QUESTION 5(B)
–
JAN 2015
The liquidation after the year
The amount 253,000 worth of WIP in the
contract
The director did not want to adjust the
amount
The materiality level is 4%
(253k/25,263k) above benchmark. It
is material
It is not pervasive because it is after the
year end It is material but did
not pervasively. The liquidation take after
year end It does not reflect T&F
view The Unqualified Audit
Report “Except For”
QUESTION 6(B)
–
MAY 2015
The issue of going
concern ScrummyCider plc, no longer using Cox plc
There ScrummyCider is the biggest customer. The Director
plan change the ingredients
The materiality level is 72% above benchmark. It is
material
It is pervasive because it is major
customer It is material and
pervasively. The amount affect the operation of Cox plc It does not reflect T&F
view The Adverse Audit
QUESTION 7(B)
–
JULY 2015-BASKET LTD
The valuation of inventory
The audit team unable to perform the
stock count due to unsafe to visit
The Director provide the stock estimation
The materiality level is 14.24% (2m/12m)
above benchmark. It is material
It is not pervasive because the case is
isolated It is material but do
not pervasively. The stock count cannot be
performed due to safety issue It does not reflect T&F
view The Unqualified Audit
Report “Except For”
QUESTION 7(B)
–
JULY 2015-BASKET LTD
The valuation of inventory
The audit team unable to perform the
stock count due to unsafe to visit
The Director provide the stock estimation
The materiality level is 14.24% (2m/12m)
above benchmark. It is material
It is not pervasive because the case is
isolated It is material but do
not pervasively. The stock count cannot be
performed due to safety issue It does not reflect T&F
view The Unqualified Audit
Report “Except For”
QUESTION 7(B)
–
JULY 2015-GLASSWORKS LTD
Sold of PPE after the
year The assets was sold after the year end The Director refused to adjust the figures
The materiality level is 20% (200k/980k) above benchmark. It
is material
It is not pervasive because the case is
after the year end It is material but do
not pervasively. The adjustment need to be done in the next
accounting year It does not reflect T&F
view The Qualified Audit
Report “Except For”
QUESTION 8(B)
–
JAN 2016-THRILLER INDUSTRIES CO
Issue on the write off bad debt
No amount has been paid to Thriller by Smith Plc due to dispute
on quality
The Director refused to write off the bad debt
The materiality level is 10% (700k/6.8m) below benchmark. It is
not material
It is not pervasive because the case is
after the year end It is not material but do
not pervasively. The items subject for the significant uncertainty
about dispute It does reflect T&F view
The Unqualified Audit Report with Emphasis
QUESTION 8(B)
–
JAN 2016-REACHER TRADING CO
The auditor unable to undertake the audit
The previous auditor has performed the stock count and was overseen
by the company’s internal
audit department
The record on inventory were maintained and the
full inventory and impossible to take full
inventory count
The materiality level is 200% (1.020m/4.8m) above benchmark. It is
material
It is pervasive because the inventory may spread
across the FS It is material and
pervasively. The inventory amount give an
effect to entire FS It do not reflect T&F view
The Adverse Qualified Audit Report has been
QUESTION 9(B-I)
–
MAY 2016-COMPASS LTD
Depreciation issue Depreciation should be charged on the building only
The auditor disagree with the practices
The materiality level is 7% (5m/20m), It is above benchmark 5% total assets. Therefore,
it is material
It is not pervasive because it is isolated
FS It is material but not
pervasively. The management did not
comply with IAS 16 It do not reflect T&F
view The Qualified Audit
QUESTION 9(B-II)
–
MAY 2016-COMPASS LTD
The corruption on wages system
The three month wages cannot be
backup
The management cannot verify the
amount
The materiality level is 11% (2.2m/20m).
Therefore, it is material
It is not pervasive because it is isolated
case It is material but do
not pervasive. The auditor unable to identify the amount
for three month It do not reflect T&F
view The Qualified Audit
Report “Except For”
QUESTION 9(B-III)
–
MAY 2016-COMPASS LTD
Contigent Liability The main competitor has filled lawsuit for
breach of contract The case still ongoing
The materiality level is 50% (10m/20m).
Therefore, it is material
It is not pervasive because it is still
ongoing case It is material but do
not pervasive. The matter has been describe under notes
to the account It do not reflect T&F
view The Unqualified Audit
QUESTION 10(B-I)
–
JULY 2016-FUNKY LTD
Depreciation issue Depreciation should be charged on the building only
The refused to adjust the depreciation
amount
The materiality level is 14% (22.6 m/154.7m),
It is above benchmark 5% total assets. Therefore, it is material
It is not pervasive because it is isolated
FS It is material but not
pervasively. The management did not
comply with IAS 16 It do not reflect T&F
view The Qualified Audit
QUESTION 10(B-III)
–
JULY 2016-TRICERATOPS LTD
Going concern issue
The largest customers are not longer buy goods. The contract
represent 79% revenue
The management did not mentioned in notes
to the account.
The materiality level is 79% (7k/328,790).
Therefore, it is material because it above the benchmark
It is pervasive because it is not
isolated case. It is material and
pervasive. The company intend to liquidate the company
for next year. It do not reflect T&F
view The Adverse Audit
QUESTION 11(B-I)
–
JAN 2017-MINDY LTD
Subsequent event equipment sold on 5 The plant and January 2017
The management refused to adjust this
figures
The materiality level is 5.1% (50k/980k).
Therefore, it is material because it above the benchmark
It is not pervasive because it is isolated
case. It is material but do
not pervasive. The selling of plant and equipment after the
year end It do not reflect T&F
view The Qualified Audit
Report “Except for”
QUESTION 11(B-II)
–
JAN 2017-BARRY LTD
Going concern The biggest supplier, Paolo Ltd will terminate on 1 February 2017
The management refused to adjust this figures because it will
effect after the 7 month of the end of contract
The material because it is less than 12 month
It is pervasive because it is not isolated case.
It is material and pervasive.The entire FSs have been prepared
on the incorrect basis and
disclosures about management’s
intention to wind up the company have been omitted
It do not reflect T&F view
The Adverse Audit Report “has
