On September 3, 20X1, Larkin, CPA, was engaged to audit the financial statements of Precious Metals Co. (PM), for the year ended October 31, 20X1. PM purchases precious metals at wholesale prices and resells them to craft clubs at retail. PM is a new client whose common stock was first offered to the public five years ago. PM received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements in each of the prior three years, but changes auditors after each engagement. In accepting the engagement, Larkin completed all of the appropriate client acceptance procedures.Larkin instructed Johnson, an assistant on the engagement, to draft a planning checklist that would assist Larkin in preparing the audit staff for the fieldwork that is scheduled to begin on October 17, 20X1. On October 5, 20X1,

Question

Johnson prepared the planning checklist below (engagement letter points have been omitted). Indicate the inappropriate points that are included on Johnson's planning checklist.I. Understanding the engagementIn planning the audit, have the engagement personnel considered:1PM's accounting policies and procedures??2Financial statement items likely to require adjustment??3The nature of the reports expected to be rendered??4The effects of accounting and auditing pronouncements, particularly new ones??5Methods of audit sampling to be used??6Whether the method of sampling is likely to be approved by PM??7The extent of involvement of other independent auditors or internal auditors??8Procedures to evaluate competence and objectivity of PM's internal auditors??In planning the audit, have engaged personnel discussed:?9The general scope and timing of the audit work with PM's management, board of directors, or audit committee??10The risk of misstatement due to fraud for each assertion for each account with PM's management, board of directors, and the audit committee?????II. Assigning personnel to the engagementHas a time budget for the engagement been prepared to determine the staffing requirements and to schedule the fieldwork, and has it been approved by:11The engagement partner??12PM's controller and audit committee??13Has the engagement staffing schedule been approved by the engagement partner??Have the following factors been considered:14Engagement size and complexity??15Personnel available??16Timing of the work to be performed??17Continuity and periodic rotation of personnel??18Need to restrict engagement to CPAs?????III. Knowledge of the entity's businessHas an overall understanding of PM's operations been obtained by reviewing:19Successor auditor's working papers??20Financial statements and interim financial statements??21Minutes of stockholders' and board of directors' meetings??22Filings with regulatory agencies??23Recent management letters??24The Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards??25Economic conditions, government regulations, and specialist accounting practices??26Have engagement personnel obtained knowledge of PM's organization and operating characteristics??27Factors affecting the risk of misstatements due to error or fraud??28Materiality??29Degree of understanding of internal control to plan the audit??30Methods that PM uses to process accounting information??31Whether their investments in PM stock are material?????IV. Assessing auditabilityHas the adequacy of the accounting records been assessed for proper:32Descriptions of transactions to permit the appropriate financial statement classification??33Information about transactions to permit the recording of appropriate monetary amounts??34Recording of transactions in the appropriate accounting period??Have the following factors regarding the integrity of management been considered in planning the audit:35Responses to previous inquiries of local attorneys, bankers, and other business leaders regarding PM's standing in the community??36PM's credit rating??37Have inquiries of a sample of PM's customers regarding PM's credit-granting policies been made?????V. Assessing risk38Has detection risk been appropriately restricted to determine how much inherent risk can be accepted??39Has consideration been given to permitting PM's internal auditors to make the assessment of inherent risk and evaluations of significant accounting estimates??If control risk is assessed at below the maximum level:40Is the audit fee high enough to handle any likely litigation??41Have specific internal control activities that are likely to prevent or detect material misstatements in those assertions been identified??If control risk is assessed at the maximum level for some or all assertions:42Is the scope of substantive testing appropriately decreased??43Have tests of controls to evaluate the design and operation of such activities been performed?????VI. Illegal actsHave the following matters been considered in assessing the risk that PM has not complied with laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements:44PM's policy relative to the prevention of illegal acts??45?PM's understanding of the requirements of laws and regulations pertinent to its business??46Obtaining management's written assurance that no employees have committed any illegal acts of any type?????VII. Analytical proceduresIn planning the audit, have analytical procedures been used that focus on:47Enhancing an understanding of PM's business and the transactions and events of the year under audit??48Identifying areas that may represent specific risks relevant to the audit??49Evaluating the overall financial statement presentation?????VIII. Audit strategies and the audit plan50Has the program been developed for the engagement and approved by the engagement partner??

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The following are inappropriate points:

6. The client should not be asked to approve the sampling method.

10. Although discussions with management, the board of directors, and the audit committee will be held on fraud, the details at the assertion level for each account will not ordinarily be discussed. The professional standards do require that members of the audit team discuss the potential for material misstatement due to fraud either during planning or in conjunction with the information-gathering procedures related to fraud subsequent to planning.

12. The controller and audit committee should not approve the time budget.

18. There is ordinarily no reason to restrict an engagement to CPAs.

19. A review of the predecessor auditor's working papers might be appropriate-not the successor (Larkin CPA).

24. SAS do not provide guidance on PM's operations. Larkin will use PCAOB Auditing Standards to conduct the engagement.

31. Engagement personnel should have no investments in PM stock.

37. Customers are not ordinarily consulted concerning credit-granting policies.

38. Inherent and control risk are more conventionally assessed so as to determine the appropriate level of detection risk.

39. Internal auditors do not make judgment about the assessment of inherent risk and evaluation of estimates.

40. Such a litigation concern is not appropriate in this document.

42. One does not expect a decrease in the scope of substantive testing when control risk is assessed at the maximum level.

43. Tests of controls are not ordinarily performed when a plan exists to assess control risk at the maximum level. Tests of controls are not performed when a substantive approach is employed to conduct the engagement.

46. Management need not attempt to determine whether employees have committed illegal acts of any type.

49. Evaluating overall financial statement presentation is not ordinarily an objective of analytical procedures.