- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
When the question presents an opinion paragraph that is wrongly giving an adverse opinion (since the disagreement is not pervasive, but only material) and is also giving an incorrect heading, should I state that the “auditor has incorrectly stated the heading of the opinion paragraph, that should be headed as Qualified Opinion”?
Or should I write that “Since the disagreement is unlikely to be pervasive, the opinion paragraph should be headed as ‘Qualified Opinion'”Example: Dec15, q.5
Thank you.
You should make two separate points – why it should be qualified rather than adverse and that the heading of the opinion para is wrong (and presumably also the basis of opinion para).
I understand this, but the answer states that the opinion paragraph should be headed as “Adverse Opinion”. Shouldn’t it state that the opinion paragraph should be headed as “Qualified Opinion”?
My apologies, I did not realise that you were querying the published answer.
The answer states that the opinion “does not give a true fair view” means that the heading should have been “Basis of Adverse Opinion” – this is true.
It goes on to discuss that the adverse opinion may not be appropriate and that a qualified opinion might be appropriate or even an unmodified opinion. It could have gone on to say what the headings should then have been – but basically the mark for the wrong heading has already been awarded.An alternative approach would have been to discuss what the opinion should have been first – and then state what the heading would be in this case. Either way, it’s the same marks.
- The topic ‘Critically appraise…’ is closed to new replies.