Search Digital Library
Current Issues in Auditing
Descriptive Evidence from Audit Practice on SAS No. 99 Brainstorming Activities
SUMMARY: This paper describes how auditors conduct brainstorming sessions to comply with the requirements of SAS No. 99. We gather evidence by interviewing 22 auditors at all personnel levels across s...
SUMMARY: This paper describes how auditors conduct brainstorming sessions to comply with the requirements of SAS No. 99. We gather evidence by interviewing 22 auditors at all personnel levels across s...
SOX Doomsday Predictions in Hindsight: Evidence from Delistings
Once the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) became imminent, many companies protested that complying with SOX provisions was too onerous and costly and would result in many companies ch...
Once the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) became imminent, many companies protested that complying with SOX provisions was too onerous and costly and would result in many companies ch...
You are logged in to this journal.
A Top-Down Approach to Identification and Documentation of Critical Accounting Application Controls
Current Issues in Auditing 1 (1), A12 (2007);
doi: 10.2308/ciia.2007.1.1.A12
| FULL TEXT OPTIONS | (FREE) |
 |
|
Connotea
CiteULike
del.icio.us
BibSonomy
SUMMARY: PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 prescribes assessing internal controls over financial reporting using a “top-down” approach. This paper describes a method for documenting internal controls that aligns the documentation for application controls to the overall top-down audit approach. This method identifies critical data flow paths by beginning with the general ledger and tracing data backward (down) through the system to its origin, effectively focusing on the critical data repositories in the financial reporting process. It also directs attention to the processes that affect critical financial data and to where controls related to those processes should exist based on management assertions about financial statement account balances. The approach is both more efficient and effective than traditional bottom-up documentation approaches.
©2007 American Accounting Association
| History: | Submitted 18 March 2007; accepted 13 August 2007; published 1 October 2007 |
| Permalink: |
http://link.aip.org/link/CIAXXX/v1/i1/pA12/s1 |
PUBLICATION DATA
1936-1270 (online)
American Accounting Association
REFERENCES (9)
-
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
-
Bradford, M., S. Richtermeyer, and D. Roberts. 2007. System diagramming techniques: An analysis of methods used in accounting education and practice. Journal of Information Systems21(1), 173–212
-
Louwers, T., R. Ramsay, D. Sinason, and J. Strawser . 2007. Auditing & Assurance Services. Second edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
-
Mock, T., and J. Willingham. 1983. An improved method of documenting and evaluating a system of internal accounting controls. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2(2), 91–99.
-
.1999. Internal Accounting Control Evaluation and Auditor Judgment: An Anthology. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
-
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2004. Audit Documentation. Auditing Standard No. 3. Available at: http://www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Rules_of_the_Board/Auditing_Standard_3.pdf.
-
.2007. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard No. 5. Available at: http://www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Docket_021/2007-05-24_Release_No_2007-005.pdf.
-
U.S. House of Representatives. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107–204 [H. R. 3763]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at: http://www.pcaobus.com/About_the_PCAOB/Sarbanes_Oxley_Act_of_2002.pdf.
-
Willingham, J., and J. Parks. 1982. Internal control analysis—A solution. The CPA Journal 52(5): 24–33.
