- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello dear tutor
I hope that you are well
This is part of ACCA’s article:
“In summary if a CONFIRMED material uncertainty exists it must be disclosed in accordance with ISA 570 and where there is a ‘CLOSE ALL’ over going concern which has been determined by the auditor to a KAM it will be disclosed in line with ISA 701.”Q1:how should we conclude that a matter is a confirmed material uncertainty or a close all over going concern(doubt over GC)?is it a matter of auditor judgement?
I mean how should we determine a sign of GC such as loss of one of 3 main customers is a confirmed material uncertainty or significant doubt over GC?(should we consider its effect with other signs and conclude ie for example there is a confirmed material uncertainty over GC if we loss a key customer and cash problem and loss of key employee at the same time BUT there is a significant doubt over GC if we loss a key customer)Q2:when there is a significant doubt over GC, what is the type of report?is it correct to say:
we should use UNQUALIFIED OPINION include KAM(no need to EOM)?Thank you in advance
“CLOSE ALL” – I thought this was just a miss-print but you’ve used it twice so I’ve decided that you’ve got the wrong name for it
The expression is Close Call
“is it a matter of auditor judgement?” – it certainly is
It CAN be an unqualified opinion even with a close call situation and a separate Close Call mention
Thank you…
It was my mistake(close call was the correct word as you said)But i donnot understand this sentence:
“It CAN be an unqualified opinion even with a close call situation and a separate Close Call mention”I am really sorry…
Please explain more if it is possibleThank you in advance
A close call does not always lead to a qualified opinion
Is that enough?
Yes….
Sometimes It leads to unqualified opinion… include KAM…If it is correct I have no more problem…
Thanks alot
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.