- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir,
Make sure GDN are recorded in sales ledger account to verify completness.
Is this a test of completeness assertion or not?
One more question sir,
In payables, completness assertion says review payable analytically and compare payable days but in receivables, calculate recivalble days are under the assertion of valuation, why is that?It is a rest of completeness that despatches have been recorded in sales. It does not mean that all orders have been acted on. For that you need to trace from orders to GDNs.
Payables days are under our control so a major change is either because of a deliberate change in policy or payables might have been missed. In payables we are most worried about understatement, but valuation does not really pose a problem
In receivables we are worried about overstatement, either by sales transactions that should not be there or by amounts that will not be recovered.
1.But my question is if they ask us to perform procedures in receivables which verify completness: Can we mention calculate receivable days?
2. Do we have to learn test under particular assertions?
3. Non current liability, share capital, director emoluments comes under related to year end account balances?1 It helps to verify that accounts receivable are in line with what is expected so helps with completeness.
2 If you want to.
3 NCL and SC are balances at year end. Directors’ emoluments are transactions.
If Director emoluments comes under transaction then In BPP course notes the assertions used under this is Existence, Roghts and obligations,completness,accuracy,classification. But as per OT assertions under transactions are occurance,completness,accuracy, cut-off and classification. Why?
- The topic ‘Receivable’ is closed to new replies.