AU Section350
Audit Sampling河坑土楼群
(Superdes SAS No.1,ctions320A and320B.)
Source:SAS No.39;SAS No.43;SAS No.45;SAS No.111.
偷穿高跟鞋See ction9350for interpretations of this ction.
Effective for periods ended on or after June25,1983,unless otherwi
indicated.
.01Audit sampling is the application of an audit procedure to less than100 percent of the items within an account balance or class of transactions for the purpo of evaluating some characteristic of the balance or class.1This ction provides guidance for planning,performing,and evaluating audit samples.
.02The auditor often is aware of account balances and transactions that may be more likely to contain
misstatements.2He considers this knowledge in planning his procedures,including audit sampling.The auditor usually will have no special knowledge about other account balances and transactions that, in his judgment,will need to be tested to fulfill his audit objectives.Audit sampling is especially uful in the cas.
.03There are two general approaches to audit sampling:nonstatistical and statistical.Both approaches require that the auditor u professional judg-ment in planning,performing,and evaluating a sample and in relating the audit evidence produced by the sample to other audit evidence when forming
a conclusion about the related account balance or class of transactions.The
脚踝肿了是什么原因guidance in this ction applies equally to nonstatistical and statistical sam-pling.[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.105.]
出纳人员.04The third standard offield work states,"The auditor must obtain suf-ficient appropriate audit evidence by performing audit procedures to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding thefinancial statements under au-dit."Either approach to audit sampling,when properly applied,can pr
ovide sufficient audit evidence.[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.105.] .05The sufficiency of audit evidence is related to the design and size of an audit sample,among other factors.The size of a sample necessary to provide sufficient audit evidence depends on both the objectives and the efficiency of the sample.For a given objective,the efficiency of the sample relates to its design;
one sample is more efficient than another if it can achieve the same objectives with a smaller sample size.In general,careful design can produce more efficient 1There may be other reasons for an auditor to examine less than100percent of the items com-prising an account balance or class of transactions.For example,an auditor may examine only a few transactions from an account balance or class of transactions to(a)gain an understanding of the nature of an entity's operations or(b)clarify his understanding of the entity's internal control.In such cas,the guidance in this statement is not applicable.
烤箱怎么做烧烤2For purpos of this ction the u of the term misstatement can include both errors and fraud as appropriate for the design of the sampling application.Errors and fraud are discusd in ction 312,Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit.
samples.[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.105.]
.06Evaluating the appropriateness of audit evidence is solely a matter of auditing judgment and is not determined by the design and evaluation of an audit sample.In a strict n,the sample evaluation relates only to the likelihood that existing monetary misstatements or deviations from prescribed controls are proportionately included in the sample,not to the auditor's treat-ment of such items.Thus,the choice of nonstatistical or statistical sampling does not directly affect the auditor's decisions about the auditing procedures to be applied,the appropriateness of the audit evidence obtained with respect to individual items in the sample,or the actions that might be taken in light of the nature and cau of particular misstatements.[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.105.]
Uncertainty and Audit Sampling
.07Some degree of uncertainty is implicit in the concept of"a reasonable basis for an opinion"referred to in the third standard offield work.The jus-tification for accepting some uncertainty aris from the relationship between such factors as the cost and time required to examine all of the
data and the adver conquences of possible erroneous decisions bad on the conclusions resulting from examining only a sample of the data.If the factors do not jus-tify the acceptance of some uncertainty,the only alternative is to examine all of the data.Since this is ldom the ca,the basic concept of sampling is well established in auditing practice.
.08The uncertainty inherent in applying audit procedures is referred to as audit risk.Audit risk includes both uncertainties due to sampling and un-certainties due to factors other than sampling.The aspects of audit risk are sampling risk and nonsampling risk,respectively.3[As amended,effective for audits offinancial statements for periods beginning on or after December15, 2006,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.111.]
[.09][As amended,effective for audits offinancial statements for periods ended after September30,1983,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.45. Paragraph deleted by the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 111,March2006.]
.10Sampling risk aris from the possibility that,when a test of controls or a substantive test is restricted to a sample,the auditor's conclusions may be different from the conclusions he would reach if the test were applied in the same way to all items in the account balance or class of transacti
ons.That is, a particular sample may contain proportionately more or less monetary mis-statements or deviations from prescribed controls than exist in the balance or class as a whole.For a sample of a specific design,sampling risk varies inverly with sample size:the smaller the sample size,the greater the sampling risk.
.11Nonsampling risk includes all the aspects of audit risk that are not due to sampling.An auditor may apply a procedure to all transactions or balances and still fail to detect a material misstatement.Nonsampling risk includes the possibility of lecting audit procedures that are not appropriate to achieve the 3See paragraph.22of ction312,Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit,for definition of risk of material misstatement.[Footnote added,effective for audits offinancial statements for periods beginning on or after December15,2006,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.111.]
specific objective.For example,confirming recorded receivables cannot be re-lied on to reveal unrecorded receivables.Nonsampling risk also aris becau the auditor may fail to recognize misstatements included in documents that he examines,which would make that procedure ineffective even if he were to ex-amine all items.Nonsampling risk can be reduced to a negligible level through such factors as adequate planning and supervision(e ction311,Planning and Supervision)and pr
oper conduct of afirm's audit practice(e ction161, The Relationship of Generally Accepted Auditing Standards to Quality Control Standards).[As amended,effective for audits offinancial statements for pe-riods ended after September30,1983,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.45.]
Sampling Risk
.12The auditor should apply professional judgment in asssing sampling risk.In performing substantive tests of details the auditor is concerned with two aspects of sampling risk:
•The risk of incorrect acceptance is the risk that the sample supports the conclusion that the recorded account balance is not materially mis-
stated when it is materially misstated.
气候的英语•The risk of incorrect rejection is the risk that the sample supports the conclusion that the recorded account balance is materially misstated
when it is not materially misstated.
The auditor is also concerned with two aspects of sampling risk in performing tests of controls when sampling is ud:
•The risk of asssing control risk too low is the risk that the assd level of control risk bad on the sample is less than the true operating
effectiveness of the control.
怎得梅花扑鼻香
•The risk of asssing control risk too high is the risk that the assd level of control risk bad on the sample is greater than the true oper-
死去的母亲
ating effectiveness of the control.
.13The risk of incorrect rejection and the risk of asssing control risk too high relate to the efficiency of the audit.For example,if the auditor's evalu-ation of an audit sample leads him to the initial erroneous conclusion that a balance is materially misstated when it is not,the application of additional au-dit procedures and consideration of other audit evidence would ordinarily lead the auditor to the correct conclusion.Similarly,if the auditor's evaluation of a sample leads him to unnecessarily asss control risk too high for an asrtion, he would ordinarily increa the scope of substantive tests to compensate for the perceived ineffectiveness of the controls.Although the audit may be less efficient in the circumstances,the audit is,nevertheless,effective.
.
14The risk of incorrect acceptance and the risk of asssing control risk too low relate to the effectiveness of an audit in detecting an existing material misstatement.The risks are discusd in the following paragraphs.
Sampling in Substantive Tests of Details
Planning Samples
.15Planning involves developing a strategy for conducting an audit offi-nancial statements.For general guidance on planning,e ction311,Plan-ning and Supervision.
.16When planning a particular sample for a substantive test of details, the auditor should consider
•The relationship of the sample to the relevant audit objective(e c-tion326,Audit Evidence).
•Preliminary judgments about materiality levels.
•The auditor's allowable risk of incorrect acceptance.
•Characteristics of the population,that is,the items comprising the account balance or class of transactions of interest.
[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the is-suance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.106.]
.17When planning a particular sample,the auditor should consider the specific audit objective to be achieved and should determine that the audit pro-cedure,or combination of procedures,to be applied will achieve that objective. The auditor should determine that the population from which he draws the sample is appropriate for the specific audit objective.For example,an auditor would not be able to detect understatements of an account due to omitted items by sampling the recorded items.An appropriate sampling plan for detecting such understatements would involve lecting from a source in which the omit-ted items are included.To illustrate,subquent cash disburments might be sampled to test recorded accounts payable for understatement becau of omit-ted purchas,or shipping documents might be sampled for understatement of sales due to shipments made but not recorded as sales.
.18Evaluation in monetary terms of the results of a sample for a test of details contributes directly to the auditor's purpo,since such an evaluation can be related to the auditor's judgment of the monetary amount of misstate-ments that would be material for the test.When planning a sample for a test of details,the auditor should consider how much monetary misstatement in the related account
balance or class of transactions may exist when combined with misstatements that may be found in other tests without causing thefinancial statements to be materially misstated.This maximum monetary misstatement that the auditor is willing to accept for the balance or class is called tolerable misstatement for the sample.Tolerable misstatement is a planning concept and is related to the auditor's determination of materiality for planning the financial statement audit in such a way that tolerable misstatement,combined for all of the tests in the entire audit,does not exceed materiality for thefi-nancial statements.This means that auditors should normally t tolerable misstatement for a specific audit procedure at less thanfinancial statement materiality so that when the results of the audit procedures are aggregated, the required overall assurance is attained.[As amended,effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after December15,2006,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.111.]
.19The cond standard offield work states,"The auditor must obtain a sufficient understanding of the entity and its environment,including its inter-nal control to asss the risk of material misstatement of thefinancial state-ments whether due to error or fraud,and to design the nature,timing,and extent of further audit procedures."After asssing and considering the levels of inherent and control risks,the auditor performs substantive tests to restrict detection risk to an accept
able level.As the assd levels of inherent risk, control risk,and detection risk for other substantive procedures directed to-ward the same specific audit objective decreas,the auditor's allowable risk
of incorrect acceptance for the substantive tests of details increas and,thus, the smaller the required sample size for the substantive tests of details.For example,if inherent and control risks are assd at the maximum,and no other substantive tests directed toward the same specific audit objectives are performed,the auditor should allow for a low risk of incorrect acceptance for the substantive tests of details.4Thus,the auditor would lect a larger sample size for the tests of details than if he allowed a higher risk of incorrect accep-tance.[Revid,March2006,to reflect conforming changes necessary due to the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.105.]
.20The auditor planning a statistical or nonstatistical sample may u the model in paragraph.26of ction312,Audit Risk and Materiality in Conduct-ing an Audit,to assist in planning the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance for a specific test of details.To do so,the auditor should determine an acceptable audit risk and subjectively quantify his or her judgment of the risk of material misstatement(consisting of inherent risk and control risk),and the risk that substantive analytical procedures and other relevant substantive procedures would fail to detect misstatements that could occur in an asrtion equal to tol-erable misstatement,given that such misstatements occur and are
not detected by the entity's controls.Some levels of the risks are implicit in evaluating au-dit evidence and reaching conclusions.Auditors using the model might prefer to evaluate the judgment risks explicitly.The relationships between the risks are illustrated in Table1of the Appendix[paragraph.48].[As amended, effective for audits offinancial statements for periods beginning on or after December15,2006,by Statement on Auditing Standards No.111.] .21As discusd in ction326,the sufficiency of tests of details for a particular account balance or class of transactions is related to the individ-ual importance of the items examined as well as to the potential for material misstatement.When planning a sample for a substantive test of details,the auditor us his judgment to determine which items,if any,in an account bal-ance or class of transactions should be individually examined and which items, if any,should be subject to sampling.The auditor should examine tho items for which,in his judgment,acceptance of some sampling risk is not justified. For example,the may include items for which potential misstatements could individually equal or exceed the tolerable misstatement.Any items that the auditor has decided to examine100percent are not part of the items subject to sampling.Other items that,in the auditor's judgment,need to be tested to ful-fill the audit objective but need not be examined100percent,would be subject to sampling.
.22The auditor may be able to reduce the required sample size by parat-ing items subject to samp
ling into relatively homogeneous groups on the basis of some characteristic related to the specific audit objective.For example,com-mon bas for such groupings are the recorded or book value of the items,the nature of controls related to processing the items,and special considerations associated with certain items.An appropriate number of items is then lected from each group.
4Some auditors prefer to think of risk levels in quantitative terms.For example,in the circum-stances described,an auditor might think in terms of a5percent risk of incorrect acceptance for the substantive test of details.Risk levels ud in sampling applications in otherfields are not necessar-ily relevant in determining appropriate levels for applications in auditing becau an audit includes many interrelated tests and sources of evidence.[Footnote renumbered by the issuance of Statement on Auditing Standards No.111,March2006.]
