- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
“However, care must be taken by the auditor because if the auditor suspects that those charged with governance are involved, the auditor must then communicate with the next highest level of authority, which may include the audit committee. ”
Maam clearly this indicates that TCWG doesn’t refer to audit committee, which is muddling me now, because as per your responses to one of my earlier doubts you had mentioned that TCWG is synonymous with audit committee.
Your thoughts….
Initial response – yes this is confusing – I will look at the relevant pronouncements when I am back in my office on Monday.
I have gone back to the ISA where it states that suspected non-compliance should be discussed with “the appropriate level of management and, where appropriate, TCWG”. So if management is potentially involved, the auditor would obviously not report to management but to TCWG – where distinct from management.
Board structures are an SBL topic rather than an audit topic. As I’m sure I’ve mentioned on a previous post, in some jurisdictions there can be a two-tier board structure – i.e. a board of directors (“management”) and a supervisory “governance” board (which might include executive directors) – rather than the “unitary board” that is most common in the UK. For a listed company with a two-tier structure an audit committee would be the last “layer” above the governance board.
I don’t like this article because it is not “written by a member of the examining team” – also it muddles AA/AAA topics – so I think better disregarded for AA.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.