Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Advanced Audit and Assurance (International) · Laws and regulations

Auditor Mariam finds that Tarn Logistics may have breached a law with only an indirect effect on the financial statements (health and safety). The breach may cause fines of $40,000, but management gave a plausible explanation that no breach occurred, supported by the legal counsel's letter. Overall materiality is $500,000. Which conclusion is most appropriate?

Mariam should assess the evidence, including the legal counsel's view, and if it shows no breach occurred, document her findings and conclusion without further action. A dispelled suspicion does not require regulator reporting, modification, or resignation, particularly with a small amount relative to materiality.

  1. AMariam must report the matter to the regulator regardless of the evidence
  2. BMariam should evaluate the evidence, including legal counsel's view, and, if satisfied no non-compliance occurred, no further action beyond documentation is requiredCorrect
  3. CThe audit opinion must be modified because any suspected breach is pervasive
  4. DMariam should resign since legal counsel was involved

Explanation

ISA 250 requires evaluating the evidence obtained and the implications. If sufficient appropriate evidence shows no non-compliance occurred, the auditor documents the findings and conclusions and needs no further reporting. The $40,000 is also well below materiality. Modification, reporting, or resignation are not triggered by a suspicion that is dispelled.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Laws and regulations shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Laws and regulations questions