- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
“For timing differences identified on responses or otherwise (e.g. Cash in transit), these should be agreed to post year-end cash receipts in the cash book and bank statement.”
For my opinion, the auditor reconciles back the balance differences between client and customer to ensure that year-end receivable is recorded at Accuracy.
And, that is NOT related to Completeness as the receivables have been recorded and the audit will only test for their accuracy.
May I have your opinion for my answer? Is that related to accuracy only?
Thank you.
We don’t mark suggested answers because requests become endless.
Once a control deficiency is discovere its fix and ToC are obvious. Similarly, it is hard to go wrong on substantive tests.
With regards to assertions covered by substantive tests, many tests can cover more than one assertion. Provided you are happy in your own mind about what the test addresses just go for it, don’t spend ages agonising about it, and go onto another test if required.
The only test purposes,people routinely get wrong are completeness/existence. For completeness, trace from the initiating event to the books and FS (eg sales orders through to sales). For existence, trace from the FS and books back to the initiating event (eg sales back to sqles orders).
- The topic ‘Substantive procedures for receivables’ is closed to new replies.