Printer Friendly

Materiality in planning and performing an audit.

Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit supersedes SAS No. 107, Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 312).
CONTENTS

Introduction
Scope of This Statement on Auditing
 Standards/1-6
Effective Date/7
Objective/8
Definition/9
Requirements
Determining Materiality and Performance
 Materiality When Planning the Audit/10-11
Revision as the Audit Progresses/12-13
Documentation/14
Application and Other Explanatory Material
Materiality and Audit Risk/A1
Performance Materiality/A2
Determining Materiality and Performance
 Materiality When Planning the Audit/A3-A14
Revision as the Audit Progresses/A15-A16


INTRODUCTION

Scope of This Statement on Auditing Standards

1. This Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) addresses the auditor's responsibility to apply the concept of materiality in planning and performing an audit of financial statements. The clarified SAS Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit explains how materiality is applied in evaluating the effect of identified misstatements on the audit and the effect of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements.

Materiality in the Context of an Audit

2. Financial reporting frameworks often discuss the concept of materiality in the context of the preparation and presentation of financial statements. Although financial reporting frameworks may discuss materiality in different terms, they generally explain that

* misstatements, including omissions, are considered to be material if they, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users made on the basis of the financial statements.

* judgments about materiality are made in light of surrounding circumstances and are affected by the size or nature of a misstatement, or a combination of both.

* judgments about matters that are material to users of the financial statements are based on a consideration of the common financial information needs of users as a group. The possible effect of misstatements on specific individual users, whose needs may vary widely, is not considered.

3. Such a discussion about materiality provides a frame of reference to the auditor in determining materiality for the audit. If the applicable financial reporting framework does not include a discussion of the concept of materiality, the characteristics referred to in paragraph 2 provide the auditor with such a frame of reference.

4. The auditor's determination of materiality is a matter of professional judgment and is affected by the auditor's perception of the financial information needs of users of the financial statements. In this context, it is reasonable for the auditor to assume that users

a. have a reasonable knowledge of business and economic activities and accounting and a willingness to study the information in the financial statements with reasonable diligence;

b. understand that financial statements are prepared, presented, and audited to levels of materiality;

c. recognize the uncertainties inherent in the measurement of amounts based on the use of estimates, judgment, and the consideration of future events; and

d. make reasonable economic decisions on the basis of the information in the financial statements.

5. The concept of materiality is applied by the auditor both in planning and performing the audit; evaluating the effect of identified misstatements on the audit and the effect of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements; and in forming the opinion in the auditor's report. (Ref: par. A1)

6. In planning the audit, the auditor makes judgments about the size of misstatements that will be considered material. These judgments provide a basis for

a. determining the nature and extent of risk assessment procedures;

b. identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement; and

c. determining the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures.

The materiality determined when planning the audit does not necessarily establish an amount below which uncorrected misstatements, individually or in the aggregate, will always be evaluated as immaterial. The circumstances related to some misstatements may cause the auditor to evaluate them as material even if they are below materiality Although it is not practicable to design audit procedures to detect misstatements that could be material solely because of their nature (that is, qualitative considerations), the auditor considers not only the size but also the nature of uncorrected misstatements, and the particular circumstances of their occurrence, when evaluating their effect on the financial statements. (1)

Effective Date

7. This SAS is effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2010. (2)

OBJECTIVE

8. The objective of the auditor is to apply the concept of materiality appropriately in planning and performing the audit.

DEFINITION

9. For purposes of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), performance materiality means the amount or amounts set by the auditor at less than materiality for the financial statements as a whole to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds materiality for the financial statements as a whole. If applicable, performance materiality also refers to the amount or amounts set by the auditor at less than the materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures. Performance materiality is to be distinguished from tolerable misstatement. (Ref: par. A2)

REQUIREMENTS

Determining Materiality and Performance Materiality When Planning the Audit

10. When establishing the overall audit strategy, the auditor should determine materiality for the financial statements as a whole. If, in the specific circumstances of the entity, one or more particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures exist for which misstatements of lesser amounts than materiality for the financial statements as a whole could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users, then, taken on the basis of the financial statements, the auditor also should determine the materiality level or levels to be applied to those particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures. (Ref: par. A3-A13)

11. The auditor should determine performance materiality for purposes of assessing the risks of material misstatement and determining the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. (Ref: par. A14)

Revision as the Audit Progresses

12. The auditor should revise materiality for the financial statements as a whole (and, if applicable, the materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures) in the event of becoming aware of information during the audit that would have caused the auditor to have determined a different amount (or amounts) initially (Ref: par. A15-A16).

13. If the auditor concludes that a lower materiality than that initially determined for the financial statements as a whole (and, if applicable, materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures) is appropriate, the auditor should determine whether it is necessary to revise performance materiality and whether the nature, timing, and extent of the further audit procedures remain appropriate.

DOCUMENTATION

14. The auditor should include in the audit documentation the following amounts and the factors considered in their determination:

a. Materiality for the financial statements as a whole (see paragraph 10)

b. If applicable, the materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures (see paragraph 10)

c. Performance materiality (see paragraph 11)

d. Any revision of (a)-(c) as the audit progressed (see paragraphs 12-13)

APPLICATION AND OTHER EXPLANATORY MATERIAL

Materiality and Audit Risk (Ref: par. 5)

A1. In conducting an audit of financial statements, the overall objectives of the auditor are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, thereby enabling the auditor to express an opinion on whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework and to report on the financial statements and communicate, as required by GAAS, in accordance with the auditor's findings. (3) The auditor obtains reasonable assurance by obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level. (4) Audit risk is the risk that the auditor expresses an inappropriate audit opinion when the financial statements are materially misstated. Audit risk is a function of the risks of material misstatement and detection risk. (5) Materiality and audit risk are considered throughout the audit, in particular, when

a. determining the nature and extent of risk assessment procedures to be performed;

b. identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement; (6)

c. determining the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures; (7) and

d. evaluating the effect of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements (8) and in forming the opinion in the auditor's report.

Performance Materiality (Ref: par. 9)

A2. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality to a particular sampling procedure. The proposed SAS Audit Sampling (Redrafted) (9) defines and provides further application guidance about the concept of tolerable misstatement.

Determining Materiality and Performance Materiality When Planning the Audit

Considerations Specific to Governmental Entities (Ref: par. 10)

A3. In the case of a governmental entity, legislators and regulators are often the primary users of its financial statements. Furthermore, the financial statements may be used to make decisions other than economic decisions. The determination of materiality for the financial statements as a whole (and, if applicable, materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures) in an audit of the financial statements of a governmental entity, therefore, may be influenced by law or regulation.

A4. For most state or local governments, a governmental entity's applicable financial reporting framework is based on multiple reporting units, and generally, the auditor expresses or disclaims an opinion on a government's financial statements as a whole by providing opinions or disclaimers of opinion on each opinion unit. That is, a state or local governmental entity's applicable financial reporting framework requires the presentation of financial statements for its varied activities in various reporting units. Consequently, a reporting unit, or aggregation of reporting units, of the governmental entity represents an opinion unit to the auditor. Accordingly, in these cases, materiality is established for each opinion unit.

Use of Benchmarks in Determining Materiality (Ref: par. 10)

A5. Determining materiality involves the exercise of professional judgment. A percentage is often applied to a chosen benchmark as a starting point in determining materiality for the financial statements as a whole. Factors that may affect the identification of an appropriate benchmark include the following:

* The elements of the financial statements (for example, assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, or expenses)

* Whether items exist on which the attention of the users of the particular entity's financial statements tends to be focused (for example, for the purpose of evaluating financial performance, users may tend to focus on profit, revenue, or net assets)

* The nature of the entity, where the entity is in its life cycle, and the industry and economic environment in which the entity operates

* The entity's ownership structure and the way it is financed (for example, if an entity is financed solely by debt rather than equity, users may put more emphasis on assets, and claims on them, than on the entity's earnings)

* The relative volatility of the benchmark

A6. Examples of benchmarks that may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the entity, include categories of reported income, such as profit before tax, total revenue, gross profit, and total expenses; total equity; or net asset value. Profit before tax from continuing operations is often used for profit-oriented entities. When profit before tax from continuing operations is volatile, other benchmarks may be more appropriate, such as gross profit or total revenues.

A7. In relation to the chosen benchmark, relevant financial data ordinarily includes prior periods' financial results and financial positions; the period-to-date financial results and financial position, budgets, or forecasts for the current period, adjusted for significant changes in the circumstances of the entity (for example, a significant business acquisition); and relevant changes of conditions in the industry or economic environment in which the entity operates. For example, when, as a starting point, materiality for the financial statements as a whole is determined for a particular entity based on a percentage of profit before tax from continuing operations, circumstances that give rise to an exceptional decrease or increase in such profit may lead the auditor to conclude that materiality for the financial statements as a whole is more appropriately determined using a normalized profit before tax from continuing operations figure based on past results.

A8. Materiality relates to the financial statements that are being audited. When the financial statements are prepared for a financial reporting period of more or less than 12 months, such as may be the case for a new entity or a change in the financial reporting period, materiality relates to the financial statements prepared for that financial reporting period.

A9. Determining a percentage to be applied to a chosen benchmark involves the exercise of professional judgment. A relationship exists between the percentage and the chosen benchmark, such that a percentage applied to profit before tax from continuing operations will normally be higher than a percentage applied to total revenue. For example, the auditor may consider a percentage of profit before tax from continuing operations to be appropriate for a profit-oriented entity in a manufacturing industry. Chapter 3 of the AICPA Audit Guide Assessing and Responding to Audit Risk in a Financial Statement Audit provides further guidance about the use of benchmarks in determining materiality

Considerations Specific to Smaller, Less Complex Entities

A10. When an entity's profit before tax from continuing operations is consistently nominal, which might be the case for an owner-managed business m which the owner takes much of the profit before tax in the form of remuneration, a benchmark, such as profit before remuneration and tax, may be more relevant.

Considerations Specific to Governmental Entities

All. In an audit of a governmental entity, total cost or net cost (expenses less revenues or expenditures less receipts) may be appropriate benchmarks for program activities. When a governmental entity has custody of public assets, assets may be an appropriate benchmark.

Materiality Level or Levels for Particular Classes of Transactions, Account Balances, or Disclosures (Ref: par. 10)

A12. Factors that may indicate the existence of one or more particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures for which misstatements of lesser amounts than materiality for the financial statements as a whole could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements include the following:

* Whether law, regulations, or the applicable financial reporting framework affect users' expectations regarding the measurement or disclosure of certain items (for example, related party transactions and the remuneration of management and those charged with governance)

* The key disclosures in relation to the industry in which the entity operates (for example, research and development costs for a pharmaceutical company)

* Whether attention is focused on a particular aspect of the entity's business that is separately disclosed in the financial statements (for example, a newly acquired business)

A13. In considering whether, in the specific circumstances of the entity, such classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures exist, the auditor may find it useful to obtain an understanding of the views and expectations of those charged with governance and management.

Performance Materiality (Ref: par. 11)

A14. Planning the audit solely to detect individual material misstatements overlooks the fact that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial statements to be materially misstated and leaves no margin for possible undetected misstatements. Performance materiality (which, as defined, is one or more amounts) is set to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements in the financial statements exceeds materiality for the financial statements as a whole. Similarly, performance materiality relating to a materiality level determined for a particular class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure is set to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements in that particular class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure exceeds the materiality level for that particular class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure. The determination of performance materiality is not a simple mechanical calculation and involves the exercise of professional judgment. It is affected by the auditor's understanding of the entity, updated during the performance of the risk assessment procedures, and the nature and extent of misstatements identified in previous audits and, thereby, the auditor's expectations in relation to misstatements in the current period.

Revision as the Audit Progresses (Ref: par. 12)

A15. In some situations, the auditor may determine materiality for planning purposes before the financial statements to be audited are prepared. In those situations, the auditor's judgment about materiality might be based on the entity's annualized interim financial statements or financial statements of one or more prior annual periods. If it appears as though the actual financial results are likely to be substantially different from the anticipated results, such as when there are major changes in the entity's circumstances (for example, a significant merger) or relevant changes in the economy as a whole or the industry in which the entity operates, the auditor may be required, in accordance with paragraph 12, to revise materiality.

A16. Materiality for the financial statements as a whole (and, if applicable, the materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures) may need to be revised as a result of a change in circumstances that occurred during the audit (for example, a decision to dispose of a major part of the entity's business), new information, or a change in the auditor's understanding of the entity and its operations as a result of performing further audit procedures. For example, if, during the audit, it appears as though actual financial results are likely to be substantially different from the anticipated period-end financial results that were used initially to determine materiality for the financial statements as a whole, the auditor may be required, in accordance with paragraph 12, to revise materiality

(1.) Paragraph A23 of the clarified Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit.

(2.) This date is provisional but will not be earlier than December 15, 2010.

(3.) Paragraph 11 of the clarified SAS Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

(4.) Paragraph 17 of the clarified SAS Overall Objectives of the independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

(5.) Paragraph 13 of the clarified SAS Overall Objectives of the independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

(6.) Clarified SAS Understanding the Entity and its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement (Redrafted).

(7.) Clarified SAS Performing Audit Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks and Evaluating the Audit Evidence Obtained (Redrafted).

(8.) Paragraph 11 of the clarified SAS Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit.

(9.) Paragraph A6 of the proposed SAS Audit Sampling (Redrafted),
COPYRIGHT 2010 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Date:Apr 1, 2010
Words:3137
Previous Article:Statement on auditing standards overall objectives of the independent auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with generally accepted...
Next Article:Understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risks of material misstatement (redrafted).
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2015 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters