International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 500, Audit Evidence, states that the auditor's objective is to design and perform audit procedures in a manner that enables the auditor to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions to support the audit. opinions.

Terminology

Audit evidence is information used by the auditor in forming conclusions on which the audit opinion is based. Audit evidence includes both information contained in data accounting on which the financial statements and other information are based.

Sufficiency of audit evidence is the quantitative assessment of audit evidence. The amount of audit evidence required depends on the auditor's assessment of the risks of material misstatement and the quality of such audit evidence.

Information used as

audit evidence

When designing and performing audit procedures, the auditor must consider the relevance and reliability of the information to be used as audit evidence.

Selection of testing elements in order to obtain

audit evidence

When designing tests of controls and detailed tests, the auditor must determine methods for selecting items to be tested that will be effective in achieving the objective of the audit procedure.

Inconsistency in audit evidence

or doubt about their reliability

When audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with audit evidence obtained from another source, or the auditor has doubts about the reliability of information used as audit evidence, the auditor should determine what changes or additions to audit procedures are necessary to resolve the issue. and consider the impact, if any, of the matter on other aspects of the audit.

Sufficient appropriate audit evidence

Audit evidence is required to support the auditor's opinion and audit report. By their nature, they are cumulative in nature and are mainly obtained as a result of performing audit procedures during the audit. However, they may also include information obtained from other sources, such as previous audit engagements (unless the auditor has determined that there have been no changes since the previous audit engagement that may affect the relevance of that information to the current audit or quality control procedure, carried out by the audit organization when accepting and continuing relationships with clients).

In addition to other internal and external sources within an organization, accounting data is an important source of audit evidence. In addition, information that can be used as audit evidence may be prepared using the work of management's expert.

Audit evidence includes both information that supports and confirms management's assertions and any information that contradicts such assertions. In addition, in some cases, even the absence of information (for example, management's refusal to provide a requested statement) is used by the auditor and thus also constitutes audit evidence.

The auditor's job in forming an audit opinion primarily consists of obtaining and evaluating audit evidence.

In addition to inquiries, audit procedures for the purpose of gathering audit evidence may include inspection, observation, confirmation, restatement, rerun, and analytical procedures, often in combination with each other. Although inquiries can provide important audit evidence and sometimes provide evidence of a misstatement, inquiries alone generally do not provide sufficient audit evidence of either the absence of a material misstatement at the assertion level or the operating effectiveness of controls.

As explained in ISA 200, reasonable assurance is achieved when the auditor has obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to reduce audit risk (that is, the risk that the auditor will form an inappropriate opinion when the financial statements are materially misstated) to an acceptable level. low level.

The sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence are interrelated. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. The amount of audit evidence required depends on the auditor's assessment of the risks of misstatement (the higher the risks assessed, the more audit evidence is likely to be required) as well as the quality of that audit evidence (the higher the quality, the less evidence may be required). However, collecting more audit evidence will not compensate for its poor quality.

Proper character is a qualitative measure of audit evidence, i.e. their relevance and reliability to support the conclusions on which the auditor's opinion is based.

The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source and its nature and depends on the particular circumstances in which the evidence is obtained.

ISA 330 requires the auditor to conclude whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained.

Whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level and therefore to enable the auditor to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the audit opinion is a matter of professional judgment.

Obtaining audit evidence

Inspection

An inspection includes an examination of records or documents, both internal and external, whether in paper, electronic or other media, as well as a physical examination of the asset.

Observation

Observation involves visually observing a process or procedure performed by others, such as an auditor observing an organization's personnel taking inventory or performing control activities. Observation provides audit evidence of the performance of a process or procedure, but is limited to the point in time at which the observation occurs and the fact that the observation itself may influence the way in which the process or procedure is performed.

External confirmation

External confirmation is audit evidence obtained by the auditor in the form of a direct written response to the auditor from a third party (the confirming party) in paper or electronic form or on other media.

Recalculation

Recalculation consists of checking the arithmetical accuracy of calculations in documents or records. Recalculation can be done manually or using electronic means.

Re-run

Re-execution involves the auditor independently performing procedures or applying control actions that were originally carried out within the system internal control organizations.

Analytical procedures

Analytical procedures involve evaluating financial information by analyzing the likely relationships between financial and non-financial data. Analytical procedures also cover examination, as appropriate, of identified variations or relationships that do not correspond to meaningful information or that differ significantly from expected values.

Request

A request is a request for the provision of both financial and non-financial information to knowledgeable persons both inside and outside the organization. Responses to queries may provide the auditor with information not previously available or supporting audit evidence.

Information used as audit evidence

Relevance and reliability

Although audit evidence is obtained primarily from the audit procedures performed during the audit, it may also include information obtained from other sources, such as, for example, in some circumstances, previous audit engagements and the audit firm's quality control procedures when accepting client and continuing to work with him.

The quality of all audit evidence is affected by the relevance and reliability of the information on which it is based.

Relevance means that it has a logical connection with or influences the objective of the audit procedure and, if applicable, the assertion being considered.

Reliability

The reliability of the information used as audit evidence, and therefore the audit evidence itself, depends on its source and nature and the circumstances under which it is obtained, including, where appropriate, the controls over its preparation and maintenance.

General rules regarding the reliability of audit evidence:

the reliability of audit evidence increases when it is obtained from independent sources external to the organization;
The reliability of audit evidence obtained internally is enhanced when appropriate controls, including controls over its preparation and maintenance, established by the organization, are effective;
audit evidence obtained directly by the auditor (for example, observation of the use of a control) is more reliable than audit evidence obtained indirectly or based on inference (for example, an inquiry about the use of a control);
audit evidence in the form of documents, whether in paper or electronic form or other media, is more reliable than evidence obtained orally (for example, written minutes taken during a meeting are more reliable than a subsequent oral statement of the issues discussed);
audit evidence provided by original documents is more reliable than audit evidence provided in the form of blueprints, facsimile copies or documents filmed, digitized or otherwise transformed into electronic form, the reliability of which may depend on the means of control over their preparation and safety.

Purpose of audit evidence. Audit evidence represents the information obtained by the auditor during the audit and the result of the analysis specified information on which the auditor's opinion is based. Audit evidence includes, in particular, primary documents and accounting records that are the basis of accounting (financial) statements, as well as written explanations authorized employees of the audited entity and information obtained from various sources (from third parties). Any information that allows the auditor to form an opinion about the reliability of accounting data or reporting as a whole can be used as evidence in an audit.

The audit organization and the individual auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in order to formulate reasonable conclusions on which the auditor's opinion is based.

Audit evidence is obtained through a series of tests of internal controls and the necessary substantive procedures. In some situations, evidence may be obtained solely through substantive procedures.

Tests of internal controls means examinations conducted to obtain audit evidence regarding the proper organization and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems.

Substantive procedures are carried out to obtain audit evidence of material misstatements in the accounting (financial) statements. These verification procedures are carried out in the following forms:

detailed tests assessing the correctness of recording transactions and balances in accounting accounts;
analytical procedures.

When forming an audit opinion, the auditor generally does not review all of the entity's business transactions because conclusions regarding the correctness of the accounting balance, group of similar business transactions, or internal controls may be based on judgment or procedures performed on a selective basis.

The auditor's judgment of what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence is affected by the following factors:

audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of accounting (financial) statements and at the level of balances in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;
the nature of accounting and internal control systems, as well as the risk assessment of internal controls;
the materiality of the audited item in the accounting (financial) statements;
experience gained during previous audits;
the results of audit procedures, including possible detections of fraud or error;
source and reliability of information.

When obtaining audit evidence using tests of internal controls, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence to support the assessment of the level of internal control risk.

TO objects of assessment of accounting and internal control systems items about which the auditor collects audit evidence include:

organization- arrangement of accounting and internal control systems to ensure prevention and (or) detection, as well as correction of material misstatements;
functioning- the effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems over the relevant period of time.

In determining appropriate audit evidence to support conclusions about control risk, the auditor may consider audit evidence obtained from previous audits. In the case of a recurring (over a number of consecutive reporting periods) engagement, the auditor will be aware of the accounting and internal control systems, as he will have information obtained during previous work. However, he needs to update his knowledge and consider the need to obtain additional audit evidence about any changes in control.

When obtaining audit evidence using substantive audit procedures, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence along with evidence obtained from tests of internal controls to confirm the assertions in the preparation of the financial statements.

Prerequisites for the preparation of accounting (financial) statements - statements made by the management of the audited entity in an explicit or implicit form regarding recognition, measurement and disclosure in financial statements accounting objects - include the following groups of elements:

a) the prerequisites for preparing financial statements in relation to groups of similar business transactions, events and other facts of economic life;
b) the prerequisites for drawing up financial statements in relation to the balances of the accounting accounts at the end of the reporting period;
c) accounting assumptions regarding presentation and disclosure of information.

The prerequisites for preparing financial statements are disclosed in more detail in clause 15.3.

Audit evidence is generally collected by taking into account each aspect of the preparation of the accounting (financial) statements. Audit evidence relating to one assertion, for example the existence of a product inventories, cannot compensate for the lack of audit evidence regarding another assertion, such as a valuation. The nature, time and scope of verification procedures essentially depend on the nature of the premises being verified. During tests, the auditor may obtain evidence relating to more than one assertion: for example, when testing repayment accounts receivable it can reveal audit evidence about both its existence and its value (valuation).

The reliability of audit evidence depends on the source (internal or external) and the form in which it is presented (visual, documentary or oral). When assessing the reliability of audit evidence depending on specific situation, proceed from the following:

audit evidence obtained from external sources (third parties) is more reliable than evidence obtained from internal sources;
audit evidence obtained from internal sources is more reliable if existing accounting and internal control systems are effective;
audit evidence collected directly by the auditor is more reliable than evidence obtained from the audited entity;
Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.

Audit evidence is more persuasive if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and is consistent with each other. In such cases, the auditor can provide a higher degree of assurance than would be obtained by considering the audit evidence in isolation. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with evidence obtained from another, the auditor must determine which additional procedures should be carried out to determine the reasons for this discrepancy.

The auditor must weigh the costs associated with obtaining audit evidence against the usefulness of the information obtained. However, the complexity of the work and the expense are not sufficient grounds for refusing to perform the necessary procedure.

If there are serious doubts about the reliability of the reflection of business transactions in the accounting (financial) statements, the auditor should try to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to eliminate such doubt. If it is not possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the auditor should express an opinion qualified or disclaim an opinion.

Types of audit evidence. To substantiate his opinion on the reliability of the financial statements, the auditor must obtain sufficient audit evidence based on the following audit procedures:

detailed verification of the accuracy of the reflection of turnover and account balances in accounting;
analytical procedures;
verification (test) of internal controls.

The audit program should specify which audit procedures and to what extent must be performed to obtain audit evidence.

The amount of information needed to audit estimates, is not strictly regulated. The auditor, based on his professional judgment, is obliged to independently decide on the amount of information necessary to draw up an opinion on the reliability of the financial statements of the audited entity. When choosing methods for obtaining evidence, it should be kept in mind that financial information may be significantly distorted.

Audit evidence can be internal, external or mixed.

Domestic audit evidence includes information obtained from the entity being audited, whether written or oral.

External audit evidence includes information obtained from a third party in writing (usually at the audit firm's written request).

Mixed audit evidence includes information obtained from the entity being audited, either written or oral, and confirmed in writing by a third party.

The greatest value and reliability for the audit organization is provided by external evidence, followed by mixed and internal evidence.

Audit evidence must be reliable and sufficient. Their sufficiency in each specific case is determined by auditors independently based on an assessment of the internal control system and the magnitude of their audit risk. To draw up an objective and reasonable conclusion, the auditor is required to collect a sufficient amount of quality evidence.

Evidence obtained by the audit organization itself is usually more reliable than evidence provided by the auditee. Evidence in the form of documents and affidavits is usually more reliable than oral evidence.

The collected evidence is reflected by the auditor in his working documents, compiled in the form of records of the study and assessment of the organization of accounting and the organization of internal control, as well as forms, tables and protocols reflecting the planning, implementation and presentation of the results of audit procedures. The data obtained from the evidence is used in drawing up the audit report and messages to the management of the audited enterprise based on the audit results.

Sources of audit evidence. Sources of obtaining audit evidence (evidential information) are:

primary documents of the audited entity and third parties;
accounting registers of the audited entity;
results of financial analysis economic activity audited entity;
oral statements of employees of the audited entity and third parties

results of comparison of some documents of the audited entity with others, as well as with documents of third parties;
results of an inventory of the audited entity's property conducted by its employees;
financial statements.

The quality of audit evidence depends on its sources. The most valuable audit evidence is considered to be evidence obtained by the auditor directly as a result of examining business transactions. The determination of the sufficiency of audit evidence depends on the specific circumstances of the audit.

Audit risk is reduced if the auditor uses evidence obtained from various sources and in different forms of presentation. If evidence obtained from one source conflicts with evidence obtained from another source, the auditor needs to use additional audit procedures to resolve the conflict and have confidence in the reliability of the evidence collected and the validity of the conclusions reached.

If the audited entity is not represented by the audit organization existing documents V in full and it is unable to obtain sufficient audit evidence regarding any account and/or transaction, audit organization is obliged to reflect this in a message (written information) to the management of the audited entity and may consider preparing an audit report other than an unconditionally positive one.

Audit evidence is information obtained during the audit to achieve the stated purpose. In accordance with federal rules (standards), General requirements to audit evidence, as well as additional - obtaining evidence in specific cases and supporting information from external sources.
The general requirements for audit evidence are defined in rule (standard) No. 5 “Audit evidence”, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 23, 2002 No. 696.
Audit evidence is obtained as a result of the complex:
tests of internal controls, which are performed to provide audit evidence regarding the proper design and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems;
substantive testing procedures that are performed to obtain audit evidence of material misstatements in financial statements.
Substantive check procedures are carried out in the following forms:
a) detailed tests of the reflection of transactions and balances in accounting accounts; b) analytical procedures.
Audit evidence must be sufficient (in quantity) and appropriate (in quality). According to the source of presentation, they are divided into external and internal, and according to the form of presentation - into visual, documentary and oral.
Sources of audit evidence may include:
primary documents, accounting registers;
written explanations from authorized employees of the audited entity;
information obtained from various sources (from third parties).
Factors that influence the auditor's judgment of what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence include:
audit risk;
the nature of accounting and internal control systems, risk assessment of controls;
materiality of the audited financial statement item;
auditor experience;
sh results of audit procedures;
source and reliability of information.
The nature, timing and extent of substantive testing procedures depend on the assertion being tested as presented by management in the financial statements.
Assumptions presented by the management of the audited entity in the financial statements are divided into the following types: existence - the statement of the management of the audited entity about the existence as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial statements;
rights and obligations - about the ownership of the audited entity as of a certain date of an asset or liability that occurred during the relevant period;
occurrence - that a business transaction or event related to the activities of the audited entity took place in the relevant period;
completeness - the absence of assets, liabilities, business transactions or events or undisclosed accounting items not reflected in the accounting records;
valuation - about the reflection in the financial statements of proper book value asset or liability;
accurate measurement - about the accuracy of reflecting the amount of a business transaction or event with the attribution of income or expenses to the corresponding period of time;
presentation and disclosure - that the disclosure, classification and description of an asset or liability in the financial statements is prepared in accordance with the rules for their presentation in the financial statements.
When assessing the reliability of audit evidence, depending on a specific situation, the auditor must proceed from the following rules:
audit evidence obtained from external sources is more reliable than evidence obtained from internal sources;
audit evidence obtained from internal sources is more reliable if the accounting and internal control systems are effective;
Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.
International Standard on Auditing No. 500, Audit Evidence, states another rule: evidence obtained by the auditor himself is more reliable than evidence provided by the auditee. Audit evidence is more convincing if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other.
Procedures for obtaining audit evidence are divided into the following types:
inspection - examination of records, documents or tangible assets;
observation - the auditor's monitoring of a process or procedure performed by others;
request - searching for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the audited entity;
confirmation - a response to a request for information contained in accounting records;
recalculation - checking the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary accounting documents and accounting records or the auditor performing calculations independently;
analytical procedures - analysis of relationships and patterns based on the information of the audited entity, as well as the study of the relationship of these relationships and patterns with other information available to the auditor or the reasons for possible deviations from it.
If significant doubt has been identified about the fairness of the financial statements, the auditor should attempt to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to resolve the doubt. If it is impossible to obtain such evidence audit report modify.
Additional requirements for audit evidence are disclosed in Federal Rule (Standard) No. 17 “Obtaining audit evidence in specific cases,” approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated April 16, 2005 No. 228. Uniform requirements for audit evidence apply in the following cases:
a) the presence of the auditor during the physical inventory inventories;
b) disclosure of information about court cases and claim disputes;
c) assessment and disclosure of information about long-term financial investments;
d) disclosure of information on the reportable segments of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity.
The presence of the auditor when conducting an inventory of the audited entity's inventories is advisable if their value is significant for the financial statements. This allows us to obtain appropriate and sufficient audit evidence regarding the quantity of inventories and their condition. If, for objective reasons, the auditor cannot be present during the inventory of inventories, he independently conducts a random inspection and recalculation of inventories or observes the inventory on another day. If necessary, he prepares a turnover statement of the movement of inventories in the period between the dates as of which a selective inspection and recalculation was carried out and financial statements were prepared. If the location and nature of inventories prevent the auditor from being present during the physical inventory count, the auditor should determine whether alternative procedures can be performed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the quantity and condition of inventories and conclude that there is no basis for including a volume limitation clause in the auditor's report. audit.
The auditor’s task is to familiarize himself with the document regulating the inventory procedure approved by the management of the audited entity in order to obtain information:
about the control procedures applied;
the procedure for determining the degree of readiness of work in progress, identifying substandard, obsolete or damaged products, as well as inventories owned by a third party;
the presence of a procedure regulating the movement of inventories between divisions of the audited entity, as well as the procedure for the delivery and acceptance of these inventories before and after the end date of the reporting period.
The auditor's function is to monitor the procedures performed by the audited entity's employees, as well as to independently conduct selective control recounts to ensure that the procedures established by the audited entity's management are followed. When the audited entity's inventories are in the custody of a third party, it is necessary to obtain confirmation from the third party regarding their quantity and condition.
The auditor should obtain audit evidence regarding disclosures of litigation and claims that may have a material effect on the financial statements. Procedures for obtaining audit evidence regarding such information include:
sending necessary requests to the management of the audited entity, including receiving statements and clarifications from management;
checking the decisions of the relevant body exercising general management of the activities of the audited entity;
familiarization with the correspondence of the audited entity with the organization providing him with legal services;
checking the audited entity's costs for legal services;
use of information about the activities of the audited entity, including information received from employees of the legal service of the audited entity.
If during the audit legal cases or claim disputes are identified or the auditor believes that they may occur, then the auditor, with the consent of the audited entity, must contact directly the organization providing legal services to the economic entity. An appeal to such an organization is made in writing. The letter is prepared and signed by the head of the audited entity, and sent directly by the auditor. It should contain:
a list of court cases and claim disputes in which the audited entity is involved;
assessment by the management of the audited entity of the consequences of court cases and claim disputes for the audited entity, including financial ones;
a request for confirmation by the legal organization of the validity of such an assessment, as well as for providing the auditor with additional information if legal organization considers the list sent to her to be incomplete or inaccurate.
If the management of the audited entity refuses to give the auditor permission to contact the organization providing him with legal services, this should be considered as a limitation of the scope of the audit and express a qualified opinion or disclaim an opinion.
The auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the valuation and disclosure of long-term financial investments by the audited entity if their amount is material to the financial statements.
The auditor's task also includes obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence of the disclosure of information on the reportable segments of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity in accordance with the financial reporting requirements.
Federal Rule (Standard) No. 18 “Obtainment by the Auditor of Confirming Information from External Sources,” approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 228 dated April 16, 2005, defines the requirements for procedures for registering, obtaining and using third-party audit evidence. External confirmation is the process of obtaining and analyzing audit evidence by sending a third party to the auditor (at the request of the audited entity) in response to the audited entity’s request for information regarding any specific item in the financial (accounting) statements that affects the premises for its preparation.
During the audit, the auditor needs to decide whether to use external confirmation to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the reliability of the financial statements. In doing so, it should consider the level of materiality, inherent risk and control risk, and how audit evidence obtained from other planned procedures will reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level for the financial reporting assertions used.
External confirmations are used in relation to:
balances on accounts with credit institutions and other information received from credit institutions;
accounts receivable listed in the accounting accounts;
inventories located in third-party warehouses after being transferred for processing or consignment;
financial instruments, purchased but not delivered to the audited entity on reporting date;
loans received;
accounts payable, listed in the accounting accounts.
The reliability of audit evidence obtained from external confirmation depends on: the auditor's application of appropriate?
procedures when preparing a request for external confirmation; performing external confirmation procedures; evaluating the results of external confirmation procedures. The reliability of the confirmations received is affected by: the controls applied by the auditor during the preparation of requests for external confirmation and when analyzing the responses; characteristics of the third parties making up the response; restrictions contained in the response or imposed by the management of the audited entity.
The auditor's function is to prepare a request for external evidence based on the specific information he intends to obtain. This request includes permission from management of the audited entity, in which it must indicate that it does not object to the disclosure of information requested by the auditor from a third party.
Types of external confirmations and their characteristics are given in Federal Rule (Standard) No. 18 (Table 8.1).
Table 8.1
External confirmations in audit*
Type of external confirmations
Positive
Negative
Characteristics of external confirmations
Contains a request to a third party to respond to the auditor in any case, by indicating the respondent’s agreement with the information provided or by entering information
A third party sends a response only if it disagrees with the information contained in the request
Degree of reliability
Are reliable audit evidence
Less reliable evidence compared to positive evidence
"Annotated by.
The auditor may use a combination of positive and negative external evidence.
When obtaining external confirmation, it is necessary to take into account the wishes of the management of the audited entity. There may be a situation where management prevents the receipt of external confirmation. In this case, the auditor can perform the following actions:
assess the extent to which such obstacles are justified by the management of the audited entity, and obtain audit evidence to confirm the motivation of its actions;
agree with the request of the management of the audited entity not to use external confirmations and apply alternative measures
procedures for obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence;
do not accept the arguments of the management of the audited entity, consider this fact as a limitation of the scope of the audit and modify the audit report.
The reliability of audit evidence obtained as a result of external confirmations depends on: the competence of the persons preparing the response; their independence from the audited entity; authority to provide an appropriate response; their knowledge of the information that needs to be confirmed; objectivity.
The auditor's task is to control the selection of those persons to whom requests are sent, the preparation and distribution of requests for external confirmation and the processing of responses to the request.
According to Federal Rule(Standard) No. 18, the auditor is advised to contact the recipient of the request if a response to the request is not received to determine the reason for the refusal and try to obtain a response. If a request is refused, alternative audit procedures must be applied. If the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, he must perform additional procedures.
The auditor must evaluate whether the results of the responses received, taking into account the results of other audit procedures performed, provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the assertion being tested in the financial statements.

>> Rule (standard) No. 5
Audit evidence

Rule (standard) No. 5
Audit evidence

Introduction

1. This federal auditing rule (standard), developed taking into account international standards audit, establishes uniform requirements for the quantity and quality of evidence that must be obtained during an audit of financial (accounting) statements, as well as for the procedures performed to obtain evidence.

2. The audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in order to formulate reasonable conclusions on which the auditor’s opinion is based.

3. Audit evidence is obtained as a result of a set of tests of internal controls and the necessary substantive procedures. In some situations, evidence may be obtained solely through substantive procedures.

4. Audit evidence is the information obtained by the auditor during the audit, and the result of the analysis of this information, on which the auditor’s opinion is based. Audit evidence includes, in particular, primary documents and accounting records that are the basis of financial (accounting) statements, as well as written explanations from authorized employees of the audited entity and information obtained from various sources (from third parties).

5. Tests of internal controls mean activities performed to obtain audit evidence regarding the proper design and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems.

6. Substantive testing procedures are carried out to obtain audit evidence of material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements. These verification procedures are carried out in the following forms:

detailed tests assessing the correctness of recording transactions and balances in accounting accounts;
analytical procedures.

Sufficient appropriate audit evidence

7. The concepts of sufficiency and appropriateness are interrelated and apply to audit evidence obtained from tests of internal controls and substantive audit procedures. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. Proper character is the qualitative aspect of audit evidence, which determines its consistency with the specific prerequisite for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements and its reliability. Typically, the auditor considers it necessary to rely on audit evidence that only provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion, rather than being exhaustive, and often collects audit evidence from different sources or from documents of different content in order to support the same business transaction or group similar business transactions.

8. When forming an audit opinion, the auditor usually does not examine all of the business transactions of the audited entity, since conclusions regarding the correctness of the reflection of the balance of funds in the accounts, a group of similar business transactions, or internal controls may be based on judgments or procedures carried out in a selective manner.

9. The following factors influence the auditor's judgment about what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence:

audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of financial (accounting) statements and at the level of balances in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;
the nature of accounting and internal control systems, as well as the risk assessment of internal controls;
the materiality of the audited item in the financial (accounting) statements;
experience gained during previous audits;
the results of audit procedures, including possible detections of fraud or error;
source and reliability of information.

10. When obtaining audit evidence using tests of internal controls, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence to support the assessment of the level of risk of internal controls.

11. The objects of assessment of accounting and internal control systems, regarding which the auditor collects audit evidence, include:

organization – arrangement of accounting and internal control systems that ensure prevention and (or) detection, as well as correction of material misstatements;
Operation – the effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems over the relevant period of time.

12. When obtaining audit evidence using substantive audit procedures, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence along with evidence obtained from tests of internal controls to confirm the assertions in the preparation of the financial statements.

13. Prerequisites for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements - statements made by the management of the audited entity in explicit or implicit form, reflected in the financial (accounting) statements. These prerequisites include the following elements:

existence – existence as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;
rights and obligations - ownership by the audited entity as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;
occurrence – a business transaction or event related to the activities of the audited entity that took place during the relevant period;
completeness – the absence of assets, liabilities, business transactions or events not reflected in the accounting records, or undisclosed accounting items;
valuation – reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the appropriate book value of an asset or liability;
accurate measurement - the accuracy of reflecting the amount of a business transaction or event with the attribution of income or expenses to the corresponding period of time;
presentation and disclosure - explanation, classification and description of an asset or liability in accordance with the rules for its reflection in financial (accounting) statements.

14. Audit evidence is generally collected by taking into account each aspect of the preparation of the financial (accounting) statements. Audit evidence regarding one assertion, such as the existence of inventory, cannot compensate for the lack of audit evidence regarding another assertion, such as a valuation.

The nature, timing and extent of verification procedures essentially depend on the premises being verified. During tests, the auditor may obtain evidence relating to more than one assertion, for example, when testing the collection of a receivable, he may obtain audit evidence regarding both its existence and its value (valuation).

15. The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source (internal or external) and the form in which it is presented (visual, documentary or oral). When assessing the reliability of audit evidence, depending on the specific situation, we proceed from the following:

audit evidence obtained from external sources (from third parties) is more reliable than evidence obtained from internal sources;
audit evidence obtained from internal sources is more reliable if existing accounting and internal control systems are effective;
audit evidence collected directly by the auditor is more reliable than evidence obtained from the audited entity;
Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.

16. Audit evidence is more convincing if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other. In such cases, the auditor may be able to provide a higher degree of assurance than would be obtained by considering the audit evidence in isolation. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with that obtained from another, the auditor must determine what additional procedures need to be performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy.

17. The auditor should weigh the costs associated with obtaining audit evidence against the usefulness of the information obtained. However, the complexity of the work and the expense are not sufficient grounds for refusing to perform the necessary procedure.

18. If there are serious doubts about the reliability of the reflection of business transactions in the financial (accounting) statements, the auditor should try to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to eliminate such doubt. If it is not possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the auditor should express an opinion qualified or disclaim an opinion.

Procedures for obtaining audit evidence

19. The auditor obtains audit evidence by performing the following substantive procedures: inspection, observation, inquiry, confirmation, recalculation (checking the arithmetic calculations of the audited entity) and analytical procedures. The duration of these procedures depends, in particular, on the period allotted for obtaining audit evidence.

20. An inspection is an examination of records, documents or physical assets. During the inspection of records and documents, the auditor obtains audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability depending on its nature and source, as well as the effectiveness of internal controls over the processing of it.

Documentary audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability includes:

documentary audit evidence created and held by third parties (external information);
documentary audit evidence created by third parties, but held by the audited entity (external and internal information);
documentary audit evidence created and held by the auditee (internal information).

An inspection of the entity's tangible assets provides reliable audit evidence regarding its existence, but not necessarily regarding its ownership or valuation.

21. Observation is the auditor's monitoring of a process or procedure performed by others (for example, the auditor observing inventory counts performed by employees of the entity being audited, or monitoring the performance of internal control procedures for which there is no documentary evidence available for audit).

22. An inquiry is a search for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the entity being audited. A request on the form can be either a formal written request addressed to third parties or an informal oral question addressed to employees of the audited entity.

Answers to inquiries (questions) may provide the auditor with information that he did not previously have or that supports audit evidence.

23. A confirmation is a response to a request for information contained in accounting records (for example, the auditor typically requests confirmation of accounts receivable directly from the debtors).

24. Recalculation is a check of the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary documents and accounting records or the auditor performing independent calculations.

25. Analytical procedures represent the analysis and assessment of information received by the auditor, the study of the most important financial and economic indicators of the audited entity in order to identify unusual and (or) incorrectly reflected in the accounting business transactions, identifying the causes of such errors and distortions.

In order to have a basis for drawing conclusions on the main areas of the audit, the auditor must collect appropriate evidence. Federal Auditing Standard No. 5 “Audit Evidence” establishes uniform requirements for the quantity and quality of evidence that must be obtained during an audit of financial (accounting) statements, as well as for the procedures performed to obtain evidence.

Audit evidence- this is the information obtained by the auditor during the audit, and the result of the analysis of this information, on which the auditor’s opinion is based. Audit evidence includes, in particular, primary documents and accounting records that are the basis of financial (accounting) statements, as well as written explanations from authorized employees of the audited entity and information obtained from various sources (from third parties).

The audit organization or individual auditor must obtain appropriate evidence in order to formulate reasonable conclusions on which the auditor's opinion is based. Evidence is obtained as a result of a set of texts of internal controls and the necessary substantive testing procedures. In some situations, evidence may be obtained solely through substantive procedures.

The concepts of sufficiency and appropriateness are interrelated and apply to audit evidence obtained from tests of internal controls and performance of audit procedures. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. Proper character is the qualitative aspect of audit evidence, which determines its consistency with the specific prerequisite for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements and its reliability.

The auditor's judgment of what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence is affected by the following factors:

audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of financial (accounting) statements and at the level of balances in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;
the nature of accounting and internal control systems, as well as assessing the risk of using internal controls;
the materiality of the audited item in the financial (accounting) statements;
experience gained during previous audits;
the results of audit procedures, including possible detections of fraud or errors;
source and reliability of information.

Audit evidence is typically collected by taking into account each aspect of the financial statements. Audit evidence regarding one assertion, such as the existence of inventory, cannot compensate for the lack of audit evidence regarding another assertion, such as a valuation. The nature, timing and extent of verification procedures essentially depend on the premises being verified. During tests, the auditor may obtain evidence relating to more than one assertion, for example, when testing the collection of a receivable, he may obtain audit evidence regarding both its existence and its value (valuation).

The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source (internal or external) and the form in which it is presented (visual, documentary or oral). Audit evidence is more convincing if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other. In such cases, the auditor may be able to provide a higher degree of assurance than would be obtained by considering the audit evidence in isolation. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with that obtained from another, the auditor must determine what additional procedures need to be performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy.

If there are serious doubts about the reliability of the reflection of business transactions in the financial (accounting) statements, the auditor should try to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to eliminate such doubt. If it is not possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the auditor should express an opinion qualified or disclaim an opinion.

The auditor obtains audit evidence by performing the following substantive procedures:

An inspection is an examination of records, documents or tangible assets during which the auditor obtains audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability depending on its nature and source, as well as the effectiveness of internal controls over the processing of it;
observation is the auditor's monitoring of a process or procedure performed by others (for example, the auditor's observation of inventory counts carried out by employees of the audited entity, or monitoring the implementation of internal control procedures for which there is no documentary evidence for audit);
request (search for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the audited entity. In form, it can be either formal written, addressed to third parties, or an informal oral question addressed to employees of the audited entity. Answers to requests (questions) can provide the auditor with information, that he did not previously have or that support audit evidence);
confirmation (response to a request for information contained in accounting records (for example, the auditor usually requests confirmation of accounts receivable directly from debtors));
recalculation (checking the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary documents and accounting records or the auditor performing independent calculations);
analytical procedures represent an analysis and assessment of the information received by the auditor, a study of the most important financial and economic indicators of the audited entity in order to identify unusual and (or) incorrectly reflected business transactions in the accounting records, and identify the causes of such errors and distortions.

Documenting the audit

The auditor also needs to obtain sufficient evidence that the auditee is complying with legal and regulatory requirements. regulations which, in the auditor's opinion, influence the determination of significant amounts in the financial statements and the information disclosed therein. To do this, he needs to study the requirements of the relevant laws and regulations and ensure that the necessary indicators are reflected in the financial statements and the information is disclosed in the notes to them.

In accordance with the requirements of the Law on Auditing, when checking the compliance of the accounting procedure with the law, the auditor must:

study the requirements of current legislative and regulatory acts on the procedure for maintaining accounting records;
ensure that the audited organization complies with the specified requirements.

As a rule, verification of compliance with the requirements of legislative and regulatory acts is carried out during audit procedures for checking the relevant items of the financial statements. The auditor must be prepared for the fact that facts of non-compliance with laws and regulations may be revealed. For example, such facts may be discovered by reviewing the minutes of meetings of the board of directors or other governing body, by receiving responses from the organization's management and/or legal counsel to inquiries regarding litigation, claims and sanctions, by performing substantive audit procedures regarding transactions or balance of reports.

In assessing the impact of non-compliance with laws and regulations on the financial statements of the auditee, the auditor should:

consider possible financial consequences for an organization: fines, penalties, other sanctions, threat of confiscation of assets, forced termination of activities, litigation, etc.;
consider the need to disclose possible financial consequences in the organization’s reporting;
assess whether the potential financial consequences are so severe that they may affect the reliability of the financial statements.

The auditor, as soon as possible, reports identified facts of non-compliance with regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation by the audited entity to the board of directors and senior management of the audited entity or obtains evidence that they are properly informed about the facts of non-compliance that have attracted the attention of the auditor. However, the auditor may not do so in the absence of consequences or in minor cases and may agree in advance with management about the nature of the matters that the auditor will report.

If the auditor comes to the conclusion that the fact of non-compliance with regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation has a significant impact on the financial (accounting) statements and was not properly reflected in them, he must express a qualified or negative opinion in writing.

The auditor must document identified (or suspected) non-compliance by the auditee with laws and regulations. If the audited entity prevents the auditor from obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence confirming that facts of non-compliance with regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, which may be material to the financial (accounting) statements, have occurred or could have occurred, the auditor should express a qualified opinion or refuse to express an opinion opinions due to limitations in the scope of the audit.

Actions of the auditor when identifying errors and dishonesty

Distortion of financial statements, i.e. incorrect reflection and presentation of accounting data can be of two types: intentional and unintentional.

Intentional distortion of financial statements is the result of deliberate actions (or inaction) of the personnel of the audited economic entity. They are committed for personal gain to mislead users of financial statements. At the same time, the auditor should take into account that a conclusion about deliberate actions (or inaction) of the personnel of an economic entity leading to distortions in the financial statements can only be made by an authorized body.

Unintentional distortion of financial statements is the result of unintentional actions (or inaction) of the personnel of the audited economic entity. It may be the result of arithmetic or logical errors in accounting records, errors in calculations, oversights in the completeness of accounting, incorrect reflection in the accounting of facts of economic activity, the presence and condition of property.

Both intentional and unintentional distortions of the financial statements may be significant for the audited economic entity (i.e., affecting the reliability of its financial statements to such a strong extent that a qualified user of the financial statements can draw erroneous conclusions or make erroneous decisions) or insignificant.

Error- unintentional distortion in financial (accounting) statements, including failure to reflect any numerical indicator or failure to disclose any information. Examples of errors are:

erroneous actions taken during the collection and processing of data on the basis of which financial (accounting) statements were compiled;
incorrect estimates resulting from incorrect accounting or misinterpretation of facts;
errors in the application of accounting principles relevant to accurate measurement, classification, presentation or disclosure.

Unfair actions are understood as intentional actions committed by one or more persons from among the representatives of the owner, management and employees of the audited entity or third parties through illegal actions (inaction) to obtain illegal benefits. The Federal Auditing Standards only address dishonest actions that cause significant misstatements in financial (accounting) statements.

There are two types of intentional misstatements arising from fraud considered during the audit:

distortions arising in the process of dishonest preparation of financial (accounting) statements;
distortions arising from the appropriation of assets.

Unfair actions imply the presence of motivating factors and perceived opportunities for their commission. Unfair preparation of financial (accounting) statements is possible in cases where the management of the audited entity, under the influence of external or internal factors, wants to achieve biased performance results. A perceived possibility of financial reporting fraud or misappropriation of assets exists when a person believes that he or she can override internal controls (for example, if this person occupies a responsible position or knows specific deficiencies in the internal control system).

An error differs from a dishonest act by the lack of intent underlying the action that led to the distortion of financial (accounting) statements. Unlike error, dishonesty is intentional and usually involves deliberate concealment of facts. While the auditor may be able to identify the potential for fraud, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the auditor to determine intent, especially in relation to the subjective judgment of the auditee's management.

The management of the audited entity and representatives of the owner, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, are responsible for the prevention and detection of dishonest actions and errors. The liability of these persons may depend on organizational structure and internal regulatory documents of the audited entity. Corporate governance practices require that the owner's representatives and the auditee's management establish and maintain a general culture of integrity and high moral principles, and establish appropriate controls to prevent and detect errors and fraud.

The management of the audited entity is required to create a control environment and maintain policies and procedures that ensure maximum achievement of the stated goals of the orderly and efficient operation of the audited entity by implementing and ensuring the continuity of the functioning of an accounting and internal control system designed to prevent and detect fraud and errors. Such a system reduces, but does not completely eliminate, the risk of misstatement due to error and fraud. Accordingly, management of the audited entity is responsible for any remaining risk.

The auditor is not and cannot be responsible for preventing errors and fraud, and he cannot obtain absolute confidence that all material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements will be detected. Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an inherent risk that some material misstatement in the financial statements will not be detected even though the audit was properly planned and performed in accordance with the requirements. Federal standards audit.

The risk of not detecting dishonest actions by the management of the audited entity is much higher than the risk of not detecting dishonest actions of its employees, since management and representatives of the owner occupy a position that implies their high authority, honesty and integrity, which allows them to bypass formally established control procedures. Management at a certain level can take advantage of their position and bypass control procedures designed to prevent similar dishonest actions by employees (for example, order to record a particular business transaction or conceal it). Management may order employees to commit some dishonest act or use their assistance to do so, and ordinary employees may not be aware of it.

The use of technical means leads to changes individual elements organization of accounting and internal control:

to verify business transactions, along with traditional primary accounting documents, primary accounting documents on a machine-readable medium;
permanent normative and reference indicators can be checked using data stored in computer memory or on machine-readable media;
instead of traditional manual forms of accounting, an accounting form can be used that is focused on progressive methods of generating output information and ensuring its reliability, combining synthetic accounting with analytical and systematic with chronological, as well as increasing the efficiency and ease of use of accounting and reporting information.

The auditor should not force (directly or indirectly) the audited economic entity to apply a code system known to the auditor.

An economic entity is obliged to provide the audit organization with the necessary access to the code system. Failure to fulfill (incomplete fulfillment) of this condition is a limitation on the scope of the audit in the KOD system, as a result of which the audit organization may require the provision of the documents it needs for paper media information.

It is advisable for the auditor to have an understanding of the technical, software, mathematical and other types of computer support, as well as processing systems economic information. If the auditor does not have this knowledge, the work of an expert in the field of information technology should be used.

The following factors may influence the amount of audit risk when conducting an audit under the conditions of a code of practice:

organizational form of data processing, for example: does the processing special unit(computer center, information and computing center, department automated system enterprise management) or computers are installed at the workplaces of accounting personnel and data processing is carried out directly by accountants; whether the data processing is carried out by the economic entity independently or under an agreement with a third party;
form software product(developers);
sections and areas of accounting operating in the CCD environment (degree of computerization);
the CODE system is located on one or several computers;
credentials are processed locally on each computer or a network option is used;
ensuring archiving and storage of data;
Data transfer is carried out: using communication channels, through external media (for example, floppy disks) or data is entered from the keyboard.

The auditor is obliged to check the compliance of the algorithms used with the requirements of regulatory documentation on accounting and preparation of financial statements for the main automated calculations of an economic entity.

The sources of obtaining audit evidence when conducting audit procedures are data prepared in the economic entity’s code system in the form of tables, statements, and accounting registers of the economic entity. The auditor has the opportunity to use them, their copies, including photocopies, as working documentation audit, accompanying the processing of these documents with links, marks, and special characters. If the auditor works directly in the code system of an economic entity (without printing data), working documents confirming the fact of collecting audit evidence are drawn up by the auditor independently.

The presence of a code system does not exempt economic entity from the obligation to document in the prescribed manner the facts of economic life.

Audit evidence.

Audit evidence is the information obtained by the auditor during the audit, and the result of the analysis of this information, on which the auditor’s opinion is based. Audit evidence includes:

primary documents and accounting records;

written explanations from authorized employees of the audited entity;

information obtained from various sources (from third parties).

Types of audit evidence:

internal – information received from the client in written or oral form

external - information received from a third party in writing (usually at the written request of the auditor)

mixed - information received from the client in written or oral form and confirmed in writing by a 3rd party.

Sources of audit evidence

Audit evidence is obtained from tests of internal controls and substantive procedures.

Tests of internal controls are activities performed to obtain audit evidence regarding the proper organization and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems.

The substantive testing procedure is carried out to obtain audit evidence about material misstatements in the financial statements.

Requirements for audit evidence

There are 2 main requirements for audit evidence: adequacy And proper character. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. Appropriateness is a qualitative aspect of audit evidence that determines its consistency with the specific basis for the preparation of financial statements and its reliability. Typically, the auditor considers it necessary to rely on audit evidence that only provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion, rather than being exhaustive, and often collects audit evidence from different sources or from documents of different content in order to support the same business transaction or group similar business transactions.

The auditor's judgment of what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence is affected by the following factors:

audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of financial (accounting) statements and at the level of balances in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;

the nature of accounting and internal control systems, as well as the risk assessment of internal controls;

the materiality of the audited item in the financial (accounting) statements;

experience gained during previous audits;

the results of audit procedures, including possible detections of fraud or error;

source and reliability of information.

Assumptions in the preparation of financial statements are statements made by the management of the audited entity, either explicitly or implicitly, that are reflected in the financial statements. These prerequisites include the following elements:

existence- existence as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;

rights and obligations- ownership by the audited entity as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;

emergence- a business transaction or event that took place during the relevant period;

completeness- the absence of assets, liabilities, business transactions or events not reflected in the accounting records, or undisclosed accounting items;

valuation- reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the appropriate book value of the asset or liability;

precise measurement- accuracy of reflection of the amount of a business transaction or event with the attribution of income or expenses to the appropriate period of time;

presentation and disclosure- explanation, classification and description of an asset or liability in accordance with the rules for its reflection in financial (accounting) statements.

The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source (internal or external) and the form in which it is presented (visual, documentary or oral). When assessing the reliability of audit evidence, consider the following:

audit evidence obtained from external sources (from third parties) is more reliable than evidence obtained from internal sources;

audit evidence obtained from internal sources is more reliable if existing accounting and internal control systems are effective;

audit evidence collected directly by the auditor is more reliable than evidence obtained from the audited entity;

Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.

Audit evidence is more convincing if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other. In such cases, the auditor may be able to provide a higher degree of assurance than would be obtained by considering the audit evidence in isolation. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with that obtained from another, the auditor must determine what additional procedures need to be performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy.

Procedures for obtaining audit evidence

The auditor obtains audit evidence by performing the following substantive procedures: inspection, observation, inquiry, confirmation, recalculation (checking the arithmetic calculations of the audited entity) and analytical procedures.

Inspection is the examination of records, documents, or tangible assets. Verification of tangible assets includes not only checking their availability, but also checking documents regarding ownership of them and their valuation.

Observation is the auditor's monitoring of a process or procedure performed by others (for example, the auditor's observation of inventory counts performed by employees of the entity being audited, or monitoring the implementation of internal control procedures for which there is no documentary evidence available for audit).

Request is a search for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the entity being audited. A request on the form can be either a formal written request addressed to third parties or an informal oral question addressed to employees of the audited entity. Answers to inquiries (questions) may provide the auditor with information that he did not previously have or that supports audit evidence.

Confirmation is a response to a request for information contained in accounting records (for example, the auditor typically requests confirmation of accounts receivable directly from debtors).

Recalculation represents a check of the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary documents and accounting records or the auditor’s performance of independent calculations.

Analytical procedures represent an analysis and assessment of the information received by the auditor, a study of the most important financial and economic indicators of the audited entity in order to identify unusual and (or) incorrectly reflected business transactions in the accounting records, and identify the causes of such errors and distortions.

Rule (standard) No. 5 Audit evidence

Introduction

Sufficient appropriate audit evidence

Procedures for obtaining audit evidence

Documenting the audit

Actions of the auditor when identifying errors and dishonesty

Rule (standard) No. 5
Audit evidence