| Abstrakt: |
This article discusses the differing viewpoints and answers some frequently asked questions about satisfying the completeness assertion in a typical audit in the U.S. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) number 31 identifies five broad categories of assertions that are embodied, explicitly or implicitly, in financial statements. Those assertions are existence or occurrence, completeness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, and presentation and disclosure. An unqualified opinion implies that an auditor has obtained sufficient competent evidential matter about all material financial statement assertions. The amount and kinds of evidential matter required to support an unqualified opinion are determined by professional judgment after careful evaluation of the particular circumstances. Completeness controls are policies and procedures that are designed to count or otherwise identify transactions executed by an entity. They provide management with reasonable assurance that all transactions have been accurately recorded by the accounting system. In all circumstances, SAS number 31 requires an auditor to obtain evidence concerning the completeness assertion to express an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. Differences of opinion exist about the nature of the evidential matter that is necessary to satisfy the completeness assertion. Of all the financial statement assertions, only one--completeness--deals with the audit of items that are not included in the population under audit. If an auditor is unable to obtain sufficient competent evidential matter regarding any material financial statement assertion, including completeness, a scope limitation on the scope limitation results. Authoritative pronouncements, textbooks and other professional literature may adequately address completeness from a conceptual perspective, but they provide little practical guidance about satisfying the completeness assertion in a typical audit. |
