The audit organization may use the work of an expert. Sheremet A.D. Audit Using the work of an expert. Test questions for self-test

The use of an expert’s work in an audit is regulated by both the International Standard on Auditing ISA 620 and the Russian Rule (standard) “Use of an Expert’s Work.”

Expert- this is a specialist who is not on the staff of this audit organization, who has sufficient knowledge and (or) experience in a certain field other than accounting and audit, and giving an opinion on a matter related to this area.

As an expert, an audit organization can use the work of a specialized organization that is a legal entity.

The decision to use the work of an expert during an audit is made by the audit organization, based on the nature and complexity of the circumstances to be investigated, the level of their materiality, as well as the feasibility, possibility and reliability of other audit procedures in relation to these circumstances.

The expert whose work the audit organization uses when conducting an audit must have appropriate qualifications, usually confirmed by appropriate documents ( qualification certificate, license, diploma), and experience or reputation, confirmed by relevant reviews, recommendations, publications, certificates.

Expert ( individual) must be objective, therefore he cannot be either the main founder (participant), or the head of the economic entity in respect of which the audit is being conducted, or a person who is closely related or related to these persons.

Expert ( legal entity) should not be the main or predominant founder (participant), creditor, insurer of the economic entity in respect of which the audit is being conducted, and the economic entity in respect of which the audit is being conducted should not be the main or predominant founder (participant) of the expert (legal entity).

An audit organization may use the work of an expert when conducting an audit only with the consent of the economic entity in respect of which the audit is being conducted. The refusal of an economic entity to use the work of an expert must be made in writing. In the event of such a refusal, the audit organization considers the issue of preparing, based on the results of the audit, a conclusion other than an unconditionally positive one.

The work of the expert is carried out on the basis of a contract for the provision of services.

In addition to the generally accepted conditions, the contract must provide for:

goals and scope of the expert’s work;
a description of the specific issues on which the audit organization expects to obtain an expert opinion;
description of the relationship between the expert and the economic entity, if required;
confidentiality of information of an economic entity;
information about the assumptions and methods that the expert intends to use in his work, and their compliance with the assumptions and methods that were used in previous periods (if the audit organization used the expert’s work in previous periods);
form and content of the expert's opinion.

The expert presents the results of his work in the form of a conclusion (report, calculation, etc.) in writing, which must be sufficiently complete and detailed. The expert's conclusion must have the following mandatory details: name of the document; document date; personal signature of the expert and its transcript. The conclusion of an expert who is a legal entity is sealed with his seal.

The expert prepares his opinion in at least two copies, one of which is presented to the economic entity in respect of which the audit organization is conducting an audit, and the second to the audit organization.

If it is impossible to obtain an expert’s opinion or there is significant uncertainty on the part of the expert in the assessment of some investigated circumstances, as well as unresolved disagreements between the economic entity and the expert or between the audit organization and the expert, the audit organization may consider preparing, based on the results of the audit, a conclusion other than an unconditional one. positive.

The use of an expert’s work during an audit, including reference to such work in the auditor’s report, does not relieve responsibility for auditor's report from the organization that prepared it.

RULE (STANDARD) N 32.
USE OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERT BY THE AUDITOR

(introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 22, 2008 N 557)

Introduction

1. This federal auditing rule (standard), developed taking into account international standards audit, establishes uniform requirements for the use of the expert’s work results as audit evidence.

2. When using the results of the expert’s work, the audit organization and (or) the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that such work meets the objectives of the audit.

3. For the purposes of federal rules (standards) of auditing, an expert is considered an individual who has special skills, knowledge and experience in a certain area other than the area of accounting and auditing, or a legal entity operating in an area other than the provision of accounting and auditing services. audit services.

4. Special education and experience give the auditor a general understanding of various issues of conduct entrepreneurial activity However, the auditor is not required to have the expertise possessed by a person who has received appropriate training or professional qualifications, for example, to work as an actuary or engineer.

5. An expert may be (taking into account what is stated in paragraphs 8 - 10 of this federal rules(standard) of auditing activities):

a) is contractually engaged by the audited entity to participate in the execution of the assignment;
b) is contractually engaged by the auditor to participate in the execution of the assignment;
c) an employee of the audited entity;
d) an employee of the auditor.

Determining the need to use the results of an expert’s work

6. When becoming familiar with the activities of the audited entity and performing further audit procedures, the auditor may need to obtain (with the assistance of the audited entity or independently) audit evidence in the form of reports, opinions, estimates and statements of the expert. Such a need may arise, for example, when:

a) assessment certain types non-current assets, for example, land, buildings, structures, equipment, art objects;
b) determining the quantitative content of useful components in mineral raw materials or the useful life of structures and equipment;
c) determining financial indicators using special techniques and methods (for example, actuarial valuation);
d) determining the degree of completion of the production of goods (work, services), the duration of the production cycle of production (execution, provision) of which is several reporting periods (of a long-term nature);
e) understanding the terms of contracts, provisions of legislative and other regulatory legal acts.

When examining the activities of the audited entity, the auditor should also consider the need and advisability of involving an expert in the discussion by members of the audit team of the issue of exposure of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity to the risk of material misstatement.

7. When determining the need to use the results of the expert’s work, the auditor takes into account:

a) knowledge and previous experience of members of the audit team in this area;
b) the risk of significant misstatement of information based on the nature, complexity and significance of the circumstances subject to investigation;
c) the expected quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.

Expert competence and objectivity

8. Before engaging an expert, the auditor, based on professional judgment, must assess the professional competence of this expert by considering:

a) whether the expert has a professional certificate, license or membership in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization (membership of the expert in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization, as a rule, can be an additional confirmation of the expert’s professional competence);
b) the experience and reputation of an expert in the field in which the auditor expects to obtain audit evidence.

9. The auditor must, based on professional judgment, evaluate the objectivity of the expert.

10. The risk that an expert will fail to maintain objectivity increases if he:

a) is an employee of the audited entity;
b) is connected with the audited entity in any other way, for example, is financially dependent on it or has any investments in the audited entity.

If the auditor is not confident in the professional competence or objectivity of the expert, then he should discuss any doubts on this issue with the management of the audit organization and determine whether a sufficient amount of the necessary audit evidence can be obtained from the expert's work. The auditor may be required to perform additional audit procedures or obtain audit evidence from another expert, taking into account the factors specified in paragraph 7 of this federal auditing rule (standard).

Expert's scope of work

11. The auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the work performed by the expert is consistent with the objectives of the audit. Such audit evidence can be obtained by establishing terms of reference for the expert, usually in writing. Such terms of reference may cover the following issues:

a) the goals and scope of the expert’s work;
b) general description tasks, the results of which, in the auditor’s opinion, should be reflected in the expert’s report;
c) the degree of access of the expert to relevant information and documents;
d) the procedure for the relationship between the expert and the audited entity;
e) confidentiality of information about the audited entity;
f) information about the assumptions and methods that may be used by the expert and their consistency with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods.

If the answers to the questions set out in the terms of reference, the auditor may need to contact the expert directly to obtain appropriate audit evidence.

Evaluation of the expert's work results

12. The auditor must evaluate the results of the expert’s work, presented in the form of a written report, from the point of view of obtaining audit evidence regarding the prerequisites for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements. This involves assessing how accurately the financial (accounting) statements reflect or confirm the premises for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements, the essence of the conclusions made by the expert, as well as consideration of the following circumstances:

a) the source of information used by the expert when performing the work (reliability, completeness, relevance of the data contained in the source);
b) the assumptions and methods used, their compliance with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods;
c) compliance of the results obtained by the expert with the general understanding of the activities of the audited entity achieved by the auditor and the results of performing other audit procedures.
13. To ensure that the expert has used an appropriate source of information in the circumstances, the auditor considers the need to perform the following procedures:
a) a request regarding the procedures that were performed by the expert to determine the relevance and reliability of the source of information;
b) review or testing of data used by the expert.

14. The expert determines the appropriate nature and reasonableness of the assumptions and methods used, and the procedure for their application. The auditor does not have the relevant knowledge and therefore cannot always challenge the assumptions and methods used by the expert. However, based on an understanding of the entity being audited and the results of subsequent audit procedures, the auditor should determine whether the expert's assumptions and methods are appropriate and reasonable.

15. If the expert's work does not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence or is inconsistent with other audit evidence, the auditor should use any of the following options:

a) discuss the situation with the management of the audited entity;
b) discuss relevant issues with an expert;
c) perform additional audit procedures;
d) involve another expert;
e) modify the auditor's report.

16. An unconditionally positive audit report should not contain reference to the results of the expert’s work. Such a reference may be taken as a disclaimer or as a division of responsibility, which is not intended.

17. If, as a result of the expert’s work, the auditor decides to issue a modified audit report, then when explaining the reason for the modification in the auditor’s report, it is advisable to refer to or describe the expert’s work (by identifying the expert and indicating the extent of his participation in the audit engagement). In this case, the auditor should obtain the expert's written permission to include this reference in the auditor's report. If permission is refused and the auditor believes that reference is required, the auditor should obtain legal advice to determine the next course of action. After receiving legal advice, the auditor independently makes the appropriate decision based on professional judgment.

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-1.jpg" alt=">Use of expert work in the audit process Students 446 UEF group"> Использование работы эксперта в процессе аудита Студентки 446 гр. УЭФ Волковой Светланы!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-2.jpg" alt=">Expert – a specialist who has sufficient knowledge and experience in a certain field different from"> Эксперт – специалист, имеющий достаточно знаний и опыта работы в определенной области отличной от БУ и аудита и не состоящий в штате аудиторской организации.!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-3.jpg" alt=">ISA 620 “Using the Work of an Expert” consists of sections: 1. Determining the need"> МСА 620 «Использование работы эксперта» состоит из разделов: 1. Определение необходимости использовать работу эксперта 2. Компетентность и объективность эксперта 3. Объем работы эксперта 4. Оценка работы эксперта 5. Ссылка на эксперта в аудиторском отчете (заключении)!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-4.jpg" alt=">Based on this ISA, PSAD (No. 6) “Use of work" was developed expert" In the Russian standard"> На основе данного МСА разработано ПСАД (№ 6) «Использование работы эксперта» В российском стандарте описан порядок назначения эксперта и, так же как в аналогичном МСА, дано определение понятия «эксперт» . Экспертом признается не состоящий в штате данной аудиторской организации специалист, имеющий достаточные знания и (или) опыт в определенной области (по определенному вопросу), отличной от бухгалтерского учета и аудита, и дающий заключение по вопросу, относящемуся к этой области.!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-5.jpg" alt=">The expert whose work the audit organization uses in conducting the audit must be objective and have:"> Эксперт, работу которого аудиторская организация использует при проведении аудита, должен быть объективным и иметь: соответствующую квалификацию, как правило, подтвержденную надлежащими документами (квалификационный аттестат, лицензия, диплом и т. п.); необходимый опыт и репутацию в области, заключение в которой предполагает получить аудиторская организация, как правило, подтвержденную отзывами, рекомендациями, публикациями, справками и т. п.!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-6.jpg" alt=">An audit organization may use the work of an expert during an audit only with the consent of the economic subject"> Аудиторская организация может использовать работу эксперта при проведении аудита лишь с согласия экономического субъекта, в отношении которого эта организация проводит аудит. Отказ экономического субъекта от работы эксперта должен быть совершен в письменной форме. В случае такого отказа аудиторская организация рассматривает вопрос о подготовке по результатам проведенного аудита аудиторского заключения, отличного от безусловно положительного.!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-7.jpg" alt=">The standard contains requirements for the presentation of the results of an expert’s work. The expert must present the results of his work"> Стандарт содержит требования по оформлению результатов работы эксперта Эксперт должен представлять результаты своей работы в виде заключения (отчета, расчета и т. п.) в письменной форме. Заключение эксперта должно быть достаточно полным и подробным, с тем чтобы опытный аудитор и (или) другой эксперт, ознакомившись с ним, мог получить представление о проведенной экспертом работе.!}

Src="https://present5.com/presentation/3/163478857_139678571.pdf-img/163478857_139678571.pdf-8.jpg" alt=">The annex to the Russian standard is given sample list works for which the audit organization"> The appendix to the Russian standard provides an approximate list of works for which the audit organization may need to use the work of an expert: assessment of certain types of property (land, buildings, machinery and equipment, works of art, precious stones, etc. .); determination of the quantity and (or) condition of property (mineral reserves in deposits, service life of machinery and equipment, etc.); carrying out calculations using special techniques and methods (actuarial assessments, etc.); execution under unfulfilled contracts, for the purpose of recognition of implementation (construction, geological exploration, design, etc.); legal assessment and interpretation of contracts, constituent documents, regulations.

In accordance with Federal Auditing Standard No. 32 “The Auditor’s Use of the Expert’s Work Results,” the audit organization (auditor) uses the expert’s work results when preparing an audit report on the accounting (financial) statements of the audited entity. When using the expert's work, the audit organization (auditor) must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that such work meets the audit objectives.

An expert is considered to be an individual who has special skills, knowledge and experience in a certain field other than the field of accounting and auditing, or a legal entity operating in an area other than the provision of accounting and auditing services.

Special education and experience provide the auditor with a general understanding of various business issues, but the auditor is not required to have the expert knowledge possessed by someone who has received appropriate training or professional qualifications, for example, to work as an actuary or engineer.

An expert may be contractually engaged by the audited entity (auditor) to participate in the execution of the assignment and (or) by the management (owner) of the audited entity.

When becoming familiar with the activities of the audited entity and performing further audit procedures, the auditor may need to obtain audit evidence in the form of reports, opinions, estimates and statements of the expert. Such a need may arise, for example, when:

a) assessment of certain types of non-current assets, for example, land, buildings, structures, equipment, objects of art;
b) determining the quantitative content of useful components in mineral raw materials or the useful life of structures and equipment;
c) determining financial indicators using special techniques and methods (for example, actuarial valuation);
d) determining the degree of completion of the production of goods (work, services), the duration of the production cycle of production (execution, provision) of which is several reporting periods (of a long-term nature);
e) understanding the terms of contracts, provisions of legislative and other regulatory legal acts.

When examining the activities of the audited entity, the auditor should also consider the need and advisability of involving an expert in the discussion by members of the audit team of the issue of exposure of the audited entity's accounting (financial) statements to the risk of material misstatement of information.

When determining the need to use the expert's work, the auditor considers:

a) knowledge and previous experience of members of the audit team in this area;
b) the risk of significant misstatement of information based on the nature, complexity and significance of the circumstances subject to investigation;
c) the expected quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.

Before engaging an expert, the auditor, based on professional judgment, should evaluate the professional competence of that expert by considering:

a) whether the expert has a professional certificate, license or membership in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization (membership of the expert in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization, as a rule, can be an additional confirmation of the expert’s professional competence);
b) the experience and reputation of an expert in the field in which the auditor expects to obtain audit evidence.

The auditor must use professional judgment to evaluate the expert's objectivity.

a) is an employee of the audited entity;
b) is connected with the audited entity in any other way, for example, is financially dependent on it or has any investments in the audited entity.

If the auditor is not confident in the professional competence or objectivity of the expert, then he should discuss any doubts on this issue with the management of the audit organization and determine whether a sufficient amount of the necessary audit evidence can be obtained from the expert's work. The auditor may need to perform additional audit procedures or obtain audit evidence from another expert.

The auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the work performed by the expert is consistent with the objectives of the audit. Such audit evidence can be obtained by establishing terms of reference for the expert, usually in writing. Such terms of reference may cover the following issues:

a) the goals and scope of the expert’s work;
b) a general description of the tasks, the results of which, in the auditor’s opinion, should be reflected in the expert’s report;
c) the degree of access of the expert to relevant information and documents;
d) the procedure for the relationship between the expert and the audited entity;
e) confidentiality of information about the audited entity;
f) information about the assumptions and methods that may be used by the expert and their consistency with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods.

If the answers to the questions set out in the terms of reference are unclear, the auditor may need to contact the expert directly to obtain appropriate audit evidence.

The auditor must evaluate the expert's work, presented in a written report, from the point of view of obtaining audit evidence regarding the prerequisites for the preparation of accounting (financial) statements. This involves assessing how accurately this reporting reflects or confirms the prerequisites for its preparation, the essence of the conclusions made by the expert, as well as considering the following circumstances:

a) the source of information used by the expert when performing the work (reliability, completeness, relevance of the data contained in the source);
b) the assumptions and methods used, their compliance with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods;
c) compliance of the results obtained by the expert with the general understanding of the activities of the audited entity achieved by the auditor and the results of performing other audit procedures.

To ensure that the expert has used an appropriate source of information in the circumstances, the auditor considers the need to perform the following procedures:

a) a request regarding the procedures that were performed by the expert to determine the relevance and reliability of the source of information;
b) review or testing of data used by the expert.

The expert determines the appropriateness and reasonableness of the assumptions and methods used and the procedure for their application. The auditor does not have the relevant knowledge and therefore cannot always challenge the assumptions and methods used by the expert. However, based on an understanding of the entity being audited and the results of subsequent audit procedures, the auditor should determine whether the expert's assumptions and methods are appropriate and reasonable.

If the expert's work does not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence or is inconsistent with other audit evidence, the auditor shall use any of the following options:

a) discuss the situation with the management of the audited entity;
b) discuss relevant issues with an expert;
c) perform additional audit procedures;
d) involve another expert;
e) modify the auditor's report.

An unconditionally positive audit report should not contain reference to the results of the expert’s work.

If, as a result of the expert's work, the auditor decides to issue a modified audit report, then when explaining the reason for the modification in the auditor's report, it is advisable to refer to or describe the expert's work (by identifying the expert and indicating the extent of his participation in the audit engagement). In this case, the auditor should obtain the expert's written permission to include this reference in the auditor's report. If permission is refused and the auditor believes that reference is required, the auditor should obtain legal advice to determine the next course of action. After receiving legal advice, the auditor independently makes the appropriate decision based on professional judgment.

>> Rule (standard) No. 32
The auditor's use of the expert's work

Rule (standard) No. 32
The auditor's use of the expert's work

Introduction

1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the use of the results of an expert’s work as audit evidence.

4. Special education and experience provide the auditor with a general understanding of various business issues, but the auditor is not required to have the expert knowledge possessed by someone who has received appropriate training or professional qualifications, for example, to work as an actuary or engineer.

5. An expert may be (taking into account what is set out in paragraphs 8 – 10 of this federal rule (standard) of auditing activities):

a) is contractually engaged by the audited entity to participate in the execution of the assignment;
b) is contractually engaged by the auditor to participate in the execution of the assignment;
c) an employee of the audited entity;
d) an employee of the auditor.

Determining the need to use the results of an expert’s work

a) assessment of certain types of non-current assets, for example, land, buildings, structures, equipment, objects of art;
b) determining the quantitative content of useful components in mineral raw materials or the useful life of structures and equipment;
c) determining financial indicators using special techniques and methods (for example, actuarial valuation);
d) determining the degree of completion of the production of goods (work, services), the duration of the production cycle of production (execution, provision) of which is several reporting periods (of a long-term nature);
e) understanding the terms of contracts, provisions of legislative and other regulatory legal acts. When examining the activities of the audited entity, the auditor should also consider the need and advisability of involving an expert in the discussion by members of the audit team of the issue of exposure of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity to the risk of material misstatement.

7. When determining the need to use the results of the expert’s work, the auditor takes into account:

a) knowledge and previous experience of members of the audit team in this area;
b) the risk of significant misstatement of information based on the nature, complexity and significance of the circumstances subject to investigation;
c) the expected quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.

Expert competence and objectivity

8. Before engaging an expert, the auditor, based on professional judgment, must assess the professional competence of this expert by considering:

a) whether the expert has a professional certificate, license or membership in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization (membership of the expert in the relevant professional self-regulatory organization, as a rule, can be an additional confirmation of the expert’s professional competence);
b) the experience and reputation of an expert in the field in which the auditor expects to obtain audit evidence.

9. The auditor must, based on professional judgment, evaluate the objectivity of the expert.

a) is an employee of the audited entity;
b) is connected with the audited entity in any other way, for example, is financially dependent on it or has any investments in the audited entity.

The auditor may be required to perform additional audit procedures or obtain audit evidence from another expert, taking into account the factors specified in paragraph 7 of this federal auditing rule (standard).

Expert's scope of work

a) the goals and scope of the expert’s work;
b) a general description of the tasks, the results of which, in the auditor’s opinion, should be reflected in the expert’s report;
c) the degree of access of the expert to relevant information and documents;
d) the procedure for the relationship between the expert and the audited entity;
e) confidentiality of information about the audited entity;
f) information about the assumptions and methods that may be used by the expert and their consistency with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods.

If the answers to the questions set out in the terms of reference are unclear, the auditor may need to contact the expert directly to obtain appropriate audit evidence.

Evaluation of the expert's work results

This involves assessing how accurately the financial (accounting) statements reflect or confirm the premises for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements, the essence of the conclusions made by the expert, as well as consideration of the following circumstances:

a) the source of information used by the expert when performing the work (reliability, completeness, relevance of the data contained in the source);
b) the assumptions and methods used, their compliance with the assumptions and methods used in previous reporting periods;
c) compliance of the results obtained by the expert with the general understanding of the activities of the audited entity achieved by the auditor and the results of performing other audit procedures.

13. To ensure that the expert has used an appropriate source of information in the circumstances, the auditor considers the need to perform the following procedures:

a) a request regarding the procedures that were performed by the expert to determine the relevance and reliability of the source of information;
b) review or testing of data used by the expert.

14. The expert determines the appropriate nature and reasonableness of the assumptions and methods used, and the procedure for their application.

The auditor does not have the relevant knowledge and therefore cannot always challenge the assumptions and methods used by the expert. However, based on an understanding of the entity being audited and the results of subsequent audit procedures, the auditor should determine whether the expert's assumptions and methods are appropriate and reasonable.

15. If the expert's work does not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence or is inconsistent with other audit evidence, the auditor should use any of the following options:

a) discuss the situation with the management of the audited entity;
b) discuss relevant issues with an expert;
c) perform additional audit procedures;
d) involve another expert;
e) modify the auditor's report.

The audit organization may use the work of an expert. Sheremet A.D. Audit Using the work of an expert. Test questions for self-test

RULE (STANDARD) N 32. USE OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERT BY THE AUDITOR

Rule (standard) No. 32 The auditor's use of the expert's work

Introduction

Determining the need to use the results of an expert’s work

Expert competence and objectivity

Expert's scope of work

Evaluation of the expert's work results

Link to the results of the expert’s work in the audit report

RULE (STANDARD) N 32.
USE OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERT BY THE AUDITOR

Rule (standard) No. 32
The auditor's use of the expert's work