You are an audit manager responsible for providing hot reviews on selected audit clients w

Question

You are an audit manager responsible for providing hot reviews on selected audit clients within your firm of Chartered

Certified Accountants. You are currently reviewing the audit working papers for Pulp Co, a long standing audit client,

for the year ended 31 January 2008. The draft statement of financial position (balance sheet) of Pulp Co shows total

assets of $12 million (2007 – $11·5 million).The audit senior has made the following comment in a summary of

issues for your review:

‘Pulp Co’s statement of financial position (balance sheet) shows a receivable classified as a current asset with a value

of $25,000. The only audit evidence we have requested and obtained is a management representation stating the

following:

(1) that the amount is owed to Pulp Co from Jarvis Co,

(2) that Jarvis Co is controlled by Pulp Co’s chairman, Peter Sheffield, and

(3) that the balance is likely to be received six months after Pulp Co’s year end.

The receivable was also outstanding at the last year end when an identical management representation was provided,

and our working papers noted that because the balance was immaterial no further work was considered necessary.

No disclosure has been made in the financial statements regarding the balance. Jarvis Co is not audited by our firm

and we have verified that Pulp Co does not own any shares in Jarvis Co.’

Required:

(b) In relation to the receivable recognised on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) of Pulp Co as

at 31 January 2008:

(i) Comment on the matters you should consider. (5 marks)

Answer 1

正确答案：
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.