You are the Engagement Quality Control Reviewer in the firm ABC LLP and you are responsible for the independent review of all audits. It is March 1st, 2017, you are reviewing the audit working papers and draft audited financial statements of HOLLYWOOD TIRES (HT), a private company, for the year-end December 31, 2016, and the recommended auditor’s report (an unqualified opinion) dated February 28, 2017.Your firm has audited HT for several years. The 2016 year-end audit was conducted in the two-month period from mid-December 2016 to mid-February 2017. The audit team consisted of the partner, an audit manager and two staff members, a senior auditor, who has been involved with the audit of HT for several years, and a newly hired junior auditor.The following is some key information from HT’s draft audited financial statements:Sales: $50,000,000Net income: $500,000Inventory: $10,000,000Total Assets: $60,000,000Total Liabilities: $40,000,000After reviewing the audit file, you select to compose a memo to the engagement partner, with a copy to the managing partner of the firm, expressing your concerns and what needs to be done before you are prepared to sign off on the engagement Below are the relevant excerpts from the audit files used to draft your memo:Excerpts from Audit Working PapersAccounts ReceivableAccounts receivable confirmations were sent to 30 customers, which represented 75% of the accounts receivable balance. The following discrepancies were noted in the audit file: Trans Auto Inc. indicated that they are disputing the $40,000 owing to HT as the tires they received were defective. The audit senior agreed the amounts owing to the invoices, shipping documents, and customer orders and found no discrepancies. The audit senior concluded that no adjustment was required. Automotive Parts Inc. indicated that they are in a state of financial difficulty and they would like to re-negotiate the terms for the payment of their $35,000 balance. Based upon this reply, the audit senior concluded that this amount was likely uncollectable and should be provided for in the allowance for doubtful accounts. The proposed adjustment of $35,000 was included in the summary of possible misstatements.InventoryThe inventory count was performed at the main warehouse in Ontario, where 75% of the inventory is held. Inventory during the count was well organized and all items in the warehouse were appropriately tagged. Inventory counters were working in pairs to ensure the accuracy of the count. Inventory Test CountsWe selected a random sample of 40 different products from the inventory listing and performed a test count on each of those items. All of the test counts agreed to the count sheets except for the following two discrepancies:Product: Winter tires# items per auditor: 44# items per count: 45Product: All season# items per auditor: 33# items per count: 36Upon discussion with the warehouse manager these discrepancies are a result of one particular counter who had been assigned to count the tire inventory and was continuously making errors. Tires are organized by model and are stored in five-tiered shelving racks that hold 9 tires per row. The warehouse manager has since replaced this particular counter. No further audit work is required.Selected a sample of 40 items from the inventory floor and performed a test count on each of these items. All items tested agreed to the count conducted by the counter.Pricing and Compilation TestingPrice tests were performed on the items selected during the count. Each item was agreed to the supplier invoice and no discrepancies were noted. As tires do not have an expiration date, obsolescence is not an issue; therefore, net realizable value testing was not necessary. Based upon the work perform, we conclude inventory is fairly statedREQUIRED1) Identify and explain two major deficiencies in the work performed in theaccounts receivable testing. Provide recommendations regarding further actions and/or audit procedures.a) Deficiency identified (Case Fact):b) Explanation of the nature of the deficiency (Use GAAS requirements and/or assertions as a basis for your explanation):c) Recommendation (Auditor action or further procedure(s) to be performed prior to the issuance of the unqualified audit report):
The post You are the Engagement Quality Control Reviewer in the firm ABC appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.