- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir, sorry for asking a silly question that what is the difference between assurance engagement and non-assurance engagement?
if non-assurance engagement is that auditor/practitioner will not express and opinion/ conclusion on it , why the review engagement which is non-assurance engagement will need to provide negative assurance? (eg: nothing has come to the auditor’s attention that causes the auditor to believe that the financial statements are not prepared in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework).
A bit confused about it.
Thank you
With reference to this article, the review engagement is classified as the non-assurance engagement
Assurance may be reasonable/”positive” (e.g. audit engagement) or limited/”negative” (e.g. review engagement). Negative does NOT mean no assurance.
I agree with you – the article should be describing the review as “non-audit” rather than “non-assurance” – I will draw to ACCA’s attention when next I have the opportunity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.