AUDIT TECHNICAL UPDATE – BUSY SEASON
STEVEN MORRISONCOHNREZNICK
Learning and
Development
2 • March 20, 2019
STEVEN MORRISONSteven Morrison, is a partner in National Assurance at CohnReznick, bringing
experience as an engagement partner, quality control reviewer, and as a
standard setter in a variety of industries, including automotive dealerships,
employee benefit plans, freight forwarding /mail courier, retail, and
wholesale/distribution. His experience encompasses effectively addressing
unique accounting and audit issues of entities in the United States, Asia, Europe,
Oceania, and the Americas. Steven addresses specific issues for companies in a
variety of other industries and has extensive experience in effectively
communicating simple and complex technical matters to all levels of personnel.
His current responsibilities include advising engagement teams on accounting
and auditing matters
.From 2015 to 2018, he served on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA)
Auditing Standards Board (ASB), a senior committee that promulgates U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards. As a part of his responsibilities on the board, he served as the final chair of the going
concern taskforce, which updated the going concern standard with SAS 132. He also served on the
audit evidence taskforce, which is considering updates to AU-C 500, Audit Evidence, and other
standards for issues such as blockchain and artificial intelligence.
Learning and
Development
3 • March 20, 2019
STEVEN MORRISONSteven is a past recipient of the ‘40 Under 40’ Award for the CPA Practice Advisor and South Florida
Business Journal. He has extensive speaking experience at conferences, and has presented on
accounting and auditing matters at various conferences including those of the AICPA, Florida Institute of
CPAs (FICPA), Michigan Association of CPAs (MICPA), and the Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners (ACFE).
Education
University of Florida – Bachelor of Science in Accounting
University of Florida – Master of Arts in Real Estate, Concentration in Capital Markets and Finance
Florida Atlantic University – Master of Accounting
Certificates
University of Notre Dame–Executive Integral Leadership at Kylemore program (Ireland)
University of Notre Dame–Advanced Specialized Certificate in Intercultural Management (expected 2019)
AICPA Certificate
Blockchain Fundamentals for Accounting and Finance Professionals Certificate (2018)
Learning and
Development
4 • March 20, 2019
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
4
Learning and
Development
5 • March 20, 2019
A BROAD PORTFOLIO OF SERVICES
5
ACCOUNTING
AND ASSURANCE
SERVICES
TAX SERVICES ADVISORYAFFILIATED
COMPANIES
Audits, Reviews, and
Compilations
Employee Benefit Plans
IFRS
SOC 1(SSAE 16), 2, and
3 Examinations
Agreed-upon
Procedures
Accounting
Outsourcing and
Consultations
Public Company
Services
IT Audit and Controls
Review
Tax Compliance and
Preparation
Strategic Tax Planning
Corporate Tax
Outsourcing
Private Clients
Federal Tax
Trust and Estate
International Tax
State and Local Tax
Transfer Pricing
Cost Segregation Studies
New Market Tax Credits
Tax Specialty Services
Tax Credit Advisory
Bankruptcy and Restructuring
Computer Forensics and eDiscovery
Cybersecurity
Forensic and Litigation
Governance, Risk and Compliance
Government and Public Sector
Management Consulting and CFO
Advisory
Real Estate Advisory / NOI Strategies
Technology and Digital Services
Transactional Advisory and M&A
Consulting
Valuation
Capital Markets
Securities
CohnReznick
Benefits Consultants
CohnReznick UIC
Insurance
Consulting, Inc.
CohnReznick Real
Estate LLC
CohnReznick
Wealth
Management LLC
WJ Technologies
Learning and
Development
6 • March 20, 2019
IMPORTANT NOTEThe views expressed in this presentation are my own at this timeand not necessarily those of CohnReznick.
This presentation does not constitute accounting or legal advise.
Before proceeding regarding any accounting or auditing matterplease be sure to consult the appropriate guidance. Thispresentation does not contain all US GAAP, US GAAS, PCAOBStandards, other financial reporting frameworks, other auditingstandards, or other information that may be applicable and theremay be circumstances which may result in different treatment thanwhat is presented in this presentation.
Certain considerations mentioned are practical considerations thatmay or may not be relevant in the facts and circumstances.
Learning and
Development
7 • March 20, 2019
STEVEN MORRISON, CPAPartner, National Assurance – Audit Quality Group
CohnReznick LLP
1301 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10019 Tel: 646-601-7740Mobile: [email protected]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenmorrisoncpa
BUSY SEASON REMINDERS
Learning and
Development
9 • March 20, 2019
PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM
In AU-C 200, professional skepticism is defined as:
“An attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.”
Learning and
Development
10 • March 20, 2019
AUDIT EVIDENCE• The concepts around audit evidence is visualized below:
Learning and
Development
11 • March 20, 2019
POLLING QUESTION 1
Of the following, which is not specifically noted in AU-C 500 related to audit evidence:
1. Sufficient
2. Appropriate
3. Mystical
4. Relevant
5. Reliable
Learning and
Development
12 • March 20, 2019
Auditing estimates is an important part of both AICPA and PCAOB
engagements and both inspection programs have found issues with a
large number of firms and the auditing of estimates. An overall thought
process to address estimates may include:• Reviewing and testing the processes used by management to develop estimates• Developing an independent expectation of the estimate to corroborate the
reasonableness of management's estimate• Reviewing subsequent events or transactions occurring prior to the date of the
auditor's reportAICPA AU-C 540 and PCAOB 2501 provide the structure of how to address estimates.As a general practice aid, consider asking yourself: “How do we know?”
CHALLENGING MANAGEMENT’S ESTIMATES
Learning and
Development
13 • March 20, 2019
To the right is a sample PPE impairment
test provided by a theoretical client.
Asking “how do we know?” helps bring
forth other questions as to if we have
sufficient appropriate evidence:• Do we have executed lease agreements
for these subsequent years?
• How do we know these cash
expenditures are accurate and
complete?
2019 2020 2021
Net carrying amount of PPE at 12/31/18
CHALLENGING MANAGEMENT’S ESTIMATES
Learning and
Development
14 • March 20, 2019
Mindsets that may not be appropriate:• “Who cares, it’s just an estimate”• “Who are we to tell the client ‘no’?”• “They gave us a plain Excel spreadsheet, no need to audit it, this is
management’s estimate, we are good to go!”• “The estimate came from a third party valuation expert, no need for us to
worry”• “What’s the risk?”• “Who cares? Management’s estimate of the liability is below scope”• “Did we inquire of management and document their response? Once we
have done that we are DONE!”
CHALLENGING MANAGEMENT’S ESTIMATES
Learning and
Development
15 • March 20, 2019
POLLING QUESTION 2
Which sets of audit standards have a specific standard (or standards) on auditing estimates:
1. US GAAS
2. PCAOB
3. US GAAS and PCAOB
4. SSARS for preparation
5. SSARS for preparation and PCAOB
Learning and
Development
16 • March 20, 2019
• Some important notes about valuation reports (often received for
business combinations, PPE impairment, goodwill/intangibles
impairment, etc.):
• Many of the concepts about challenging estimates still apply
• The use of specialist requirements in AICPA (AU-C 500 and
620) and PCAOB (AS 1210) are typically applicable and there
are forms in third party providers which help guide the thought
process and related documentation
• Build in time up-front for specialist review, assume there will be
questions, issues, changes, delays, etc.
VALUATIONS
Learning and
Development
17 • March 20, 2019
• A basic premise underlying the application of analytical
procedures is that plausible relationships among data may
reasonably be expected to exist and continue in the absence of
known conditions to the contrary.
• The reasons that make relationships plausible are an important
consideration because data sometimes appears to be related
when it is not, which may lead the auditor to erroneous
conclusions.
• In addition, the presence of an unexpected relationship may
provide important evidence when appropriately scrutinized.
ANALYTICS (FROM AU-C 520.A6, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Learning and
Development
18 • March 20, 2019
SUBSTANTIVE ANALYTICS – DEBT INTEREST• In a number of circumstances, it may not be appropriate to consider a
flux analysis as a substantive analytic. A simple flux analysis, when not supplemented by expectations and precision, can lead to incorrect conclusions.
• In this case, the entity paid off its debt at the start of 2018, thus the expectation should be that interest expense is approximately $8,000, thus the $100,000 would possibly warrant additional audit work.
Learning and
Development
19 • March 20, 2019
SUBSTANTIVE ANALYTICS – DEBT INTERESTThe more precise the expectation, the more likely we may detect a previously unrecorded derivative. In the theoretical example below, the client provides the auditor the original debt agreement with a variable rate at prime. However, our test below reveals a difference between predicted interest and actual.
Here, the client forgot to tell the auditor that the client had entered into an interest rate swap fixing the interest rate at about 6%, thus actual interest expense is different and more accounting/ disclosure is necessary
Learning and
Development
20 • March 20, 2019
GOING CONCERN - OVERALL• Consider if there are conditions and events which raise
substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time
• Evaluate management’s plans to alleviate substantial doubt
• Conclude on:• Whether there is substantial doubt the entity will be able to continue as a going
concern for a reasonable period of time
• The appropriateness of using the going concern basis of accounting
• NOTE: The going concern basis of accounting (as opposed to the liquidation basis) may be appropriate even if there is substantial doubt.
• Report
Learning and
Development
21 • March 20, 2019
GOING CONCERN – THIRD PARTY SUPPORT
• When management’s plans include financial support by third parties or the entity’s owner-manager (“supporting parties”) and such support is necessary in supporting management’s assertions about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the auditor should obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the following:
a) The intent of such supporting parties to provide the necessary financial support, including written evidence of such intent, and
b) The ability of such supporting parties to provide the necessary financial support
Learning and
Development
22 • March 20, 2019
POLLING QUESTION 3
When considering going concern, if third-party support is necessary for an entity to alleviate substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, evidence as to intent and ability of the third-party is necessary. In regards to “intent”, the evidence must be:
1. Written
2. Orally communicated to the auditor by the third party
3. Written only by the client (such is sufficient if in the auditor’s judgment, that the third party will provide the support)
4. Orally communicated to the auditor by the client
5. Written manually
Learning and
Development
23 • March 20, 2019
GOING CONCERN - SUFFICIENCY OF AUDIT EVIDENCE• Sufficiency of the audit evidence (responses the auditor might
receive):
• “But all we can get is an Excel spreadsheet…”
• “This is all we have ever gotten before”
• “The supporting party has always provided the support and just does not want to sign the support letter because they do not want to put anything in writing”
• “Don’t you trust my professional judgment?!”
• “What’s the risk?”
• “No one will ever know”
• “It is not an inspection year”
Learning and
Development
24 • March 20, 2019
TECHNICAL MEMOS• Appropriately document consideration of technical issues (possibly such
as debt vs. equity, impairment considerations, etc.)
• A way of thinking through the documentation may be continuing to ask throughout the memo: “How do we know?”
• Cite authoritative literature, as appropriate• FASB, IFRS, etc. (e.g., ASC 330-10-30-1, etc.)
• AU-C, PCAOB, SSARS, etc. (e.g., AU-C 570, para. .12, etc.)
• Cite non-authoritative literature, as appropriate• AICPA Technical Practice Aids (Q&A Section 5290: Other Expenses, .05, Accrual of Audit Fee)
• Third party guides (specify guide and page)
• Rather than putting large extracts of literature in memos, consider putting the extracts as an appendix, if extracts are needed at all
• Possibly insufficient: “Based upon discussion with Ralph the quality reviewer, the accounting was correct”
Learning and
Development
25 • March 20, 2019
OTHER ITEMS• Planning/risk assessment - in addition to identifying risks, this helps
prevent allocating time and effort with the wrong focus and then revisiting areas later on unnecessarily)
• Inventory procedures as to existence – Consider the appropriate AU-C or PCAOB standards and design the procedures appropriately
• When sampling, be mindful that the Other Substantive Procedures Risk is typically only lowered when appropriate other substantive procedures will be performed to address the risk (such as substantive analytics)
• For final analytics, analytical procedures near the end of the audit may assist when forming an overall conclusion about whether the financial statements are consistent with the auditor’s understanding of the entity. The results of final analytics may identify a previously unrecognized risk of material misstatement
Learning and
Development
26 • March 20, 2019
• Update as appropriate
• Consider the need to update legal letters (particularly if there is
litigation in progress)
• Note also that the contingency footnote is dictated by the
requirements of GAAP. If the contingency note does not have
the necessary disclosures or is otherwise misleading, consider
the requirements of AU-C 705
SUBSEQUENT EVENT PROCEDURES
Learning and
Development
27 • March 20, 2019
• Consider the qualitative considerations (third party forms may
have a checklist built into the uncorrected misstatements form)
• Note that uncorrected misstatements may be quantitatively
immaterial (i.e., below materiality) but qualitatively material
(e.g., if the misstatement was corrected, the entity would then
be in covenant violation)
UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS
Learning and
Development
28 • March 20, 2019
• Be mindful of the date (consider also the report date and
subsequent events procedures):
• Consider tailoring as appropriate
• Certain items that may be appropriate to add:
• Debt vs. equity conclusions
• Assertions regarding lack of goodwill impairment
• Management’s plans to alleviate conditions or events that raise
substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a
going concern
• Portions of certain financial statement disclosures
REPRESENTATION LETTERS
Learning and
Development
29 • March 20, 2019
• PRACTICAL TIP: Consider starting with a fresh template each
year and adding engagement-specific items to the end. That way,
each year, you get the benefit of the latest template and when
looking at the prior year, typically the engagement-specific items
are at the end and easy to identify
REPRESENTATION LETTERS
Learning and
Development
30 • March 20, 2019
• Consideration of the statement of cash flows, including:• Operating
• Investing
• Financing
• Non-cash
• Supplemental disclosures (cash paid for interest, cash paid for taxes, etc.)
• ASC 230 and specifically ASU 2016-15 and 18 have included a
number of examples of what gets classified where
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
Learning and
Development
31 • March 20, 2019
• AICPA AU-C 230 addresses documentation requirements
• Application guidance indicates:“.A7 On their own, oral explanations by the auditor do not represent
adequate support for the work the auditor performed or conclusions
the auditor reached, but may be used to explain or clarify information
contained in the audit documentation.”
• However, as indicated in the AICPA’s 2017 EAQ report:“If an auditor’s work is not documented, the auditor is not doneobtaining evidence to support his or her opinion.”
DOCUMENTATION
Learning and
Development
32 • March 20, 2019
POLLING QUESTION 4
According to AU-C 230, oral explanations of auditor procedures are typically:
1. Just fine, provided the auditor remembers everything
2. Not sufficient
3. Sufficient
4. Sufficient as long as the engagement is not selected for peer review
5. Just fine
Learning and
Development
33 • March 20, 2019
REPORT MODIFICATIONWhen considering the need for modifying our report, for AICPA
engagements, consider this chart, which is extracted from AU-C 705:
Nature of Matter Giving Rise to the Modification
Auditor’s Professional Judgment About the Pervasiveness of the Effects or Possible Effects on the Financial Statements
Material but Not Pervasive
Material and Pervasive
Financial statements are materially misstated
Qualified Adverse
Inability to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence Qualified Disclaimer
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
Learning and
Development
35 • March 20, 2019
STEVEN MORRISON, CPAPartner, National Assurance – Audit Quality Group
CohnReznick LLP
1301 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10019 Tel: 646-601-7740Mobile: [email protected]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenmorrisoncpa