- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
More or less.
In a P7/AAA article on types of engagement is states:
There are many similarities between review engagements and the limited assurance engagements (… so-called ‘mini’ or voluntary audits). The best approach to adopt, however, is to consider the work required for the engagement itself, rather than to dwell on how the engagement is classified.
Both provide negative assurance rather than the positive assurance of a normal audit.
Thankyou sir.. Please also tell me that in reasonable assurance we only conclude that FS is ok in all material respect ?.. Because it may be possible that FS are not materially accurate. So in resonable assurance can give opinon that FS is not ok.
Reasonable assurance provides reasonable assurance that the FS are free from material misstatements.
This leaves the possibility that a material FS do, in fact, contain a material error, and this can happen even if an audit has been carried out properly. Auditing is done on a sampling basis and if not every transaction has been looked at, then the auditors might not find the error. In addition, fraudsters can cleverly conceal their dishonest acts.
If the auditor thinks that the FS do contain a material misstatement then their audit opinion will be modified to a qualified or adverse opinion.
Whether the opinion is unmodified, qualified or adverse the auditor is giving a clear judgement, within the limits of reasonable assurance, about the FS.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.