(ii) Audit work on after－date bank transactions identified a transfer of cash from Batik C

Question

(ii) Audit work on after-date bank transactions identified a transfer of cash from Batik Co. The audit senior has

documented that the finance director explained that Batik commenced trading on 7 October 2005, after

being set up as a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary of Jinack. No other evidence has been obtained.

(4 marks)

Required:

Identify and comment on the implications of the above matters for the auditor’s report on the financial

statements of Jinack Co for the year ended 30 September 2005 and, where appropriate, the year ending

30 September 2006.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the matters.

Answer 1

正确答案：
(ii) Wholly-owned foreign subsidiary
■ The cash transfer is a non-adjusting post balance sheet event. It indicates that Batik was trading after the balance
sheet date. However, that does not preclude Batik having commenced trading before the year end.
■ The finance director’s oral representation is wholly insufficient evidence with regard to the existence (or otherwise)
of Batik at 30 September 2005. If it existed at the balance sheet date its financial statements should have been
consolidated (unless immaterial).
■ The lack of evidence that might reasonably be expected to be available (e.g. legal papers, registration payments,
etc) suggests a limitation on the scope of the audit.
■ If such evidence has been sought but not obtained then the limitation is imposed by the entity (rather than by
circumstances).
■ Whilst the transaction itself may not be material, the information concerning the existence of Batik may be material
to users and should therefore be disclosed (as a non-adjusting event). The absence of such disclosure, if the
auditor considered necessary, would result in a qualified ‘except for’, opinion.
Tutorial note: Any matter that is considered sufficiently material to be worthy of disclosure as a non-adjusting
event must result in such a qualified opinion if the disclosure is not made.
■ If Batik existed at the balance sheet date and had material assets and liabilities then its non-consolidation would
have a pervasive effect. This would warrant an adverse opinion.
■ Also, the nature of the limitation (being imposed by the entity) could have a pervasive effect if the auditor is
suspicious that other audit evidence has been withheld. In this case the auditor should disclaim an opinion.