Question: Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP,
Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP, is engaged to perform the annual audit of Hooplah, Inc., for the year ending December 31, 2017. Hooplah is a privately-held company that sells electronics components to companies that manufacture various appliances. The company hires a public accounting firm to provide an audit of its financial statements in order to get favorable terms on its bank loans. Your firm has audited Hooplah for the past three years. For the current audit engagement, your team has already performed most of the audit work; however, there are a few loose ends for you to tie up. Portions of Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy relating to audit sampling are provided to assist you in completing the procedures.
AUDIT SAMPLING
Audit sampling is commonly applied in performing tests of controls and tests of details. Audit sampling involves the application of audit procedures to less than 100 percent of the items in a population of audit relevance, selected in such a way that the auditor expects the sample to be representative of the population and thus likely to provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population. A sample is usually selected either randomly (using some form of random-number generator) or haphazardly (where the auditor attempts to select items randomly but without using a formal random-number generator).
Auditors often use sampling approaches that involve formal statistical theories and principles, similar to those you may have learned in an introductory statistics class. Statistical sampling applications require the use of random selection, based on a formal random-number generator (such as the one built in to Microsoft Excel or audit software such as ACL). Auditing standards also allow auditors to use “non-statistical†sampling approaches. Non-statistical audit sampling approaches are based on a foundation of statistical principles, but allow certain departures from formal statistics in order to simplify the auditor’s task. One such simplification is that non- statistical sampling allows the use of haphazard selection of the items to be examined.
When an auditor examines only a sample instead of all of the items in the population, an element of uncertainty enters into the auditor’s conclusions. This uncertainty, referred to as sampling risk, is due to the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the population and that as a result the auditor will reach an incorrect conclusion about the population. It is crucial that sampling risk be taken into account when evaluating the results of any audit procedures that involve sampling.
Sampling approaches also differ depending on the nature of the items the auditor is examining and the objectives of the auditor. Depending on the method of sampling used, different formulas and tables are available to help you determine the number of items to include in the sample.This case has two parts. In Part A you will be asked to use statistical attribute sampling for testing controls. In Part B you will use non-statistical substantive sampling for testing accounts receivable.
PART A Tests of Controls
Before beginning substantive tests for accounts receivable, you and Darrell need to perform tests of important controls over the revenue process to justify the preliminary control risk assessment of low control risk and to determine whether a reliance approach is appropriate for substantive testing. You have decided to test three controls in Hooplah’s revenue process:
1. Sales are properly authorized for credit approval.
2. Sales are reviewed by the sales manager to ensure that they are properly priced.
3. Credit memos for sales returns are properly authorized once all goods have been returned.
Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling guidance for testing controls is based on attribute sampling. In testing the operating effectiveness of controls you are interested in determining the likely “deviation rate,†or the rate at which a control is not properly operating. Testing controls to measure the deviation rate provides evidence about whether the control is operating effectively an acceptably high percentage of the time and helps the auditor determine whether or not the control can be relied upon. Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table for attribute sampling can be found in Appendix A. Use the table to determine the appropriate sample size for tests of controls given a specified tolerable deviation rate and estimated deviation rate. Garrett and Schulzke’s controls testing sampling policy indicates that to place high reliance on controls (i.e., to support a low level of remaining control risk) the test must be performed at a high level of assurance, which they define as 95 percent confidence. Thus, only the sample size table associated with 95 percent confidence is provided. In addition to the sample size table, an evaluation table is provided in Appendix A that will help you determine the computed upper deviation rate for the control given the number of detected deviations and the sample size used. The computed upper deviation rate is the sum of the sample deviation rate and an appropriate allowance for sampling risk. In other words, it represents the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for the deviation rate in the population. If the computed upper deviation rate indicated is greater than the tolerable deviation rate for the control, the auditor should not rely on the control.
In order to determine the appropriate sample size for your tests, the importance of the control to be tested needs to be assessed. Garrett and Schulzke’s policy indicates that any controls the auditor might consider relying on are either “highly important†or “moderately important.†According to the firm’s policies, a deviation rate of only four percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “highly important,†while a tolerable deviation rate of eight percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “moderately important.†Some “tolerance†for error must always exist when using audit sampling because sampling involves sampling risk. The higher the tolerable deviation rate, the lower the sample size.
Based on your knowledge of Hoopla’s systems, you decide that the first two controls are moderately important, and that the third control is highly important. The other input needed to determine sample size is the estimated population deviation rate. Based on past experience with the client and considering historical rates, you determine that the estimated population deviation rates for the three controls are one percent, two percent, and zero percent, respectively.1
Darrell decided that since all sales pass through the first two controls and since the tolerable deviation rate for those controls is the same, he could be more efficient by using the same sample of transactions to test both controls. He randomly chose 58 sales transactions and tested the documentation for evidence of proper credit approval and review of pricing by the sales manager. After finding only one exception for the first control and two exceptions for the second control, Darrell concluded that both controls are operating effectively.
Now that Darrell has tested the first two controls, you need to test the third one before moving on to substantive testing.
REQUIRED
[1] Evaluate the appropriateness of Darrell’s conclusions relating to the first two controls:
[a] Is it acceptable to use the same set of transactions and the same sample size to test two different controls?
[b] Do you agree with Darrell’s conclusions with respect to these first two controls? If not, why not? In evaluating Darrell’s conclusions, you may wish to refer to the attribute sampling evaluation table available in Appendix A.
[c] What additional work, if any, is necessary to support his assessment that both controls are operating effectively?
[2] Evaluate each of the following questions independently:
[a] Referring to Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table (Appendix A), determine an appropriate sample size for the test of the control relating to authorization of credit memos.
[b] Regardless of your answer to question [a], assume that Darrell randomly selected a sample of 75 credit memo packages, each of which contains a credit memo with a matching receiving report and inventory warehouse receipt, and has reviewed all but the last five credit memo packages and found no exceptions. Each credit memo authorizing a customer refund or reduction in the amount owed due to the return of goods should be authorized by Brian Thompson, the accounting supervisor over accounts receivable. When a customer wants to return unwanted or defective product, they go to Hooplah’s website and download a “Customer Return Report†and fill in their information as well as a description and quantity of goods being returned. Chris Jacobs in the receiving department at Hooplah uses the Customer Return Report as the receiving report when the shipment comes in, and Felix Katt counts and inspects the goods to make sure they’re all in good condition.The goods are then transferred back to Jed Baxter in the warehouse, who issues an “Inventory Receipt.†Once the Inventory Receipt is attached to the Customer Return Report, the documents are forwarded to Brian so that he can approve a credit memo. Brian examines the Customer Return Report and the Inventory Receipt to ensure that credit is only authorized when goods have been received and for the quantity actually received. He then documents his authorization by marking his initials on the credit memo. You have agreed to help Darrell by examining the remaining five credit memo packages. You will find the last five credit memo packages at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. Examine these documents for Brian Thompson’s initials indicating the memos were approved (for this question, just focus on his initials for audit evidence that the control is operating effectively) and then evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[3] In question 2[b] you gathered evidence on the operation of the control by examining the five credit memos for Brian’s initials. While this provides some evidence of control, higher quality evidence that the control is actually operating effectively can be obtained by reperforming Brian’s control procedure. This would be done by verifying that each credit memo is supported by a Customer Return Report and Inventory Receipt and that the quantity and description of goods on the credit memo is supported by the quantity and description on the supporting documents. If Brian’s initials are on the credit memo, but the quantity or description of goods on the memo is not consistent with the quantity and description on the supporting documents, this would be considered a control deviation. Assume Darrell reperformed the control for the first 70 credit memo packages and found no exceptions.
[a] Reperform the control for the remaining five credit memo packages and evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[b] If you came to a different conclusion in 2[b] and 3[a], which conclusion is more supportable and why?
[4] Assuming the controls testing is not expanded to provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of the controls tested, what are the implications of the controls testing in question 3[a] with respect to the nature, timing, and extent of substantive evidence that must be gathered to support the fairness of the accounts receivable balance?
Tests of Details PART B
Regardless of what you found in Part A, for Part B assume that you are able to place moderate reliance on the controls tested and that you have already obtained some substantive evidence supporting the fairness of accounts receivable from substantive analytical procedures. While you have already obtained some assurance regarding the fairness of the ending accounts receivable balance, you do not yet have sufficient evidence given the size of accounts receivable and the remaining risk of misstatement. You plan to request that some of Hooplah’s customers confirm their accounts receivable balance directly to you. In the prior year’s audit, aggregate misstatements of less than 0.5% of the accounts receivable balance were discovered via customer confirmation testing. The few misstatements that were found were promptly corrected by Hooplah.
The current-year information that follows will help you in determining the nature and extent of detail testing in order to have sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the fairness of the accounts receivable balance.
Current Year Information:
Net income = $9 million Total assets = $85 million
Total accounts receivable = $12,881,551
Accounts receivable greater than 90 days past due = $2 million Tolerable misstatement for accounts receivable = $400,000
In most cases, the selection of items to be detail tested is based on two approaches, which can be used singly or in combination to achieve the desired level of assurance with respect to the population being tested:
1 - Directed Testing 2 - Audit sampling
Directed testing, also known as “targeted testing†or “key item testing,†is a technique that involves selecting items to examine based on a particular characteristic of interest such as size or risk. Unlike audit sampling, the items are not randomly (or haphazardly) selected. Instead, selection is “directed†or “targeted†based on a particular characteristic.Thus, directed testing is not considered “sampling†per se, because the subset of selected items is not expected to be representative of the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy requires that teams direct test all individual items in the account that are greater than tolerable misstatement. Thus, even if the auditor intends to perform audit sampling to test an account (e.g., accounts receivable), the auditor must first examine all items (e.g., individual customer accounts) that are individually greater than tolerable misstatement.
After testing all such items, it is often appropriate to expand the directed testing to specifically select relatively high risk items, if such items can be identified. The auditor may also expand directed testing to select relatively large items other than those that are larger than tolerable misstatement in order to achieve “coverage†of a higher dollar percentage of the total account. Selection criteria for directed testing can include a combination of risk and size components. Expanding the number of items examined in directed testing can often provide sufficient assurance in combination with the assurance already obtained from other audit procedures (e.g., risk assessment, controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, testing in related accounts, etc.). In such cases, the use of an audit sampling approach is unnecessary.
Garrett and Schulzke’s substantive audit sampling policy uses a nonstatistical sampling approach. Items are selected from the population either randomly or haphazardly, at the auditor’s discretion. To determine the appropriate sample size, the firm provides the following formula:
![Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP, is engaged to perform the annual audit of Hooplah, Inc., for the year ending December 31, 2017. Hooplah is a privately-held company that sells electronics components to companies that manufacture various appliances. The company hires a public accounting firm to provide an audit of its financial statements in order to get favorable terms on its bank loans. Your firm has audited Hooplah for the past three years. For the current audit engagement, your team has already performed most of the audit work; however, there are a few loose ends for you to tie up. Portions of Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy relating to audit sampling are provided to assist you in completing the procedures.
AUDIT SAMPLING
Audit sampling is commonly applied in performing tests of controls and tests of details. Audit sampling involves the application of audit procedures to less than 100 percent of the items in a population of audit relevance, selected in such a way that the auditor expects the sample to be representative of the population and thus likely to provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population. A sample is usually selected either randomly (using some form of random-number generator) or haphazardly (where the auditor attempts to select items randomly but without using a formal random-number generator).
Auditors often use sampling approaches that involve formal statistical theories and principles, similar to those you may have learned in an introductory statistics class. Statistical sampling applications require the use of random selection, based on a formal random-number generator (such as the one built in to Microsoft Excel or audit software such as ACL). Auditing standards also allow auditors to use “non-statistical” sampling approaches. Non-statistical audit sampling approaches are based on a foundation of statistical principles, but allow certain departures from formal statistics in order to simplify the auditor’s task. One such simplification is that non- statistical sampling allows the use of haphazard selection of the items to be examined.
When an auditor examines only a sample instead of all of the items in the population, an element of uncertainty enters into the auditor’s conclusions. This uncertainty, referred to as sampling risk, is due to the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the population and that as a result the auditor will reach an incorrect conclusion about the population. It is crucial that sampling risk be taken into account when evaluating the results of any audit procedures that involve sampling.
Sampling approaches also differ depending on the nature of the items the auditor is examining and the objectives of the auditor. Depending on the method of sampling used, different formulas and tables are available to help you determine the number of items to include in the sample.This case has two parts. In Part A you will be asked to use statistical attribute sampling for testing controls. In Part B you will use non-statistical substantive sampling for testing accounts receivable.
PART A Tests of Controls
Before beginning substantive tests for accounts receivable, you and Darrell need to perform tests of important controls over the revenue process to justify the preliminary control risk assessment of low control risk and to determine whether a reliance approach is appropriate for substantive testing. You have decided to test three controls in Hooplah’s revenue process:
1. Sales are properly authorized for credit approval.
2. Sales are reviewed by the sales manager to ensure that they are properly priced.
3. Credit memos for sales returns are properly authorized once all goods have been returned.
Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling guidance for testing controls is based on attribute sampling. In testing the operating effectiveness of controls you are interested in determining the likely “deviation rate,” or the rate at which a control is not properly operating. Testing controls to measure the deviation rate provides evidence about whether the control is operating effectively an acceptably high percentage of the time and helps the auditor determine whether or not the control can be relied upon. Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table for attribute sampling can be found in Appendix A. Use the table to determine the appropriate sample size for tests of controls given a specified tolerable deviation rate and estimated deviation rate. Garrett and Schulzke’s controls testing sampling policy indicates that to place high reliance on controls (i.e., to support a low level of remaining control risk) the test must be performed at a high level of assurance, which they define as 95 percent confidence. Thus, only the sample size table associated with 95 percent confidence is provided. In addition to the sample size table, an evaluation table is provided in Appendix A that will help you determine the computed upper deviation rate for the control given the number of detected deviations and the sample size used. The computed upper deviation rate is the sum of the sample deviation rate and an appropriate allowance for sampling risk. In other words, it represents the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for the deviation rate in the population. If the computed upper deviation rate indicated is greater than the tolerable deviation rate for the control, the auditor should not rely on the control.
In order to determine the appropriate sample size for your tests, the importance of the control to be tested needs to be assessed. Garrett and Schulzke’s policy indicates that any controls the auditor might consider relying on are either “highly important” or “moderately important.” According to the firm’s policies, a deviation rate of only four percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “highly important,” while a tolerable deviation rate of eight percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “moderately important.” Some “tolerance” for error must always exist when using audit sampling because sampling involves sampling risk. The higher the tolerable deviation rate, the lower the sample size.
Based on your knowledge of Hoopla’s systems, you decide that the first two controls are moderately important, and that the third control is highly important. The other input needed to determine sample size is the estimated population deviation rate. Based on past experience with the client and considering historical rates, you determine that the estimated population deviation rates for the three controls are one percent, two percent, and zero percent, respectively.1
Darrell decided that since all sales pass through the first two controls and since the tolerable deviation rate for those controls is the same, he could be more efficient by using the same sample of transactions to test both controls. He randomly chose 58 sales transactions and tested the documentation for evidence of proper credit approval and review of pricing by the sales manager. After finding only one exception for the first control and two exceptions for the second control, Darrell concluded that both controls are operating effectively.
Now that Darrell has tested the first two controls, you need to test the third one before moving on to substantive testing.
REQUIRED
[1] Evaluate the appropriateness of Darrell’s conclusions relating to the first two controls:
[a] Is it acceptable to use the same set of transactions and the same sample size to test two different controls?
[b] Do you agree with Darrell’s conclusions with respect to these first two controls? If not, why not? In evaluating Darrell’s conclusions, you may wish to refer to the attribute sampling evaluation table available in Appendix A.
[c] What additional work, if any, is necessary to support his assessment that both controls are operating effectively?
[2] Evaluate each of the following questions independently:
[a] Referring to Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table (Appendix A), determine an appropriate sample size for the test of the control relating to authorization of credit memos.
[b] Regardless of your answer to question [a], assume that Darrell randomly selected a sample of 75 credit memo packages, each of which contains a credit memo with a matching receiving report and inventory warehouse receipt, and has reviewed all but the last five credit memo packages and found no exceptions. Each credit memo authorizing a customer refund or reduction in the amount owed due to the return of goods should be authorized by Brian Thompson, the accounting supervisor over accounts receivable. When a customer wants to return unwanted or defective product, they go to Hooplah’s website and download a “Customer Return Report” and fill in their information as well as a description and quantity of goods being returned. Chris Jacobs in the receiving department at Hooplah uses the Customer Return Report as the receiving report when the shipment comes in, and Felix Katt counts and inspects the goods to make sure they’re all in good condition.The goods are then transferred back to Jed Baxter in the warehouse, who issues an “Inventory Receipt.” Once the Inventory Receipt is attached to the Customer Return Report, the documents are forwarded to Brian so that he can approve a credit memo. Brian examines the Customer Return Report and the Inventory Receipt to ensure that credit is only authorized when goods have been received and for the quantity actually received. He then documents his authorization by marking his initials on the credit memo. You have agreed to help Darrell by examining the remaining five credit memo packages. You will find the last five credit memo packages at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. Examine these documents for Brian Thompson’s initials indicating the memos were approved (for this question, just focus on his initials for audit evidence that the control is operating effectively) and then evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[3] In question 2[b] you gathered evidence on the operation of the control by examining the five credit memos for Brian’s initials. While this provides some evidence of control, higher quality evidence that the control is actually operating effectively can be obtained by reperforming Brian’s control procedure. This would be done by verifying that each credit memo is supported by a Customer Return Report and Inventory Receipt and that the quantity and description of goods on the credit memo is supported by the quantity and description on the supporting documents. If Brian’s initials are on the credit memo, but the quantity or description of goods on the memo is not consistent with the quantity and description on the supporting documents, this would be considered a control deviation. Assume Darrell reperformed the control for the first 70 credit memo packages and found no exceptions.
[a] Reperform the control for the remaining five credit memo packages and evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[b] If you came to a different conclusion in 2[b] and 3[a], which conclusion is more supportable and why?
[4] Assuming the controls testing is not expanded to provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of the controls tested, what are the implications of the controls testing in question 3[a] with respect to the nature, timing, and extent of substantive evidence that must be gathered to support the fairness of the accounts receivable balance?
Tests of Details PART B
Regardless of what you found in Part A, for Part B assume that you are able to place moderate reliance on the controls tested and that you have already obtained some substantive evidence supporting the fairness of accounts receivable from substantive analytical procedures. While you have already obtained some assurance regarding the fairness of the ending accounts receivable balance, you do not yet have sufficient evidence given the size of accounts receivable and the remaining risk of misstatement. You plan to request that some of Hooplah’s customers confirm their accounts receivable balance directly to you. In the prior year’s audit, aggregate misstatements of less than 0.5% of the accounts receivable balance were discovered via customer confirmation testing. The few misstatements that were found were promptly corrected by Hooplah.
The current-year information that follows will help you in determining the nature and extent of detail testing in order to have sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the fairness of the accounts receivable balance.
Current Year Information:
Net income = $9 million Total assets = $85 million
Total accounts receivable = $12,881,551
Accounts receivable greater than 90 days past due = $2 million Tolerable misstatement for accounts receivable = $400,000
In most cases, the selection of items to be detail tested is based on two approaches, which can be used singly or in combination to achieve the desired level of assurance with respect to the population being tested:
1 - Directed Testing 2 - Audit sampling
Directed testing, also known as “targeted testing” or “key item testing,” is a technique that involves selecting items to examine based on a particular characteristic of interest such as size or risk. Unlike audit sampling, the items are not randomly (or haphazardly) selected. Instead, selection is “directed” or “targeted” based on a particular characteristic.Thus, directed testing is not considered “sampling” per se, because the subset of selected items is not expected to be representative of the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy requires that teams direct test all individual items in the account that are greater than tolerable misstatement. Thus, even if the auditor intends to perform audit sampling to test an account (e.g., accounts receivable), the auditor must first examine all items (e.g., individual customer accounts) that are individually greater than tolerable misstatement.
After testing all such items, it is often appropriate to expand the directed testing to specifically select relatively high risk items, if such items can be identified. The auditor may also expand directed testing to select relatively large items other than those that are larger than tolerable misstatement in order to achieve “coverage” of a higher dollar percentage of the total account. Selection criteria for directed testing can include a combination of risk and size components. Expanding the number of items examined in directed testing can often provide sufficient assurance in combination with the assurance already obtained from other audit procedures (e.g., risk assessment, controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, testing in related accounts, etc.). In such cases, the use of an audit sampling approach is unnecessary.
Garrett and Schulzke’s substantive audit sampling policy uses a nonstatistical sampling approach. Items are selected from the population either randomly or haphazardly, at the auditor’s discretion. To determine the appropriate sample size, the firm provides the following formula:
The sampling population book value is the total book value of all the items available to be selected in the sample.This total does not include items already removed for direct testing (i.e., all items greater than tolerable misstatement and other items selected based on size and/or risk characteristics).Tolerable misstatement is the greatest amount of misstatement that can be tolerated for the account being tested without concluding that the account is materially misstated. Expected misstatement is the amount of misstatement that the auditor expects to find in the account being tested.The “confidence factor” included in the above equation is determined based on the assessed risk of material misstatement for the account and the desired level of confidence from the sample. The confidence factor table below is from Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy.
The purpose of audit sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population through testing a subset of the population. To draw inferences about the entire population, sample results must be projected to the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy provides two projection methods: ratio projection and difference projection. Ratio projection is performed by calculating the ratio of the misstatement to the sample book value and projecting it to the sampling population book value according to the following formula:
Difference projection is performed by calculating the average misstatement per sample item (e.g. individual customer account) and projecting it to the number of items in the sampling population according to the following formula:
REQUIRED
[1] In selecting which customer balances to detail test via accounts receivable confirmations, assume that you have decided to direct test only the minimum number of customer accounts required; that is, you will direct test only customer accounts that are greater than tolerable misstatement, and you will use audit sampling to test the remainder of the population. You can find the accounts receivable detail listing at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. As noted there, Hooplah has a total of 357 customers, with an accounts receivable balance totaling $12,881,551. Based on the engagement team’s knowledge of Hooplah’s accounts receivable processes and policies, experience in prior year’s audits, and the results of tests of controls and substantive analytical procedures, the assessment of risk of material misstatement for accounts receivable has been set at “moderate.” Prepare a schedule that includes the following
[a] List the customer number and related balance for all customers you plan to direct test.
[b] Indicate your computed sample size (using the sample size formula provided on prior page). Provide supporting calculations and justification for your sample size, including justification for the confidence factor and the level of expected misstatement you used to compute your sample size.
[2] Based on the same background information as was used for question 1, but assuming that in selecting which customer balances to detail test you want to expand directed testing by selecting additional items based on risk and size, reevaluate the mix of directed testing and audit sampling. If you believe it would be efficient and effective to increase your directed testing, prepare a schedule that includes the following:
[a] Identify what characteristic can be used to select riskier items.
[b] List the customer numbers and related balances you would select for directed testing based on risk and provide the characteristics you used.
[c] List the additional customer accounts you would select for directed testing based on size and “coverage.”
[d] Determine whether it would be necessary to test the remaining population using audit sampling; if so, compute your sample size for testing the remaining population through audit sampling and justify the inputs you used in the sample size formula.
[3] Which detail testing approach seems most appropriate in this situation: the minimum level of directed testing together with a larger audit sample, expanded directed testing with no audit sampling, or both expanded directed testing and audit sampling? Be sure to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, as well as the level of assurance needed in view of the evidence already obtained from controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, etc.
[4] Independent of your responses to prior questions, assume that you direct tested customer balances greater than tolerable misstatement and randomly selected a sample of 40 additional customer balances for confirmation. The total book value of the 40 items sampled is $761,030. No differences were noted in the directed testing, and the sample yielded a combined overstatement in Hooplah’s records of $4,215. Brian Thompson, the accounts receivable supervisor agrees that the differences noted are misstatements due to pricing errors. Please answer the following questions:
[a] How much is the known misstatement in the accounts receivable balance?
[b] How much is the projected misstatement in the population (i.e., the total accounts receivable account) using ratio projection?
[c] How much is the projected misstatement in the population using difference projection?
[d] Explain why the two projections produce different results and describe the circumstances under which one projection approach might be more appropriate than the other.
[e] Based on the results of the detail testing outlined in this requirement, as well as the assurance obtained from controls testing and substantive analytical procedures, do the audit procedures support the assertion that the accounts receivable account is fairly stated? Why or why not?
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUESTIONS
It is recommended that you read the Professional Judgment Introduction found at the beginning of this book prior to responding to the following questions.
[5] How might the availability tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
[6] How might the confirmation tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?](../images/your-audit-firm-garrett-and-schulzke-llp-is-engaged-to-273881-1.jpg)
The sampling population book value is the total book value of all the items available to be selected in the sample.This total does not include items already removed for direct testing (i.e., all items greater than tolerable misstatement and other items selected based on size and/or risk characteristics).Tolerable misstatement is the greatest amount of misstatement that can be tolerated for the account being tested without concluding that the account is materially misstated. Expected misstatement is the amount of misstatement that the auditor expects to find in the account being tested.The “confidence factor†included in the above equation is determined based on the assessed risk of material misstatement for the account and the desired level of confidence from the sample. The confidence factor table below is from Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy.
![Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP, is engaged to perform the annual audit of Hooplah, Inc., for the year ending December 31, 2017. Hooplah is a privately-held company that sells electronics components to companies that manufacture various appliances. The company hires a public accounting firm to provide an audit of its financial statements in order to get favorable terms on its bank loans. Your firm has audited Hooplah for the past three years. For the current audit engagement, your team has already performed most of the audit work; however, there are a few loose ends for you to tie up. Portions of Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy relating to audit sampling are provided to assist you in completing the procedures.
AUDIT SAMPLING
Audit sampling is commonly applied in performing tests of controls and tests of details. Audit sampling involves the application of audit procedures to less than 100 percent of the items in a population of audit relevance, selected in such a way that the auditor expects the sample to be representative of the population and thus likely to provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population. A sample is usually selected either randomly (using some form of random-number generator) or haphazardly (where the auditor attempts to select items randomly but without using a formal random-number generator).
Auditors often use sampling approaches that involve formal statistical theories and principles, similar to those you may have learned in an introductory statistics class. Statistical sampling applications require the use of random selection, based on a formal random-number generator (such as the one built in to Microsoft Excel or audit software such as ACL). Auditing standards also allow auditors to use “non-statistical” sampling approaches. Non-statistical audit sampling approaches are based on a foundation of statistical principles, but allow certain departures from formal statistics in order to simplify the auditor’s task. One such simplification is that non- statistical sampling allows the use of haphazard selection of the items to be examined.
When an auditor examines only a sample instead of all of the items in the population, an element of uncertainty enters into the auditor’s conclusions. This uncertainty, referred to as sampling risk, is due to the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the population and that as a result the auditor will reach an incorrect conclusion about the population. It is crucial that sampling risk be taken into account when evaluating the results of any audit procedures that involve sampling.
Sampling approaches also differ depending on the nature of the items the auditor is examining and the objectives of the auditor. Depending on the method of sampling used, different formulas and tables are available to help you determine the number of items to include in the sample.This case has two parts. In Part A you will be asked to use statistical attribute sampling for testing controls. In Part B you will use non-statistical substantive sampling for testing accounts receivable.
PART A Tests of Controls
Before beginning substantive tests for accounts receivable, you and Darrell need to perform tests of important controls over the revenue process to justify the preliminary control risk assessment of low control risk and to determine whether a reliance approach is appropriate for substantive testing. You have decided to test three controls in Hooplah’s revenue process:
1. Sales are properly authorized for credit approval.
2. Sales are reviewed by the sales manager to ensure that they are properly priced.
3. Credit memos for sales returns are properly authorized once all goods have been returned.
Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling guidance for testing controls is based on attribute sampling. In testing the operating effectiveness of controls you are interested in determining the likely “deviation rate,” or the rate at which a control is not properly operating. Testing controls to measure the deviation rate provides evidence about whether the control is operating effectively an acceptably high percentage of the time and helps the auditor determine whether or not the control can be relied upon. Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table for attribute sampling can be found in Appendix A. Use the table to determine the appropriate sample size for tests of controls given a specified tolerable deviation rate and estimated deviation rate. Garrett and Schulzke’s controls testing sampling policy indicates that to place high reliance on controls (i.e., to support a low level of remaining control risk) the test must be performed at a high level of assurance, which they define as 95 percent confidence. Thus, only the sample size table associated with 95 percent confidence is provided. In addition to the sample size table, an evaluation table is provided in Appendix A that will help you determine the computed upper deviation rate for the control given the number of detected deviations and the sample size used. The computed upper deviation rate is the sum of the sample deviation rate and an appropriate allowance for sampling risk. In other words, it represents the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for the deviation rate in the population. If the computed upper deviation rate indicated is greater than the tolerable deviation rate for the control, the auditor should not rely on the control.
In order to determine the appropriate sample size for your tests, the importance of the control to be tested needs to be assessed. Garrett and Schulzke’s policy indicates that any controls the auditor might consider relying on are either “highly important” or “moderately important.” According to the firm’s policies, a deviation rate of only four percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “highly important,” while a tolerable deviation rate of eight percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “moderately important.” Some “tolerance” for error must always exist when using audit sampling because sampling involves sampling risk. The higher the tolerable deviation rate, the lower the sample size.
Based on your knowledge of Hoopla’s systems, you decide that the first two controls are moderately important, and that the third control is highly important. The other input needed to determine sample size is the estimated population deviation rate. Based on past experience with the client and considering historical rates, you determine that the estimated population deviation rates for the three controls are one percent, two percent, and zero percent, respectively.1
Darrell decided that since all sales pass through the first two controls and since the tolerable deviation rate for those controls is the same, he could be more efficient by using the same sample of transactions to test both controls. He randomly chose 58 sales transactions and tested the documentation for evidence of proper credit approval and review of pricing by the sales manager. After finding only one exception for the first control and two exceptions for the second control, Darrell concluded that both controls are operating effectively.
Now that Darrell has tested the first two controls, you need to test the third one before moving on to substantive testing.
REQUIRED
[1] Evaluate the appropriateness of Darrell’s conclusions relating to the first two controls:
[a] Is it acceptable to use the same set of transactions and the same sample size to test two different controls?
[b] Do you agree with Darrell’s conclusions with respect to these first two controls? If not, why not? In evaluating Darrell’s conclusions, you may wish to refer to the attribute sampling evaluation table available in Appendix A.
[c] What additional work, if any, is necessary to support his assessment that both controls are operating effectively?
[2] Evaluate each of the following questions independently:
[a] Referring to Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table (Appendix A), determine an appropriate sample size for the test of the control relating to authorization of credit memos.
[b] Regardless of your answer to question [a], assume that Darrell randomly selected a sample of 75 credit memo packages, each of which contains a credit memo with a matching receiving report and inventory warehouse receipt, and has reviewed all but the last five credit memo packages and found no exceptions. Each credit memo authorizing a customer refund or reduction in the amount owed due to the return of goods should be authorized by Brian Thompson, the accounting supervisor over accounts receivable. When a customer wants to return unwanted or defective product, they go to Hooplah’s website and download a “Customer Return Report” and fill in their information as well as a description and quantity of goods being returned. Chris Jacobs in the receiving department at Hooplah uses the Customer Return Report as the receiving report when the shipment comes in, and Felix Katt counts and inspects the goods to make sure they’re all in good condition.The goods are then transferred back to Jed Baxter in the warehouse, who issues an “Inventory Receipt.” Once the Inventory Receipt is attached to the Customer Return Report, the documents are forwarded to Brian so that he can approve a credit memo. Brian examines the Customer Return Report and the Inventory Receipt to ensure that credit is only authorized when goods have been received and for the quantity actually received. He then documents his authorization by marking his initials on the credit memo. You have agreed to help Darrell by examining the remaining five credit memo packages. You will find the last five credit memo packages at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. Examine these documents for Brian Thompson’s initials indicating the memos were approved (for this question, just focus on his initials for audit evidence that the control is operating effectively) and then evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[3] In question 2[b] you gathered evidence on the operation of the control by examining the five credit memos for Brian’s initials. While this provides some evidence of control, higher quality evidence that the control is actually operating effectively can be obtained by reperforming Brian’s control procedure. This would be done by verifying that each credit memo is supported by a Customer Return Report and Inventory Receipt and that the quantity and description of goods on the credit memo is supported by the quantity and description on the supporting documents. If Brian’s initials are on the credit memo, but the quantity or description of goods on the memo is not consistent with the quantity and description on the supporting documents, this would be considered a control deviation. Assume Darrell reperformed the control for the first 70 credit memo packages and found no exceptions.
[a] Reperform the control for the remaining five credit memo packages and evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[b] If you came to a different conclusion in 2[b] and 3[a], which conclusion is more supportable and why?
[4] Assuming the controls testing is not expanded to provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of the controls tested, what are the implications of the controls testing in question 3[a] with respect to the nature, timing, and extent of substantive evidence that must be gathered to support the fairness of the accounts receivable balance?
Tests of Details PART B
Regardless of what you found in Part A, for Part B assume that you are able to place moderate reliance on the controls tested and that you have already obtained some substantive evidence supporting the fairness of accounts receivable from substantive analytical procedures. While you have already obtained some assurance regarding the fairness of the ending accounts receivable balance, you do not yet have sufficient evidence given the size of accounts receivable and the remaining risk of misstatement. You plan to request that some of Hooplah’s customers confirm their accounts receivable balance directly to you. In the prior year’s audit, aggregate misstatements of less than 0.5% of the accounts receivable balance were discovered via customer confirmation testing. The few misstatements that were found were promptly corrected by Hooplah.
The current-year information that follows will help you in determining the nature and extent of detail testing in order to have sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the fairness of the accounts receivable balance.
Current Year Information:
Net income = $9 million Total assets = $85 million
Total accounts receivable = $12,881,551
Accounts receivable greater than 90 days past due = $2 million Tolerable misstatement for accounts receivable = $400,000
In most cases, the selection of items to be detail tested is based on two approaches, which can be used singly or in combination to achieve the desired level of assurance with respect to the population being tested:
1 - Directed Testing 2 - Audit sampling
Directed testing, also known as “targeted testing” or “key item testing,” is a technique that involves selecting items to examine based on a particular characteristic of interest such as size or risk. Unlike audit sampling, the items are not randomly (or haphazardly) selected. Instead, selection is “directed” or “targeted” based on a particular characteristic.Thus, directed testing is not considered “sampling” per se, because the subset of selected items is not expected to be representative of the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy requires that teams direct test all individual items in the account that are greater than tolerable misstatement. Thus, even if the auditor intends to perform audit sampling to test an account (e.g., accounts receivable), the auditor must first examine all items (e.g., individual customer accounts) that are individually greater than tolerable misstatement.
After testing all such items, it is often appropriate to expand the directed testing to specifically select relatively high risk items, if such items can be identified. The auditor may also expand directed testing to select relatively large items other than those that are larger than tolerable misstatement in order to achieve “coverage” of a higher dollar percentage of the total account. Selection criteria for directed testing can include a combination of risk and size components. Expanding the number of items examined in directed testing can often provide sufficient assurance in combination with the assurance already obtained from other audit procedures (e.g., risk assessment, controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, testing in related accounts, etc.). In such cases, the use of an audit sampling approach is unnecessary.
Garrett and Schulzke’s substantive audit sampling policy uses a nonstatistical sampling approach. Items are selected from the population either randomly or haphazardly, at the auditor’s discretion. To determine the appropriate sample size, the firm provides the following formula:
The sampling population book value is the total book value of all the items available to be selected in the sample.This total does not include items already removed for direct testing (i.e., all items greater than tolerable misstatement and other items selected based on size and/or risk characteristics).Tolerable misstatement is the greatest amount of misstatement that can be tolerated for the account being tested without concluding that the account is materially misstated. Expected misstatement is the amount of misstatement that the auditor expects to find in the account being tested.The “confidence factor” included in the above equation is determined based on the assessed risk of material misstatement for the account and the desired level of confidence from the sample. The confidence factor table below is from Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy.
The purpose of audit sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population through testing a subset of the population. To draw inferences about the entire population, sample results must be projected to the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy provides two projection methods: ratio projection and difference projection. Ratio projection is performed by calculating the ratio of the misstatement to the sample book value and projecting it to the sampling population book value according to the following formula:
Difference projection is performed by calculating the average misstatement per sample item (e.g. individual customer account) and projecting it to the number of items in the sampling population according to the following formula:
REQUIRED
[1] In selecting which customer balances to detail test via accounts receivable confirmations, assume that you have decided to direct test only the minimum number of customer accounts required; that is, you will direct test only customer accounts that are greater than tolerable misstatement, and you will use audit sampling to test the remainder of the population. You can find the accounts receivable detail listing at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. As noted there, Hooplah has a total of 357 customers, with an accounts receivable balance totaling $12,881,551. Based on the engagement team’s knowledge of Hooplah’s accounts receivable processes and policies, experience in prior year’s audits, and the results of tests of controls and substantive analytical procedures, the assessment of risk of material misstatement for accounts receivable has been set at “moderate.” Prepare a schedule that includes the following
[a] List the customer number and related balance for all customers you plan to direct test.
[b] Indicate your computed sample size (using the sample size formula provided on prior page). Provide supporting calculations and justification for your sample size, including justification for the confidence factor and the level of expected misstatement you used to compute your sample size.
[2] Based on the same background information as was used for question 1, but assuming that in selecting which customer balances to detail test you want to expand directed testing by selecting additional items based on risk and size, reevaluate the mix of directed testing and audit sampling. If you believe it would be efficient and effective to increase your directed testing, prepare a schedule that includes the following:
[a] Identify what characteristic can be used to select riskier items.
[b] List the customer numbers and related balances you would select for directed testing based on risk and provide the characteristics you used.
[c] List the additional customer accounts you would select for directed testing based on size and “coverage.”
[d] Determine whether it would be necessary to test the remaining population using audit sampling; if so, compute your sample size for testing the remaining population through audit sampling and justify the inputs you used in the sample size formula.
[3] Which detail testing approach seems most appropriate in this situation: the minimum level of directed testing together with a larger audit sample, expanded directed testing with no audit sampling, or both expanded directed testing and audit sampling? Be sure to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, as well as the level of assurance needed in view of the evidence already obtained from controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, etc.
[4] Independent of your responses to prior questions, assume that you direct tested customer balances greater than tolerable misstatement and randomly selected a sample of 40 additional customer balances for confirmation. The total book value of the 40 items sampled is $761,030. No differences were noted in the directed testing, and the sample yielded a combined overstatement in Hooplah’s records of $4,215. Brian Thompson, the accounts receivable supervisor agrees that the differences noted are misstatements due to pricing errors. Please answer the following questions:
[a] How much is the known misstatement in the accounts receivable balance?
[b] How much is the projected misstatement in the population (i.e., the total accounts receivable account) using ratio projection?
[c] How much is the projected misstatement in the population using difference projection?
[d] Explain why the two projections produce different results and describe the circumstances under which one projection approach might be more appropriate than the other.
[e] Based on the results of the detail testing outlined in this requirement, as well as the assurance obtained from controls testing and substantive analytical procedures, do the audit procedures support the assertion that the accounts receivable account is fairly stated? Why or why not?
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUESTIONS
It is recommended that you read the Professional Judgment Introduction found at the beginning of this book prior to responding to the following questions.
[5] How might the availability tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
[6] How might the confirmation tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?](../images/your-audit-firm-garrett-and-schulzke-llp-is-engaged-to-273881-2.jpg)
The purpose of audit sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population through testing a subset of the population. To draw inferences about the entire population, sample results must be projected to the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy provides two projection methods: ratio projection and difference projection. Ratio projection is performed by calculating the ratio of the misstatement to the sample book value and projecting it to the sampling population book value according to the following formula:
![Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP, is engaged to perform the annual audit of Hooplah, Inc., for the year ending December 31, 2017. Hooplah is a privately-held company that sells electronics components to companies that manufacture various appliances. The company hires a public accounting firm to provide an audit of its financial statements in order to get favorable terms on its bank loans. Your firm has audited Hooplah for the past three years. For the current audit engagement, your team has already performed most of the audit work; however, there are a few loose ends for you to tie up. Portions of Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy relating to audit sampling are provided to assist you in completing the procedures.
AUDIT SAMPLING
Audit sampling is commonly applied in performing tests of controls and tests of details. Audit sampling involves the application of audit procedures to less than 100 percent of the items in a population of audit relevance, selected in such a way that the auditor expects the sample to be representative of the population and thus likely to provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population. A sample is usually selected either randomly (using some form of random-number generator) or haphazardly (where the auditor attempts to select items randomly but without using a formal random-number generator).
Auditors often use sampling approaches that involve formal statistical theories and principles, similar to those you may have learned in an introductory statistics class. Statistical sampling applications require the use of random selection, based on a formal random-number generator (such as the one built in to Microsoft Excel or audit software such as ACL). Auditing standards also allow auditors to use “non-statistical” sampling approaches. Non-statistical audit sampling approaches are based on a foundation of statistical principles, but allow certain departures from formal statistics in order to simplify the auditor’s task. One such simplification is that non- statistical sampling allows the use of haphazard selection of the items to be examined.
When an auditor examines only a sample instead of all of the items in the population, an element of uncertainty enters into the auditor’s conclusions. This uncertainty, referred to as sampling risk, is due to the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the population and that as a result the auditor will reach an incorrect conclusion about the population. It is crucial that sampling risk be taken into account when evaluating the results of any audit procedures that involve sampling.
Sampling approaches also differ depending on the nature of the items the auditor is examining and the objectives of the auditor. Depending on the method of sampling used, different formulas and tables are available to help you determine the number of items to include in the sample.This case has two parts. In Part A you will be asked to use statistical attribute sampling for testing controls. In Part B you will use non-statistical substantive sampling for testing accounts receivable.
PART A Tests of Controls
Before beginning substantive tests for accounts receivable, you and Darrell need to perform tests of important controls over the revenue process to justify the preliminary control risk assessment of low control risk and to determine whether a reliance approach is appropriate for substantive testing. You have decided to test three controls in Hooplah’s revenue process:
1. Sales are properly authorized for credit approval.
2. Sales are reviewed by the sales manager to ensure that they are properly priced.
3. Credit memos for sales returns are properly authorized once all goods have been returned.
Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling guidance for testing controls is based on attribute sampling. In testing the operating effectiveness of controls you are interested in determining the likely “deviation rate,” or the rate at which a control is not properly operating. Testing controls to measure the deviation rate provides evidence about whether the control is operating effectively an acceptably high percentage of the time and helps the auditor determine whether or not the control can be relied upon. Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table for attribute sampling can be found in Appendix A. Use the table to determine the appropriate sample size for tests of controls given a specified tolerable deviation rate and estimated deviation rate. Garrett and Schulzke’s controls testing sampling policy indicates that to place high reliance on controls (i.e., to support a low level of remaining control risk) the test must be performed at a high level of assurance, which they define as 95 percent confidence. Thus, only the sample size table associated with 95 percent confidence is provided. In addition to the sample size table, an evaluation table is provided in Appendix A that will help you determine the computed upper deviation rate for the control given the number of detected deviations and the sample size used. The computed upper deviation rate is the sum of the sample deviation rate and an appropriate allowance for sampling risk. In other words, it represents the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for the deviation rate in the population. If the computed upper deviation rate indicated is greater than the tolerable deviation rate for the control, the auditor should not rely on the control.
In order to determine the appropriate sample size for your tests, the importance of the control to be tested needs to be assessed. Garrett and Schulzke’s policy indicates that any controls the auditor might consider relying on are either “highly important” or “moderately important.” According to the firm’s policies, a deviation rate of only four percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “highly important,” while a tolerable deviation rate of eight percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “moderately important.” Some “tolerance” for error must always exist when using audit sampling because sampling involves sampling risk. The higher the tolerable deviation rate, the lower the sample size.
Based on your knowledge of Hoopla’s systems, you decide that the first two controls are moderately important, and that the third control is highly important. The other input needed to determine sample size is the estimated population deviation rate. Based on past experience with the client and considering historical rates, you determine that the estimated population deviation rates for the three controls are one percent, two percent, and zero percent, respectively.1
Darrell decided that since all sales pass through the first two controls and since the tolerable deviation rate for those controls is the same, he could be more efficient by using the same sample of transactions to test both controls. He randomly chose 58 sales transactions and tested the documentation for evidence of proper credit approval and review of pricing by the sales manager. After finding only one exception for the first control and two exceptions for the second control, Darrell concluded that both controls are operating effectively.
Now that Darrell has tested the first two controls, you need to test the third one before moving on to substantive testing.
REQUIRED
[1] Evaluate the appropriateness of Darrell’s conclusions relating to the first two controls:
[a] Is it acceptable to use the same set of transactions and the same sample size to test two different controls?
[b] Do you agree with Darrell’s conclusions with respect to these first two controls? If not, why not? In evaluating Darrell’s conclusions, you may wish to refer to the attribute sampling evaluation table available in Appendix A.
[c] What additional work, if any, is necessary to support his assessment that both controls are operating effectively?
[2] Evaluate each of the following questions independently:
[a] Referring to Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table (Appendix A), determine an appropriate sample size for the test of the control relating to authorization of credit memos.
[b] Regardless of your answer to question [a], assume that Darrell randomly selected a sample of 75 credit memo packages, each of which contains a credit memo with a matching receiving report and inventory warehouse receipt, and has reviewed all but the last five credit memo packages and found no exceptions. Each credit memo authorizing a customer refund or reduction in the amount owed due to the return of goods should be authorized by Brian Thompson, the accounting supervisor over accounts receivable. When a customer wants to return unwanted or defective product, they go to Hooplah’s website and download a “Customer Return Report” and fill in their information as well as a description and quantity of goods being returned. Chris Jacobs in the receiving department at Hooplah uses the Customer Return Report as the receiving report when the shipment comes in, and Felix Katt counts and inspects the goods to make sure they’re all in good condition.The goods are then transferred back to Jed Baxter in the warehouse, who issues an “Inventory Receipt.” Once the Inventory Receipt is attached to the Customer Return Report, the documents are forwarded to Brian so that he can approve a credit memo. Brian examines the Customer Return Report and the Inventory Receipt to ensure that credit is only authorized when goods have been received and for the quantity actually received. He then documents his authorization by marking his initials on the credit memo. You have agreed to help Darrell by examining the remaining five credit memo packages. You will find the last five credit memo packages at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. Examine these documents for Brian Thompson’s initials indicating the memos were approved (for this question, just focus on his initials for audit evidence that the control is operating effectively) and then evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[3] In question 2[b] you gathered evidence on the operation of the control by examining the five credit memos for Brian’s initials. While this provides some evidence of control, higher quality evidence that the control is actually operating effectively can be obtained by reperforming Brian’s control procedure. This would be done by verifying that each credit memo is supported by a Customer Return Report and Inventory Receipt and that the quantity and description of goods on the credit memo is supported by the quantity and description on the supporting documents. If Brian’s initials are on the credit memo, but the quantity or description of goods on the memo is not consistent with the quantity and description on the supporting documents, this would be considered a control deviation. Assume Darrell reperformed the control for the first 70 credit memo packages and found no exceptions.
[a] Reperform the control for the remaining five credit memo packages and evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[b] If you came to a different conclusion in 2[b] and 3[a], which conclusion is more supportable and why?
[4] Assuming the controls testing is not expanded to provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of the controls tested, what are the implications of the controls testing in question 3[a] with respect to the nature, timing, and extent of substantive evidence that must be gathered to support the fairness of the accounts receivable balance?
Tests of Details PART B
Regardless of what you found in Part A, for Part B assume that you are able to place moderate reliance on the controls tested and that you have already obtained some substantive evidence supporting the fairness of accounts receivable from substantive analytical procedures. While you have already obtained some assurance regarding the fairness of the ending accounts receivable balance, you do not yet have sufficient evidence given the size of accounts receivable and the remaining risk of misstatement. You plan to request that some of Hooplah’s customers confirm their accounts receivable balance directly to you. In the prior year’s audit, aggregate misstatements of less than 0.5% of the accounts receivable balance were discovered via customer confirmation testing. The few misstatements that were found were promptly corrected by Hooplah.
The current-year information that follows will help you in determining the nature and extent of detail testing in order to have sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the fairness of the accounts receivable balance.
Current Year Information:
Net income = $9 million Total assets = $85 million
Total accounts receivable = $12,881,551
Accounts receivable greater than 90 days past due = $2 million Tolerable misstatement for accounts receivable = $400,000
In most cases, the selection of items to be detail tested is based on two approaches, which can be used singly or in combination to achieve the desired level of assurance with respect to the population being tested:
1 - Directed Testing 2 - Audit sampling
Directed testing, also known as “targeted testing” or “key item testing,” is a technique that involves selecting items to examine based on a particular characteristic of interest such as size or risk. Unlike audit sampling, the items are not randomly (or haphazardly) selected. Instead, selection is “directed” or “targeted” based on a particular characteristic.Thus, directed testing is not considered “sampling” per se, because the subset of selected items is not expected to be representative of the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy requires that teams direct test all individual items in the account that are greater than tolerable misstatement. Thus, even if the auditor intends to perform audit sampling to test an account (e.g., accounts receivable), the auditor must first examine all items (e.g., individual customer accounts) that are individually greater than tolerable misstatement.
After testing all such items, it is often appropriate to expand the directed testing to specifically select relatively high risk items, if such items can be identified. The auditor may also expand directed testing to select relatively large items other than those that are larger than tolerable misstatement in order to achieve “coverage” of a higher dollar percentage of the total account. Selection criteria for directed testing can include a combination of risk and size components. Expanding the number of items examined in directed testing can often provide sufficient assurance in combination with the assurance already obtained from other audit procedures (e.g., risk assessment, controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, testing in related accounts, etc.). In such cases, the use of an audit sampling approach is unnecessary.
Garrett and Schulzke’s substantive audit sampling policy uses a nonstatistical sampling approach. Items are selected from the population either randomly or haphazardly, at the auditor’s discretion. To determine the appropriate sample size, the firm provides the following formula:
The sampling population book value is the total book value of all the items available to be selected in the sample.This total does not include items already removed for direct testing (i.e., all items greater than tolerable misstatement and other items selected based on size and/or risk characteristics).Tolerable misstatement is the greatest amount of misstatement that can be tolerated for the account being tested without concluding that the account is materially misstated. Expected misstatement is the amount of misstatement that the auditor expects to find in the account being tested.The “confidence factor” included in the above equation is determined based on the assessed risk of material misstatement for the account and the desired level of confidence from the sample. The confidence factor table below is from Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy.
The purpose of audit sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population through testing a subset of the population. To draw inferences about the entire population, sample results must be projected to the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy provides two projection methods: ratio projection and difference projection. Ratio projection is performed by calculating the ratio of the misstatement to the sample book value and projecting it to the sampling population book value according to the following formula:
Difference projection is performed by calculating the average misstatement per sample item (e.g. individual customer account) and projecting it to the number of items in the sampling population according to the following formula:
REQUIRED
[1] In selecting which customer balances to detail test via accounts receivable confirmations, assume that you have decided to direct test only the minimum number of customer accounts required; that is, you will direct test only customer accounts that are greater than tolerable misstatement, and you will use audit sampling to test the remainder of the population. You can find the accounts receivable detail listing at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. As noted there, Hooplah has a total of 357 customers, with an accounts receivable balance totaling $12,881,551. Based on the engagement team’s knowledge of Hooplah’s accounts receivable processes and policies, experience in prior year’s audits, and the results of tests of controls and substantive analytical procedures, the assessment of risk of material misstatement for accounts receivable has been set at “moderate.” Prepare a schedule that includes the following
[a] List the customer number and related balance for all customers you plan to direct test.
[b] Indicate your computed sample size (using the sample size formula provided on prior page). Provide supporting calculations and justification for your sample size, including justification for the confidence factor and the level of expected misstatement you used to compute your sample size.
[2] Based on the same background information as was used for question 1, but assuming that in selecting which customer balances to detail test you want to expand directed testing by selecting additional items based on risk and size, reevaluate the mix of directed testing and audit sampling. If you believe it would be efficient and effective to increase your directed testing, prepare a schedule that includes the following:
[a] Identify what characteristic can be used to select riskier items.
[b] List the customer numbers and related balances you would select for directed testing based on risk and provide the characteristics you used.
[c] List the additional customer accounts you would select for directed testing based on size and “coverage.”
[d] Determine whether it would be necessary to test the remaining population using audit sampling; if so, compute your sample size for testing the remaining population through audit sampling and justify the inputs you used in the sample size formula.
[3] Which detail testing approach seems most appropriate in this situation: the minimum level of directed testing together with a larger audit sample, expanded directed testing with no audit sampling, or both expanded directed testing and audit sampling? Be sure to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, as well as the level of assurance needed in view of the evidence already obtained from controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, etc.
[4] Independent of your responses to prior questions, assume that you direct tested customer balances greater than tolerable misstatement and randomly selected a sample of 40 additional customer balances for confirmation. The total book value of the 40 items sampled is $761,030. No differences were noted in the directed testing, and the sample yielded a combined overstatement in Hooplah’s records of $4,215. Brian Thompson, the accounts receivable supervisor agrees that the differences noted are misstatements due to pricing errors. Please answer the following questions:
[a] How much is the known misstatement in the accounts receivable balance?
[b] How much is the projected misstatement in the population (i.e., the total accounts receivable account) using ratio projection?
[c] How much is the projected misstatement in the population using difference projection?
[d] Explain why the two projections produce different results and describe the circumstances under which one projection approach might be more appropriate than the other.
[e] Based on the results of the detail testing outlined in this requirement, as well as the assurance obtained from controls testing and substantive analytical procedures, do the audit procedures support the assertion that the accounts receivable account is fairly stated? Why or why not?
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUESTIONS
It is recommended that you read the Professional Judgment Introduction found at the beginning of this book prior to responding to the following questions.
[5] How might the availability tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
[6] How might the confirmation tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?](../images/your-audit-firm-garrett-and-schulzke-llp-is-engaged-to-273881-3.jpg)
Difference projection is performed by calculating the average misstatement per sample item (e.g. individual customer account) and projecting it to the number of items in the sampling population according to the following formula:
![Your audit firm, Garrett and Schulzke LLP, is engaged to perform the annual audit of Hooplah, Inc., for the year ending December 31, 2017. Hooplah is a privately-held company that sells electronics components to companies that manufacture various appliances. The company hires a public accounting firm to provide an audit of its financial statements in order to get favorable terms on its bank loans. Your firm has audited Hooplah for the past three years. For the current audit engagement, your team has already performed most of the audit work; however, there are a few loose ends for you to tie up. Portions of Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy relating to audit sampling are provided to assist you in completing the procedures.
AUDIT SAMPLING
Audit sampling is commonly applied in performing tests of controls and tests of details. Audit sampling involves the application of audit procedures to less than 100 percent of the items in a population of audit relevance, selected in such a way that the auditor expects the sample to be representative of the population and thus likely to provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population. A sample is usually selected either randomly (using some form of random-number generator) or haphazardly (where the auditor attempts to select items randomly but without using a formal random-number generator).
Auditors often use sampling approaches that involve formal statistical theories and principles, similar to those you may have learned in an introductory statistics class. Statistical sampling applications require the use of random selection, based on a formal random-number generator (such as the one built in to Microsoft Excel or audit software such as ACL). Auditing standards also allow auditors to use “non-statistical” sampling approaches. Non-statistical audit sampling approaches are based on a foundation of statistical principles, but allow certain departures from formal statistics in order to simplify the auditor’s task. One such simplification is that non- statistical sampling allows the use of haphazard selection of the items to be examined.
When an auditor examines only a sample instead of all of the items in the population, an element of uncertainty enters into the auditor’s conclusions. This uncertainty, referred to as sampling risk, is due to the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the population and that as a result the auditor will reach an incorrect conclusion about the population. It is crucial that sampling risk be taken into account when evaluating the results of any audit procedures that involve sampling.
Sampling approaches also differ depending on the nature of the items the auditor is examining and the objectives of the auditor. Depending on the method of sampling used, different formulas and tables are available to help you determine the number of items to include in the sample.This case has two parts. In Part A you will be asked to use statistical attribute sampling for testing controls. In Part B you will use non-statistical substantive sampling for testing accounts receivable.
PART A Tests of Controls
Before beginning substantive tests for accounts receivable, you and Darrell need to perform tests of important controls over the revenue process to justify the preliminary control risk assessment of low control risk and to determine whether a reliance approach is appropriate for substantive testing. You have decided to test three controls in Hooplah’s revenue process:
1. Sales are properly authorized for credit approval.
2. Sales are reviewed by the sales manager to ensure that they are properly priced.
3. Credit memos for sales returns are properly authorized once all goods have been returned.
Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling guidance for testing controls is based on attribute sampling. In testing the operating effectiveness of controls you are interested in determining the likely “deviation rate,” or the rate at which a control is not properly operating. Testing controls to measure the deviation rate provides evidence about whether the control is operating effectively an acceptably high percentage of the time and helps the auditor determine whether or not the control can be relied upon. Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table for attribute sampling can be found in Appendix A. Use the table to determine the appropriate sample size for tests of controls given a specified tolerable deviation rate and estimated deviation rate. Garrett and Schulzke’s controls testing sampling policy indicates that to place high reliance on controls (i.e., to support a low level of remaining control risk) the test must be performed at a high level of assurance, which they define as 95 percent confidence. Thus, only the sample size table associated with 95 percent confidence is provided. In addition to the sample size table, an evaluation table is provided in Appendix A that will help you determine the computed upper deviation rate for the control given the number of detected deviations and the sample size used. The computed upper deviation rate is the sum of the sample deviation rate and an appropriate allowance for sampling risk. In other words, it represents the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for the deviation rate in the population. If the computed upper deviation rate indicated is greater than the tolerable deviation rate for the control, the auditor should not rely on the control.
In order to determine the appropriate sample size for your tests, the importance of the control to be tested needs to be assessed. Garrett and Schulzke’s policy indicates that any controls the auditor might consider relying on are either “highly important” or “moderately important.” According to the firm’s policies, a deviation rate of only four percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “highly important,” while a tolerable deviation rate of eight percent can be tolerated for controls deemed “moderately important.” Some “tolerance” for error must always exist when using audit sampling because sampling involves sampling risk. The higher the tolerable deviation rate, the lower the sample size.
Based on your knowledge of Hoopla’s systems, you decide that the first two controls are moderately important, and that the third control is highly important. The other input needed to determine sample size is the estimated population deviation rate. Based on past experience with the client and considering historical rates, you determine that the estimated population deviation rates for the three controls are one percent, two percent, and zero percent, respectively.1
Darrell decided that since all sales pass through the first two controls and since the tolerable deviation rate for those controls is the same, he could be more efficient by using the same sample of transactions to test both controls. He randomly chose 58 sales transactions and tested the documentation for evidence of proper credit approval and review of pricing by the sales manager. After finding only one exception for the first control and two exceptions for the second control, Darrell concluded that both controls are operating effectively.
Now that Darrell has tested the first two controls, you need to test the third one before moving on to substantive testing.
REQUIRED
[1] Evaluate the appropriateness of Darrell’s conclusions relating to the first two controls:
[a] Is it acceptable to use the same set of transactions and the same sample size to test two different controls?
[b] Do you agree with Darrell’s conclusions with respect to these first two controls? If not, why not? In evaluating Darrell’s conclusions, you may wish to refer to the attribute sampling evaluation table available in Appendix A.
[c] What additional work, if any, is necessary to support his assessment that both controls are operating effectively?
[2] Evaluate each of the following questions independently:
[a] Referring to Garrett and Schulzke’s sample size table (Appendix A), determine an appropriate sample size for the test of the control relating to authorization of credit memos.
[b] Regardless of your answer to question [a], assume that Darrell randomly selected a sample of 75 credit memo packages, each of which contains a credit memo with a matching receiving report and inventory warehouse receipt, and has reviewed all but the last five credit memo packages and found no exceptions. Each credit memo authorizing a customer refund or reduction in the amount owed due to the return of goods should be authorized by Brian Thompson, the accounting supervisor over accounts receivable. When a customer wants to return unwanted or defective product, they go to Hooplah’s website and download a “Customer Return Report” and fill in their information as well as a description and quantity of goods being returned. Chris Jacobs in the receiving department at Hooplah uses the Customer Return Report as the receiving report when the shipment comes in, and Felix Katt counts and inspects the goods to make sure they’re all in good condition.The goods are then transferred back to Jed Baxter in the warehouse, who issues an “Inventory Receipt.” Once the Inventory Receipt is attached to the Customer Return Report, the documents are forwarded to Brian so that he can approve a credit memo. Brian examines the Customer Return Report and the Inventory Receipt to ensure that credit is only authorized when goods have been received and for the quantity actually received. He then documents his authorization by marking his initials on the credit memo. You have agreed to help Darrell by examining the remaining five credit memo packages. You will find the last five credit memo packages at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. Examine these documents for Brian Thompson’s initials indicating the memos were approved (for this question, just focus on his initials for audit evidence that the control is operating effectively) and then evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[3] In question 2[b] you gathered evidence on the operation of the control by examining the five credit memos for Brian’s initials. While this provides some evidence of control, higher quality evidence that the control is actually operating effectively can be obtained by reperforming Brian’s control procedure. This would be done by verifying that each credit memo is supported by a Customer Return Report and Inventory Receipt and that the quantity and description of goods on the credit memo is supported by the quantity and description on the supporting documents. If Brian’s initials are on the credit memo, but the quantity or description of goods on the memo is not consistent with the quantity and description on the supporting documents, this would be considered a control deviation. Assume Darrell reperformed the control for the first 70 credit memo packages and found no exceptions.
[a] Reperform the control for the remaining five credit memo packages and evaluate the test results for the full sample. Provide support for your assessment on the effectiveness of the control based on testing performed.
[b] If you came to a different conclusion in 2[b] and 3[a], which conclusion is more supportable and why?
[4] Assuming the controls testing is not expanded to provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of the controls tested, what are the implications of the controls testing in question 3[a] with respect to the nature, timing, and extent of substantive evidence that must be gathered to support the fairness of the accounts receivable balance?
Tests of Details PART B
Regardless of what you found in Part A, for Part B assume that you are able to place moderate reliance on the controls tested and that you have already obtained some substantive evidence supporting the fairness of accounts receivable from substantive analytical procedures. While you have already obtained some assurance regarding the fairness of the ending accounts receivable balance, you do not yet have sufficient evidence given the size of accounts receivable and the remaining risk of misstatement. You plan to request that some of Hooplah’s customers confirm their accounts receivable balance directly to you. In the prior year’s audit, aggregate misstatements of less than 0.5% of the accounts receivable balance were discovered via customer confirmation testing. The few misstatements that were found were promptly corrected by Hooplah.
The current-year information that follows will help you in determining the nature and extent of detail testing in order to have sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude on the fairness of the accounts receivable balance.
Current Year Information:
Net income = $9 million Total assets = $85 million
Total accounts receivable = $12,881,551
Accounts receivable greater than 90 days past due = $2 million Tolerable misstatement for accounts receivable = $400,000
In most cases, the selection of items to be detail tested is based on two approaches, which can be used singly or in combination to achieve the desired level of assurance with respect to the population being tested:
1 - Directed Testing 2 - Audit sampling
Directed testing, also known as “targeted testing” or “key item testing,” is a technique that involves selecting items to examine based on a particular characteristic of interest such as size or risk. Unlike audit sampling, the items are not randomly (or haphazardly) selected. Instead, selection is “directed” or “targeted” based on a particular characteristic.Thus, directed testing is not considered “sampling” per se, because the subset of selected items is not expected to be representative of the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s audit policy requires that teams direct test all individual items in the account that are greater than tolerable misstatement. Thus, even if the auditor intends to perform audit sampling to test an account (e.g., accounts receivable), the auditor must first examine all items (e.g., individual customer accounts) that are individually greater than tolerable misstatement.
After testing all such items, it is often appropriate to expand the directed testing to specifically select relatively high risk items, if such items can be identified. The auditor may also expand directed testing to select relatively large items other than those that are larger than tolerable misstatement in order to achieve “coverage” of a higher dollar percentage of the total account. Selection criteria for directed testing can include a combination of risk and size components. Expanding the number of items examined in directed testing can often provide sufficient assurance in combination with the assurance already obtained from other audit procedures (e.g., risk assessment, controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, testing in related accounts, etc.). In such cases, the use of an audit sampling approach is unnecessary.
Garrett and Schulzke’s substantive audit sampling policy uses a nonstatistical sampling approach. Items are selected from the population either randomly or haphazardly, at the auditor’s discretion. To determine the appropriate sample size, the firm provides the following formula:
The sampling population book value is the total book value of all the items available to be selected in the sample.This total does not include items already removed for direct testing (i.e., all items greater than tolerable misstatement and other items selected based on size and/or risk characteristics).Tolerable misstatement is the greatest amount of misstatement that can be tolerated for the account being tested without concluding that the account is materially misstated. Expected misstatement is the amount of misstatement that the auditor expects to find in the account being tested.The “confidence factor” included in the above equation is determined based on the assessed risk of material misstatement for the account and the desired level of confidence from the sample. The confidence factor table below is from Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy.
The purpose of audit sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population through testing a subset of the population. To draw inferences about the entire population, sample results must be projected to the population. Garrett and Schulzke’s sampling policy provides two projection methods: ratio projection and difference projection. Ratio projection is performed by calculating the ratio of the misstatement to the sample book value and projecting it to the sampling population book value according to the following formula:
Difference projection is performed by calculating the average misstatement per sample item (e.g. individual customer account) and projecting it to the number of items in the sampling population according to the following formula:
REQUIRED
[1] In selecting which customer balances to detail test via accounts receivable confirmations, assume that you have decided to direct test only the minimum number of customer accounts required; that is, you will direct test only customer accounts that are greater than tolerable misstatement, and you will use audit sampling to test the remainder of the population. You can find the accounts receivable detail listing at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. As noted there, Hooplah has a total of 357 customers, with an accounts receivable balance totaling $12,881,551. Based on the engagement team’s knowledge of Hooplah’s accounts receivable processes and policies, experience in prior year’s audits, and the results of tests of controls and substantive analytical procedures, the assessment of risk of material misstatement for accounts receivable has been set at “moderate.” Prepare a schedule that includes the following
[a] List the customer number and related balance for all customers you plan to direct test.
[b] Indicate your computed sample size (using the sample size formula provided on prior page). Provide supporting calculations and justification for your sample size, including justification for the confidence factor and the level of expected misstatement you used to compute your sample size.
[2] Based on the same background information as was used for question 1, but assuming that in selecting which customer balances to detail test you want to expand directed testing by selecting additional items based on risk and size, reevaluate the mix of directed testing and audit sampling. If you believe it would be efficient and effective to increase your directed testing, prepare a schedule that includes the following:
[a] Identify what characteristic can be used to select riskier items.
[b] List the customer numbers and related balances you would select for directed testing based on risk and provide the characteristics you used.
[c] List the additional customer accounts you would select for directed testing based on size and “coverage.”
[d] Determine whether it would be necessary to test the remaining population using audit sampling; if so, compute your sample size for testing the remaining population through audit sampling and justify the inputs you used in the sample size formula.
[3] Which detail testing approach seems most appropriate in this situation: the minimum level of directed testing together with a larger audit sample, expanded directed testing with no audit sampling, or both expanded directed testing and audit sampling? Be sure to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, as well as the level of assurance needed in view of the evidence already obtained from controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, etc.
[4] Independent of your responses to prior questions, assume that you direct tested customer balances greater than tolerable misstatement and randomly selected a sample of 40 additional customer balances for confirmation. The total book value of the 40 items sampled is $761,030. No differences were noted in the directed testing, and the sample yielded a combined overstatement in Hooplah’s records of $4,215. Brian Thompson, the accounts receivable supervisor agrees that the differences noted are misstatements due to pricing errors. Please answer the following questions:
[a] How much is the known misstatement in the accounts receivable balance?
[b] How much is the projected misstatement in the population (i.e., the total accounts receivable account) using ratio projection?
[c] How much is the projected misstatement in the population using difference projection?
[d] Explain why the two projections produce different results and describe the circumstances under which one projection approach might be more appropriate than the other.
[e] Based on the results of the detail testing outlined in this requirement, as well as the assurance obtained from controls testing and substantive analytical procedures, do the audit procedures support the assertion that the accounts receivable account is fairly stated? Why or why not?
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUESTIONS
It is recommended that you read the Professional Judgment Introduction found at the beginning of this book prior to responding to the following questions.
[5] How might the availability tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
[6] How might the confirmation tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?](../images/your-audit-firm-garrett-and-schulzke-llp-is-engaged-to-273881-4.jpg)
REQUIRED
[1] In selecting which customer balances to detail test via accounts receivable confirmations, assume that you have decided to direct test only the minimum number of customer accounts required; that is, you will direct test only customer accounts that are greater than tolerable misstatement, and you will use audit sampling to test the remainder of the population. You can find the accounts receivable detail listing at www.pearsonhighered.com/beasley. As noted there, Hooplah has a total of 357 customers, with an accounts receivable balance totaling $12,881,551. Based on the engagement team’s knowledge of Hooplah’s accounts receivable processes and policies, experience in prior year’s audits, and the results of tests of controls and substantive analytical procedures, the assessment of risk of material misstatement for accounts receivable has been set at “moderate.†Prepare a schedule that includes the following
[a] List the customer number and related balance for all customers you plan to direct test.
[b] Indicate your computed sample size (using the sample size formula provided on prior page). Provide supporting calculations and justification for your sample size, including justification for the confidence factor and the level of expected misstatement you used to compute your sample size.
[2] Based on the same background information as was used for question 1, but assuming that in selecting which customer balances to detail test you want to expand directed testing by selecting additional items based on risk and size, reevaluate the mix of directed testing and audit sampling. If you believe it would be efficient and effective to increase your directed testing, prepare a schedule that includes the following:
[a] Identify what characteristic can be used to select riskier items.
[b] List the customer numbers and related balances you would select for directed testing based on risk and provide the characteristics you used.
[c] List the additional customer accounts you would select for directed testing based on size and “coverage.â€
[d] Determine whether it would be necessary to test the remaining population using audit sampling; if so, compute your sample size for testing the remaining population through audit sampling and justify the inputs you used in the sample size formula.
[3] Which detail testing approach seems most appropriate in this situation: the minimum level of directed testing together with a larger audit sample, expanded directed testing with no audit sampling, or both expanded directed testing and audit sampling? Be sure to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, as well as the level of assurance needed in view of the evidence already obtained from controls testing, substantive analytical procedures, etc.
[4] Independent of your responses to prior questions, assume that you direct tested customer balances greater than tolerable misstatement and randomly selected a sample of 40 additional customer balances for confirmation. The total book value of the 40 items sampled is $761,030. No differences were noted in the directed testing, and the sample yielded a combined overstatement in Hooplah’s records of $4,215. Brian Thompson, the accounts receivable supervisor agrees that the differences noted are misstatements due to pricing errors. Please answer the following questions:
[a] How much is the known misstatement in the accounts receivable balance?
[b] How much is the projected misstatement in the population (i.e., the total accounts receivable account) using ratio projection?
[c] How much is the projected misstatement in the population using difference projection?
[d] Explain why the two projections produce different results and describe the circumstances under which one projection approach might be more appropriate than the other.
[e] Based on the results of the detail testing outlined in this requirement, as well as the assurance obtained from controls testing and substantive analytical procedures, do the audit procedures support the assertion that the accounts receivable account is fairly stated? Why or why not?
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUESTIONS
It is recommended that you read the Professional Judgment Introduction found at the beginning of this book prior to responding to the following questions.
[5] How might the availability tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
[6] How might the confirmation tendency contribute to less than optimal auditor judgment in the sampling process? How might an auditor mitigate the effects of this tendency?
> Breakfast cereals from three leading manufacturers can be classified either above average or below average in sugar content. Data for ten cereals from each manufacturer are given below: (a) Complete the marginal totals. (b) Calculate the relative freque
> Refer to the alligator data of the Data Bank. Using the data on x3 and x4 for male and female alligators from Lake Apopka: (a) Make a scatter diagram of the pairs of concentrations for the male alligators. Calculate the sample correlation coefficient.
> For the data set (a) Construct a scatter diagram. (b) Guess the sign and value of the correlation coefficient. (c) Calculate the correlation coefficient.
> If the value of r is small, can we conclude that there is not a strong relationship between the two variables?
> A new study is widely reported to show that dog owners benefit by being more agreeable and extroverted than cat owners. Comment in light of facts that, on average, dogs cost more to maintain and that dog owners have larger incomes than cat owners.
> In each of the following instances, would you expect a positive, negative, or zero correlation? (a) Number of salespersons and total dollar sales for real estate firms. (b) Total payroll and percent of wins of national league baseball teams. (c) The amou
> What is wrong with this statement of purpose? PURPOSE: Determine whether or not, over the course of the semester, the campus bus reaches your stop at the scheduled time. Give an improved statement of purpose.
> Would you expect a positive, negative, or nearly zero correlation for each of the following7 Give reasons for your answers. (a) The physical fitness of a dog and the physical fitness of the owner. (b) For each person, the number of songs downloaded fro
> With reference to the quit-smoking experiment: (a) Suppose the placebo trials were ignored and you were only told that 120 of 216 were abstinent after using the medicated patches. Would this now appear to be stronger evidence in favor of the patches? (
> With reference to the quit-smoking experiment, suppose two new subjects are available. Explain how you would assign one subject to receive the placebo and one to receive the medicated patch.
> Nausea from air sickness affects some travelers. A drug company, wanting to establish the effectiveness of its motion sickness pill, randomly gives either its pill or a look-alike sugar pill (placebo) to 200 passengers. (a) Complete the marginal totals.
> A sample of persons will each be asked to give the number of their close friends. The responses are to be grouped into the following classes: 0, 1-3, 3-5, 6 or more. Left endpoint is included. Explain where difficulties might arise.
> The number of goals your favorite ice hockey team scores are to be collected for each game. These game totals are to be grouped into the classes 0- 1, 2- 3, 4- 5, 7 or more. Both endpoints are included. Explain where a difficulty might arise.
> Data from one campus dorm on the number of burglaries are collected each week of the semester. These data are to be grouped into the classes 0-1, 2-3, 3-5, 6 or more. Both endpoints included. Explain where a difficulty might arise.
> Of the $207 million raised by a major university's fund drive, $11 7 million came from individuals and bequests, $24 million from industry and business, and $66 million from foundations and associations. Present this information in the form of a pie char
> At the last minute, 6 tickets have become available for a big football game. Use Table 1, Appendix B, to select the recipients from among 89 interested students.
> Eighty customers at a bakery named their favorite pie. The responses are as follows: (a) Calculate the frequency for each pie. (b) Construct a pie chart.
> The number of automobile accidents reported per month helps to identify intersections that require improvement. The number of crashes per month reported at an intersection near a university campus in Madison, Wisconsin, are Present these data in a freque
> A student at the University of Wisconsin surveyed 40 students in her dorm concerning their participation in extracurricular activities during the past week. The data on number of activities are Present these data in a frequency table and in a relative fr
> Recorded here are the blood types of 40 persons who have volunteered to donate blood at a plasma center. Summarize the data in a frequency table. Include calculations of the relative frequencies.
> The city of Madison regularly checks the water quality at swimming beaches located on area lakes. The concentration of fecal coliforms, in number of colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml of water, was measured on fifteen days during the summer at one bea
> A campus area merchant recorded the number of bad checks received per month, for five months 4 5 4 7 6 Display the data in a dot diagram.
> Before microwave ovens are sold, the manufacturer must check to ensure that the radiation coming through the door is below a specified safe limit. The amounts of radiation leakage (mW/cm2) with the door closed from 25 ovens are as follows (courtesy of Jo
> A person with asthma took measurements by blowing into a peak-flow meter on seven consecutive days. 429 425 471 422 432 444 454 Display the data in a dot diagram.
> A sample of 50 departing airline passengers at the main check-in counter produced the following number of bags checked through to final destinations. (a) Make a relative frequency line diagram. (b) Comment on the pattern. (c) What proportion of passenger
> A major West Coast power company surveyed 50 customers who were asked to respond to the statement, "People should rely mainly on themselves to solve problems caused by power outages" with one of the following responses. 1. Definitely agree. 2. Somewhat
> Twelve bicycles are available for use at the student union. Use Table 1, to select 4 of them for you and three of your friends to ride today.
> A survey of 451 men revealed that 144 men, or 3 1.9%, wait until Valentine's day or the day before to purchase flowers. Identify a statistical population and the sample.
> It was 9:30 A.M. on a Monday morning when the call came through. “Hi Dr. Mitchell, do you have a minute?” “Sure,” the professor replied. “I am one of your former students, but if you don’t mind, I would prefer to remain anonymous. I think it is best for
> Nathan recently interviewed with one of the accounting firms in the city where he wants to live. The firm agreed to cover the expense of a rental car that he used to travel from his university to the firm’s office. The rental car agency required that Nat
> Brent Dorsey graduated six months ago with a master’s degree in accounting. Immediately after graduation, Brent began working with a large accounting firm in Portland, Oregon. He is now on his second audit engagement—a company called Northwest Steel Prod
> Banking regulators announced in early 2015 a greater focus on evaluating ethical culture as part of their regulatory examination of a bank’s health. In a February 2015 speech, Thomas Baxter, Executive Vice President and General Counsel
> On November 15, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an enforcement action in the Northern Illinois U.S. District Court against Hollinger Inc., a Toronto-based company, and its former Chairman and CEO, Conrad Black, and the company’s
> Murchison Technologies, Inc. recently developed a patient-billing software system that it markets to physicians and dentists. Jim Archer and Janice Johnson founded the company in Austin, Texas five years ago after working at IBM for more than 15 years. J
> Scott glanced up at the clock on his office wall. It read 2:30 P.M. He had scheduled a 3:00 P.M. meeting with George “Hang-ten” Baldwin, chief executive officer of Surfer Dude Duds, Inc. Surfer Dude specialized in selling clothing and accessories popular
> Spencer and Loveland, LLP is a medium-sized, regional accounting firm based in the western part of the United States. A new client of the firm, K&K, Inc., which manufactures a variety of picture frames, recently contracted with Spencer and Loveland t
> Auto Parts, Inc. (“the Company”) manufactures automobile subassemblies marketed primarily to the large U.S. automakers. The publicly held Company’s unaudited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, reflect total assets of $56 million,
> The information below relates to the audit of EyeMax Corporation, a client with a calendar year-end. EyeMax has debt agreements associated with publicly traded bonds that require audited financial statements. The company is currently, and historically ha
> The Runners Shop (TRS) was a family-owned business founded 17 years ago by Robert and Andrea Johnson. In July of 2018, TRS found itself experiencing a severe cash shortage that forced it to file for bankruptcy protection. Prior to shutting down its opera
> Southeast Shoe Distributor (SSD) is a closely-owned business that was founded 10 years ago by Stewart Green and Paul Williams. SSD is a distributor that purchases and resells men’s, women’s, and childrenâ€&#
> Southeast Shoe Distributor (SSD) is a closely owned business founded 10 years ago by Stewart Green and Paul Williams. SSD is a distributor that purchases and resells men’s, women’s, and children’s sho
> Southeast Shoe Distributor (SSD) is a closely owned business that was founded 10 years ago by Stewart Green and Paul Williams. SSD is a distributor that purchases and sells men’s, women’s, and childrenâ€
> After being in business for only two years, Your 1040 Return.com has quickly become a leading provider of online income tax preparation and filing services for individual taxpayers. Steven Chicago founded the company after a business idea came to him whi
> Southeast Shoe Distributor (SSD) is a closely owned business that was founded 10 years ago by Stewart Green and Paul Williams. SSD is a distributor that purchases and sells men’s, women’s, and childrenâ€
> Southeast Shoe Distributor (SSD) is a closely owned business that was founded ten years ago by Stewart Green and Paul Williams. SSD is a distributor that purchases and sells men’s, women’s, and childrenâ€
> RedPack Beer Company is a privately-held micro brewery located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Bank loan covenants require that RedPack submit audited financial statements annually to the bank. Specifically, the bank covenants contain revenue and liquidity m
> The Financial Accounting Standard Board’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement, (ASC 820) provides a framework for measuring or estimating the fair value of certain assets and liabilities. It provides a hierarchy with three
> Confirmations of accounts receivable play an important role in the accumulation of sufficient, appropriate audit evidence. One of the principal strengths of confirmations is that they provide evidence obtained directly from third-parties. Auditing Standa
> You couldn’t be more excited about being on your first financial statement audit as you launch into your new professional accounting career. Having recently graduated with a Master of Accountancy degree, you are thrilled to be employing all the skills ac
> Henrico Retail, Inc. is a first year audit client. The audit partner obtained the following description of the sales system after recently meeting with client personnel at the corporate office. DESCRIPTION OF THE SALES SYSTEM Henrico’s sales system is IT
> Wally’s Billboard & Sign Supply, Inc. was founded four years ago by Walter Johnson. The company specializes in providing locations for sign and billboard advertising and has recently begun to enter the sign design market. After working several years in t
> Burlingham Bees, an independent, minor league baseball team, competes in the Northwest Coast League. The team finished in second place in 2018 with a record of 94-50. The Bees’ 2018 cumulative season attendance of 534,784 spectators set
> Asher Farms, Inc. is a fully-integrated poultry processing company engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh and frozen chicken products.Asher Farms sells ice pack, chill pack and frozen chicken, in whole, cut-up and bone
> Northwest Bank (NWB) has banking operations in 35 communities in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Headquarters for the bank are in Walla Walla, Washington. NWB’s loan portfolio consists primarily of agricultural loans, comme
> Analytical procedures can be powerful tools in conducting an audit. They help the auditor understand a client’s business and are useful in identifying potential risks and problem areas requiring greater substantive audit attention. If f
> Anne Aylor, Inc. (Anne Aylor) is a leading national specialty retailer of high-quality women’s apparel, shoes, and accessories sold primarily under the “Anne Aylor” brand name. Anne Aylor is a highly
> Town and Country Hardware (T&CH) is a closely owned business founded six years ago by Caleb and Jasmine Wright. T&CH has retail hardware stores located at three lake communities along the Virginia and North Carolina border. T&CH sells products for home i
> In a management review control (MRC), members of management review key information and evaluate its reasonableness by comparing it to expected values. Some examples include comparing budget to actual, reviewing impairment analyses, and reviewing estimate
> On January 24, 2008, Société Générale, France’s second largest bank announced the largest trading loss in history, a staggering 4.9 billion Euro ($7.2 billion U.S.), which it blamed on a single rogue trader. The trader, Jérôme Kerviel, worked at what Soc
> Large public companies in the U.S. are required by law to engage an auditor to perform an “integrated audit” involving both a traditional financial statement audit and an audit of internal control over financial reporting. PCAOB Audit Standard No. 2201,
> You are the new information technology (IT) audit specialist at the accounting firm of Townsend and Townsend, LLP. One of the audit partners, Harold Mobley, asked you to evaluate the effectiveness of general and application IT-related controls for a pote
> St. James Clothiers is a high-end clothing store located in a small Tennessee town. St. James has only one store, which is located in the shopping district by the town square. St. James enjoys the reputation of being the place to buy nice clothing in the
> An entrepreneur by the name of Francisco Fernandez recently entered into a new venture involving ownership and operation of a small, 26-room motel and café. The motel is located in a remote area of southern Utah. The area is popular for tourists, who com
> Apple Inc. (Apple) is a worldwide provider of innovative technology products and services. Apple’s products and services include iPhone®, iPad®, Mac®, iPod®, Apple Watch®, Apple TV®, a portfolio of consumer and professional software applications, iOS, ma
> Tina is an audit manager with a national public accounting firm and one of her clients is Simply Steam, Co. Simply Steam provides industrial and domestic carpet steam-cleaning services. This is the first time Simply Steam has been audited. Thus, Tina doe
> John C. Koss started his first company, J.C. Koss Hospital Television Rental Company, in 1953, based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but John had greater ambitions. Eventually he partnered with Martin Lange, an engineer, and by 1958 the two had founded Koss Ele
> In December 1995, the flamboyant entrepreneur, Michael “Mickey” Monus, formerly president and chief operating officer (COO) of the deep-discount retail chain Phar-Mor, Inc., was sentenced to 19 years and seven months in prison. Monus was convicted for th
> Xerox Corporation (Xerox), once a star in the technology sector of the economy, found itself engulfed in an accounting scandal alleging that it was too aggressive in recognizing equipment revenue.1 The complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commi
> Waste Management, Inc.’s Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 28, 1997 described the company at that time as a leading international provider of waste management services. According to disclosures i
> One can only imagine the high expectations of investors when the boards of directors of CUC International, Inc. (CUC) and HFS, Inc. (HFS) agreed to merge in May 1997 to form Cendant Corporation. The $14 billion stock merger of HFS and CUC, considered a m
> Enron Corporation entered 2001 as the seventh largest public company in the United States, only to later exit the year as the largest company to ever declare bankruptcy to that point in U.S. history. Investors who lost millions and lawmakers seeking to p
> Don’t ever tell yourself, “that won’t happen to me.” Just ask Cynthia Cooper, former Vice President of Internal Audit at WorldCom. Cynthia Cooper was a typical accounting student as an undergrad at Mississippi State University. Raised in Clinton, Mississ
> The accounting firm of Barnes and Fischer, LLP, is a medium-sized, national CPA firm. The partnership, formed in 1954, now has over 4,000 professionals on the payroll. The firm mainly provides auditing and tax services, but it has recently had success bu
> In what ways can leaders create ethical organizations?
> How do the contemporary theories of leadership relate to earlier foundational theories?
> What are the contingency theories of leadership?
> What are the causes and consequences of abuse of power?
> What power or influence tactics and their contingencies are identified most often?
> How is leadership different from power?
> The authors who suggested that membership in a team makes us smarter found that teams were more rational and quicker at finding solutions to difficult probability problems and reasoning tasks than were individuals. After participation in the study, team
> On the highly functioning teams in which you’ve been a member, what other characteristics might have contributed to success?
> From your experiences in teams, do you agree with the researchers’ findings on the characteristics of smart teams? Why or why not?
> Imagine you are a manager at a national corporation. You have been asked to select employees for a virtual problem-solving team. What types of employees would you include and why?
> Can you think of strategies that can help build trust among virtual team members?
> Recall a time when you felt like you could not trust members on your team. Why did you feel that way? How did that affect the team’s performance?
> What are the relevant points of intellectual and physical abilities to organizational behavior?
> In the cases discussed above, where do you think you would perform better, and why? Justify your answer by taking into account efficiency factors, reward systems, the context, and your individual perceptions.
> What type of group or team are cyclists working for a supervisor for Deliveroo? Justify your answer.
> How should the criterion of “legitimacy” be determined? Explain.
> Is there ever a case in which illegitimate tasks should be tolerated or “rightfully” given? Explain your answer.
> When is work performed by individuals preferred over work performed by teams?
> What are the major job attitudes?
> How do you think employees should respond when given illegitimate tasks? How can an organization monitor the tasks it assigns to employees and ensure that the tasks are legitimate? Explain your answer.
> Do you think it is possible for a reward program to start out rewarding the appropriate behavior at its inception but then begin to reward the wrong thing over time? Why or why not?
> Assuming you could become better at detecting the real emotions of others from facial expressions, do you think it would help your career? Why or why not?
> What are the ethical implications of reading faces for emotional content in the workplace?
> How do you overcome the potential problems of cross-cultural communication?
> What do you think are the best workplace applications for emotion reading technology?
> What type of decision-making framework would you advise the warehouse manager to adopt in order to help him reach an optimal decision? How will your suggestion help?
> Identify the stakeholders who will be influenced by the decision to accept or refuse the frozen meat shipment.
