的审计工作，就要由审计标准委员会专门通过。就这点而论，凡在国际审计准则发表时，应与美国公认审计标准相对比，研究其是否存在重大分歧。如无重大分歧，则按照美国公认审计标准审核财务信息，即已自动遵守国际审计准则。如有重大分歧，则审计标准委员会应及早加以考虑，以期取得协调。 国际审计实务委员会印行的准则，列入美国会计师协会的“职业标准”之内，同时指出：在国际审计准则与美国公认标准之间是不是有重大分歧。因此，如国际审计实务委员会所订的准则，比之美国公认审计标准要求更高，或有相互矛盾之处，则在准则之后，加以附注，以说明此种情况。 ＡＵ8000节国际会计师联合会的国际审计准则序言 1979年7月1日 国际审计准则的这篇序言，是为了有助于理解国际审计实务委员会的目标和工作程序，以及该委员会所发布的准则的范围和权威性而编写的。本序言经国际会计师联合会理事会核准于1979年7月印发。本序言的核准本由国际会计师联合会用英文出版。 ·01第一部分国际会计师联合会对国际审计实务委员会的简介 1、国际会计师联合会（下文简称“联合会”）经63个会计团体代表49个国家签订协议，于1977年10月7日成立。该会章程第二条规定的总目标是：“用统一的标准来发展和加强会计专业的全球协作”。 国际审计实务委员会 2、国际审计实务委员会（下文简称“委员会”）是联合会的理事会所属的一个常设委员会。 3、委员会被授以特殊的责任和权力，代表理事会发布审计的草案和准则。 4、委员会的成员是由理事会推选的国家中的会员团体提名，到该委员会服务的。某一会员团
中国内部审计准则与国际内部审计 准则的比较与借鉴? 王光远严晖 【摘要】国际内部审计协会2009年对内部审计实务准则框架进行修订并重新颁布。我国内部审计准则于1999年开始制定，至今也取得了一定的成就。对二者进行系统比较研究是考察我国准则国际化程度及国家特色的必要基础，也是借鉴国际准则的前提。本文列示了比较研究后的结论：在基本概念、原则以及内容等方面，我国与国际准则是协调的。在经济性、效率性、效果性审计实务和重要性及审计风险等某些领域的规范上我国准则具有一定的先进性。但差距也是显而易见的，可以在以下四个方面借鉴国际准则进行改进：修改《基本准则》，借鉴“立场公告”，充实准则内容，强化准则委员会的监督职能。 【关键词】内部审计准则比较 21世纪是全球化的时代，全球化时代的经营和管理需要先进的理论及实务，内部审计理论及实务也必然走向全球的协调与共享。国际内部审计协会（the Institute of Internal Auditors，简称IIA）的内部审计国际实务准则框架（the International Professional Practices Framwork，简称IPPF）是内部审计规范体系的标杆，IIA致力于在全世界推广IPPF。我国内部审计准则制定伊始至今已整十年，取得了有目共睹的成就。中国内部审计准则与国际最先进、最权威的国际内部审计准则体系相比有何异同？本文对二者进行了系统深入的分析与比较。 一、我国内部审计准则与IIA内部审计国际实务准则在重大方面是一致的 （一）IPPF与我国内部审计准则所基于的概念及原则内涵基本一致 “独立性与客观性”、“系统化与规范化的方法”、“增加组织价值”等贯穿IPPF的基本概念在我国内部审计准则体系中得到了很好的体现。我国已颁布的第22号具体准则《内部审计的独立性与客观性》对独立性与客观性进行了详细规范，其基本理念与IPPF完全相同，准确地定位了内部审计机构的独立性与内部审计人员的客观性，并强调内部审计人员应当主动进行“客观性管理”，该准则解决了内部审计角色定位的问题。另外，我国颁布的29项具体准则已相对完整地涵盖了内部审计方法技术，体现着方法的“系统化与规范化”，同时也遵循着制定准则的基本原则——“防弊、兴利与增值的共存”，体现了“增值”的特点。 “确认与咨询”的职能虽然与我国的“监督与评价”有差异，但我国内部审计准则的具体内容实际上并没有排斥“确认与咨询”职能，反而越发显出其特点。“确认”是监督与评价的实现方式，而“咨询”则是评价职能的“副产品”——即由评价后针对问题提出的建议单独划出演变而来。我国具体准则在咨询服务方面也有重大推进。21号准则提出的控制自我评估法以及25－27号准则的经济性、效果性、效率性的审查和评价都是典型的“确认与咨询混合式服务”。因此，虽然在我国内部审计定义未出现“咨询”字眼，但实质已将其隐含于评价之中。随着内部审计活动的发展，我国准则也将更多涉及混合式服务或单纯的咨询服务的规范。至于“监督”职能，是针对查错防弊目标所需要的职能。查错防弊是内部审计的传统目标，而现阶段我国与西方社会层出不穷的贪污舞弊充分说明了这一目标并未过时。因此，“监督”职能 ?王光远、严晖，厦门大学管理学院会计系，邮政编码：361005，电子信箱：wgyxm@https://www.doczj.com/doc/8c11535659.html,。感谢审计署内部审计科研立项课题“中外内部审计准则比较研究”（批准号：0702）的资助。