Sample Accounting Engagement Checklist Audit

Document Sample
Sample Accounting Engagement Checklist Audit Powered By Docstoc
					                                      To be completed by the Reviewer

                                     SMSF AUDIT ENGAGEMENTS CHECKLIST

                            MEMBER CODE:                     ____________________________

                            REVIEWER:                        ____________________________

                            DATE OF REVIEW:

 This checklist is for use at Quality Assurance Reviews of NIA Members in Public Practice. It is only for reviews of
 audits of Self Managed Superannuation Funds. There is a separate checklist for other types of audits.

 There is a separate column for each file you review. Where more than one NIA Public Practice Member is engaged in
 the practice, use a separate copy of the checklist for each Member.


 The reviewer is checking the auditor’s compliance with the NIA’s Professional Statements and Auditing Standards,
 which in turn means assessing whether the auditor has addressed the fund’s compliance with superannuation and
 taxation legislation. SMSF audits require forming an opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements, and
 whether the trustees have complied with nominated sections of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act and
 Regulations, referred to in this checklist as s.XXX and r.XXX respectively. The Australian Auditing and Assurance
 Standards Board (AuASB) issues Australian Auditing Standards (ASA), which form the main basis for this checklist,
 and Auditing Guidance Statements (AGS).

 Pronouncement Number 8 Conforming with Audit Standards sets out the NIA’s requirements that members must
 comply with Australian Auditing Standards when conducting audit or assurance engagements, and that Auditing
 Guidance Statements may be a useful guide.

 Pronouncement Number 3 Conformity with Accounting Standards and Urgent Issues Group Consensus Views
 includes requirements for audit, as well as preparation, of financial reports, so is relevant for this checklist. It includes
 definitions of Special & General Purpose Financial Reports etc.

 Type Of Entity                                   File Code

         Superannuation fund
               self-managed super fund           N

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 1 of 11               D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

   (enter file identification/ code eg file number – abbreviate here & list
                                                   elsewhere if necessary)

 1.1     Has the engagement partner confirmed that appropriate
         engagement acceptance / continuance procedures have been
         followed, concluded on and documented, including considering
         ethical compliance and engagement terms at the beginning of
         the audit consistent with the auditor’s policy? (ASA 220.17,
         ASA 300.9)
 1.2     Did the procedures include consideration of:
         (a) client integrity (eg repeated SIS breaches);
         (b) competence, time and resources of the engagement team,
             including setting an audit budget;
         (c) capacity of firm and team to comply with ethical
         (d) capacity of the engagement team to perform the audit in
             accordance with Auditing Standards, regulatory and legal
             requirements (r.1.04(2));
         (e) whether to continue the engagement, and/or revise terms of
             engagement (SQC 28, ASA 210.18, 220.17); and
         (f) ability to issue an audit report appropriate to the
             circumstances. (ASA 220.19, 220.23, 300.9)

 1.3     For an initial audit involving change of auditor, has the auditor
         completed and documented ethical communications with the
         previous auditor? (ASA 300.31)
 1.4     For an initial audit, has the auditor obtained sufficient
         appropriate evidence on opening balances, such as from review
         of previous auditor’s workpapers (eg evidence about prior
         periods and internal controls), or auditing opening balances
         directly, or qualified the audit report? (ASA 300.31)
 1.5  Is there any evidence that the engagement partner has
      information that, if received earlier, would have caused the firm
      to decline the engagement? If so, has appropriate action been
      taken? (SQC 34, ASA 220.22)
 2.1     Does the file show the auditor recorded the agreed terms of
         engagement and forwarded them to the client? (ASA 210.5,
         ASA 300.9)
 2.2     Does the scope of the engagement include at least the minimum
         opinions required by the SIS Act? (ASA 210.5, 210.10, s.113)
 2.3     Do terms identify the applicable financial reporting framework
         as general purpose or special purpose? (ASA 210.17)
       Is it clear from documentation that the client accepts
       responsibility for the selection of the framework?
       (Pronouncement 3, ASA 200.5)
 3.1     Do the workpapers identify the engagement team? (ASA 220.5)
 3.2     Is there any evidence of threats to independence which were
         clearly not insignificant? Examples include:
          provision of non-assurance services such as accounting,
             taxation and financial advice to the client;
          long association of the signing auditor with the client;

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 2 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

          client fees (including related parties of the SMSF) being a
           significant proportion of total firm fees;
          close business, family or personal relationships with the
           client, its directors, owners or other key personnel;
          audit firm personnel or their related parties serving as a
           trustee of the fund or director of a related party client;
          former personnel of the audit firm employed by the client, or
           vice-versa; and
          financial interests in, or loans or guarantees to or from, the
           client. (Pronouncement 1.290)
         Have appropriate safeguards been applied and documented?
         (ASA 220.15(a)-(c))
 3.3     If the firm has provided any financial statement preparation,
         bookkeeping, taxation or compliance services to the client, how
         was the self-review threat reduced to an acceptable level?
         (Pronouncement 1 290.177-179)
      Note that threats cannot be reduced to an acceptable level if the
      auditor/firm has provided financial planning advice about the
      investments of the fund, or has operated or managed the fund
      on the trustees’ behalf. See also NIA SMSF Approved Auditors
 4.1     Is there a documented audit plan showing how work will be
         performed effectively and so as to reduce audit risk to an
         acceptable level? (ASA 300.5, 300.12, 300.13, 300.18, 300.27)
 4.2     Did the plan:
          identify the trustees and the background of the fund (ASA
            260.9, 315.5)
          identify the tax and super legislation that may have a
            material effect on the financial report?
          document the internal control environment, including the
            areas of trustee decisions, investments, contributions and
            benefits and financial reporting (ASA 315.52, 315.79,
            315.89, 315.95, 315.103, 315.105, 315.113)
          show how the audit team will be directed, supervised and
            their work reviewed (ASA 300.23)
          assess the risk of material misstatement at both financial
            report level and assertion level for classes of transactions,
            account balances, compliance assertions and disclosures,
            including misstatement due to fraud (ASA 240.6, 240.52,
            240.61, 315.117, 315.143(c))
          show the overall audit responses to address identified risks
            (ASA 330.6, 330.8, 330.12) and links to audit procedures /
            programs (ASA 300.20, ASA 330); and
          record discussion of the plan with the client?

 4.3     Did planning include documenting enquiries of trustees and
         their responses about how they assess risk of material financial
         misstatement, including due to fraud? (ASA 240.38, 240.47)
 4.4     If the auditor has concluded that the presumption of risk of
         material misstatement due to fraud related to revenue
         recognition is not applicable to the circumstances of the
         engagement, have the reasons for that conclusion been
         documented? (ASA 240.119)

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 3 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 4.5     Did the member determine and document materiality:
          by making a preliminary materiality assessment and
            reviewing it at the conclusion of the audit (ASA 315.12);
          assessing whether uncorrected misstatements are material
            individually or in aggregate? (ASA 300.13, 320.5, 320.9,
 4.6     Has the auditor obtained an understanding of the selection and
         application of accounting policies (eg investment valuation) and
         considered whether they are:
          appropriate for the fund; and
          consistent with the applicable financial reporting framework
            and industry standards? (ASA 315.36)
 4.7     Were audit procedures (including inspecting correspondence
         with the ATO) identified that would help identify instances of
         non-compliance with the identified laws and regulations, and
         were they performed? (ASA 250.23)
 4.8  Did the auditor document whether any update or change to the
      overall audit strategy and the audit plan was necessary during
      the course of the audit, and if so, the details? (ASA 300.21,
 5.1     Are the working papers sufficiently complete and detailed to be
         understood by an experienced auditor with no prior knowledge
         of the engagement? (ASA 230.11)
 5.2     Do the workpapers identify:
          a program of procedures / audit steps;
          appropriate cross-references and indexing, including
            references that link the audit file to the final financial
          the meaning of audit ticks and marks
          characteristics of specific items or matters that were tested
            (e.g. invoice numbers, sample sources, dates and names of
            client personnel interviewed)? (ASA 230.14)
          nature and outcomes of discussions with trustees,
            professional advisors etc? (ASA 230.18)
 5.3     Do the workpapers identify:
          who performed the work and on what date;
          who reviewed the work and when; and
          the extent of review? (ASA 230.26)
         (NB: Not every work paper has to show evidence of review)

 5.4     Do the workpapers reflect an attitude of professional scepticism
         (eg not simply accepting trustee assertions)? (ASA 200.21,
         240.27, 250.5, 250.18, 250.27)?
 5.5     Record the format and location of the workpapers, e.g.:
          physical file(s) in fire safe cabinets
          electronic files on network
          archived electronic files etc
 5.6     Has a retention period been identified for this engagement’s
         workpapers consistent with the auditor’s policies and
         procedures for maintaining confidentiality, safe custody,
         integrity, accessibility, and retrievability of the documentation?
         Do prior year workpapers appear to have been kept for the
         retention period? (ASA 230.31, 230.37, SQC 94)

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 4 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                               Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                              Document/Records Seen
                                                                                 File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 6.1     Has the auditor:
          tested adjusting entries made in the final preparation of the
            financial report;
          reviewed accounting estimates for biases that could result in
            material misstatement due to fraud; and
          understood all significant transactions, including large or
            otherwise unusual items? (ASA 240.80)
 6.2     Was sufficient appropriate audit evidence obtained to confirm
         material loans / receivables balances? If done by other than
         direct confirmation, was this justified in writing? (ASA 505.5)
 6.3     Was a bank audit certificate obtained before the audit report
         was signed? If not, was sufficient appropriate audit evidence in
         relation to bank balances and absence of charges obtained?
         (AGS 1002.03)
 6.4     Was enquiry made, including of all members, about the
         existence of any litigation or claims? (ASA 508.5, 11, 33, 35)
 6.5     Has the auditor documented audit procedures that consider all
         material events that may have occurred between reporting date
         and the date of issue of the audit report? (ASA 560.8, 12)
 6.6     Did the auditor become aware of possible non-compliance with
         a law or regulation with material financial report / audit report
         impact? Has appropriate audit evidence been obtained, findings
         documented and discussed with management? (ASA 250.24,
         If there is such possible non-compliance, complete
         supplementary questions in Section 13
 6.7     Did the auditor obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that fair
         value measurements and disclosures are in accordance with the
         fund’s accounting policies? (ASA 545.7)
 6.8     Was sufficient appropriate audit evidence obtained regarding
         the identification of related parties and the effect of related
         party transactions, including lists supplied by the client? (ASA
         550.5, 7, 18)
 6.9     If fund assets are managed by a third party, has sufficient
         appropriate evidence been obtained from the auditor of that
         party, or by direct audit, including assessment of the external
         party’s internal controls? (ASA 402.13, 19)
 6.10    If the work of another external professional is used, for example
         a valuer or actuary, can the member demonstrate that the scope
         and content of the work is adequate to be relied upon? (ASA
         600.14, 620.17, 19, 610.20)
 6.11    Has there been consultation with anyone outside the audit team
         (eg tax, legal or superannuation opinion)? If so:
         (a) have the conclusions reached been documented and agreed
              by the consulted party? (ASA 220.34(c)); and
         (b) has the partner determined that the conclusions from the
              consultation have been implemented? (ASA 220.34(d))

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 5 of 11                 D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                          Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                         Document/Records Seen
                                                                            File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 6.12    Were written representations obtained from trustees:
         (a) on specific material matters when other sufficient
             appropriate audit evidence could not reasonably be expected
             to exist (eg qualification as trustee); (ASA 580.09)
         (b) acknowledging its responsibilities for the design and
             implementation of internal control to prevent and detect
             fraud (ASA 580.12);
         (c) disclosing management’s fraud risk assessment results and
             its knowledge of suspected, alleged or known fraud; (ASA
             240.42, 240.50240.96)
         (d) disclosing all known actual or possible non-compliance with
             laws and regulations whose effects shall be considered when
             preparing the financial and audit report; (ASA 250.29)
         (e) that uncorrected misstatements have been brought to their
             attention by the auditor and management consider them to
             be immaterial individually and in aggregate? (ASA 320.35,
             580.12) Has a summary of those misstatements been
             received in writing as part of those representations?

 7.1     Do the workpapers show that the auditor has performed,
         documented and concluded on procedures designed to provide
         sufficient appropriate evidence that:
          Fund is an eligible fund (eg listed on ROCS website)
          Trustees are not disqualified persons (s.121)
          Minutes / secretarial records are retained for at least 10
             years (s.103)
          Accounting records are retained for at least 5 years (s.111)
          Accounts meet SIS requirements (s.112)
          Auditors requests for documents are met (s.113(1A))
          Trustee notifies ATO of suspicion of significant adverse
             financial effect within 4 days (s.106)
          Investments exist and are in trustees name (s.52, ASA)
          Investments are consistent with a compliant investment
             strategy (s.52, r.4.09)
          Investments meet the sole purpose test (s.62, APRA Circular
          In-house assets are within allowed restrictions (s.69 – 71, 73
             - 75, 80 – 85, APRA Circular II.D.6)
          Acquisitions of assets from related parties are within
             allowed limits (s.66)
          Investments are at arms-length (s.109)
          Fund does not provided financial assistance (s.65)
          Fund does not borrow unless excepted (s.67)
          Trustees do not permit a charge to exist over fund assets or
             members’ benefits, or recognised any assignment of benefits
             (r.13.12 -13.14)
          Contributions are only accepted after trustees confirm they
             are in accordance with SIS requirements (r.7.04)
          Minimum benefits are maintained in accordance with SIS
             requirements (r.5.08)
          Benefits are only cashed, rolled over or released in
             accordance with SIS requirements (r.6.17)
          Any additional requirements agreed to in the scope of

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 6 of 11            D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 7.2     If investments include unlisted securities or physical assets such
         as real property, classic cars etc, do the workpapers address SIS
         compliance, existence (eg title search, location), valuation and
         insurance as appropriate?
 7.3     Where market values of assets are not recorded in the financial
         statements, has the auditor concluded that the trustees were
         aware of those values and are thus monitoring fund
         performance? (ATO Circular 2003-1)
 7.4     Where benefits are paid, is there evidence that the auditor has
         confirmed their calculation and their receipt by the relevant
         member or beneficiary?
 7.5     Has the auditor confirmed whether the fund has recorded
         members’ Tax File Numbers, or paid appropriate higher tax on
         contributions ?
 7.6  Were any issues identified incorporated into audit assessments
      and adequately addressed (eg by additional testing, reporting to
      trustees, aggregated into uncorrected misstatements)?)
 8.1     Does the engagement partner appear to have taken
         responsibility for the direction, supervision and performance of
         the audit? (ASA 220.25)
 8.2     Do the workpapers record discussions and conclusions of the
         audit team of:
          risk of material misstatement in the financial report,
            including due to error or fraud at both the financial
            statement level and the assertion level? (ASA 240.30,
            240.116, 315.20, 315.143(a))
          differences of opinion (if any) between them (ASA 220.94,
 8.3     Were analytical procedures applied when concluding whether
         the financial report as a whole is consistent with the member’s
         knowledge of the fund (ASA 520.25), and address any
         significant fluctuations identified? (ASA 520.27)
 8.4     If there has been fraud or financial report misstatement, has the
         auditor adequately considered and documented the implications
         for the audit, including withdrawal from the engagement, where
         allowed? (ASA 240.111)
 8.5     Did the member conclude on the use of the going concern basis
         / solvency of the fund? (e.g. considered need to report under
         SIS s 130) (ASA 570.5, 39)
 8.6     If the file records uncorrected misstatements found during the
         audit, has the auditor:
          aggregated them with any reported by management to see if
             the overall effect was material (ASA 320.27)
          sought corrections by the trustees of all but clearly trivial
             ones, before evaluating the effect of the remaining
             uncorrected misstatements (ASA 320.24)
          informed trustees of the individual and aggregate amounts
             determined by management to be immaterial to the financial
             report as a whole? (ASA 260.17)
 8.7     Is there any information, contradicting or inconsistent with the
         auditor’s final conclusion, for which the auditor has not
         documented how the contradiction or inconsistency has been
         addressed? (ASA 230.20)

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 7 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 8.8     Has the engagement partner concluded whether the audit team
         complied with ethical requirements relating to audit
         engagements (ASA 220.11)?
 8.9     What was the date the audit opinion was formed?
         Has the auditor concluded that sufficient audit evidence has
         been obtained to support the conclusions and report, and does it
         appear to have been obtained before the audit report was
         signed? (ASA 220.30, 700.54)
         Does the final file appear to have been assembled on a timely
         basis? (ordinarily within 60 days after issue of the audit report)
      Does there appear to have been any modification to workpapers
      after the assembly of the final audit file, and if so, have the
      details and effect, if any, on the opinion, been documented?
      (ASA 230.5, 230.28, 230.34, 230.35)
 9.1     Record the type of financial statement and SIS compliance audit
         opinions the member issued:
          unmodified (UM)
          emphasis of matter (EOM)
          qualified [except for] (E)
          adverse (A)
          disclaimer of opinion (D)
 9.2     Are those opinions appropriate given the evidence obtained?
 9.3     Does the audit report comply with SIS s113 and any ATO
         prescribed format, containing::
          the title, including the word “independent” (ASA 700.23)
          the addressee (ASA 700.25)
          introductory paragraph, including identification of the entity,
            identification of the financial statements and SIS
            declarations audited, and date and period covered by the
            financial report (ASA 700.27)
          statement about the responsibility of the trustees for the
            financial report (ASA 700.33)
          statement that the auditor’s responsibility is to express an
            opinion on the financial report and SIS compliance based on
            the audit, and description of the audit (ASA 700.37, 700.39,
            700.42, 700.43)
          a section addressing any emphasis of matter accompanying
            the opinion (ASA 701.9, 11, 15, 17, 19)
          a financial statement opinion and a compliance opinion in
            paragraphs headed Auditor’s Opinion, Qualified Auditor’s
            Opinion, Disclaimer of Audit Opinion or Adverse Audit
            Opinion (ASA 700.45, ASA 701.22-24)
          any auditor’s opinion on other matters (if applicable – eg
            expanded scope over prudential requirements and strategy )
            (ASA 700.51)
          auditor’s signature (name of audit firm, audit company or
            personal name, consistent with the engagement) (ASA
          date of signing the audit report (ASA 700.54)
          auditor’s practice location (address) (ASA 700.58)

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 8 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                            Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                           Document/Records Seen
                                                                              File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 9.4      Is there evidence on file that:
          trustees signed the financial report before the auditor signed
            the audit report;
          the audit report was completed by the deadline (SIS s36 and
            Reg 8.03)
          the ATO return was lodged after the auditor has signed the
            audit report? (look at prior year) (ASA 700.54, ASA 580.7)
 General Purpose Financial Report
 9.5     Does the file document the assessment of whether, in all
         material respects, the financial report is presented fairly in
         accordance with Accounting Standards and other mandatory
         reporting requirements? If the member concludes that the
         report is not prepared in accordance with Accounting Standards
         and Interpretations did the member issue a qualified audit
         report? (ASA 700.44-46, ASA 701.34-36)
 Special Purpose Financial Report
 9.6  Did the member ensure that the SPFR and the audit report
      clearly state:
      (a) that it is a special purpose financial report;
      (b) the specific purpose for which the special purpose financial
           report has been prepared; and
      (c) the extent to which Accounting Standards and
           Interpretations have, or have not, been adopted in its
           preparation and presentation. (Pronouncement 3)
 10.1    Did the auditor report identified SIS breaches within required
          to trustees (all breaches)
          to ATO (all breaches in fund’s first year)
          to ATO (all breaches that may affect the interests of
            members or beneficiaries (SIS s.129)
          to ATO (all significant breaches of sections on which the
            auditor is required to form an opinion)
         (ASA 260.5, 260.15, 260.22)
 10.2    Is there an end date recorded on any Auditor/Actuary
         Contravention Report notifying a breach, or is there a later
         report identifying that date? Has the auditor recorded sufficient
         evidence to confirm the rectification or cessation of the breach?
 10.3    Is there evidence that the auditor has communicated as soon as
         practicable, material weaknesses in internal control and other
         relevant matters to the trustees? (ASA 240.106, 260.5, 315.141)
 10.4    If the auditor has identified a fraud, or information that one may
         exist, has the auditor documented this in communications to
         trustees as soon as practicable, (ASA 240.99, 240.118), or if it
         involves trustees, to the ATO? (ASA 240.101, SIS s129).
 10.5    If the communications with the trustees were made orally, was
         this appropriate for the nature of the communication and has the
         auditor kept minutes or file notes to record the communication?
         (ASA 260.26)
 10.6    If the auditor has concerns that a written report may not reach
         all intended recipients (eg some fund trustees), has the auditor
         implemented an approach to make all relevant persons informed
         of the contents of the report? (ASA 260.28)

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 9 of 11              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
                                                                                          Reviewer's Comments
                                                                                         Document/Records Seen
                                                                            File 1    File 2   File 3    File 4   File 5    File 6

 10.7    Has the auditor considered whether to communicate again on
         matters of governance interest previously communicated? (ASA
         Have matters previously reported but not corrected been
         considered in the audit plan?
 10.8  If the auditor has withdrawn from an engagement, has the
       auditor responded to an ethical enquiry from a proposed
       superceding auditor? If the client has denied permission for the
       auditor to discuss its affairs with the proposed auditor, has the
       auditor disclosed that fact? (ASA 250.56, 250.58)
 11.1    Does the auditor appear to have applied all essential procedures
         required by auditing standards (eg where the standard states
         “The auditor ordinarily …”)? If there are rare and exceptional
         circumstances that prevent this, has the member performed
         alternative appropriate procedures and / or documented the
         circumstances? (ASA 200.15, 230.23)
 11.2    Do the financial statement and compliance audit opinions
         appear to have been based on sufficient appropriate audit

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 10 of 11           D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc
 The Reviewer should now complete the following sections and discuss them with the Member(s) before
 leaving. (Include here also the outcomes of the review of the Self-Evaluation Checklist unless you have
 already included them on another checklist, eg tax, management consulting, compilation)

         Positive feedback:





         Non-compliances with mandatory requirements identified:






         Minor deficiencies and suggestions for improvement:





         To be completed by the Member at the conclusion of the review

         Member(s) comments:

         The above statements are a true and fair description of the review outcomes

         ________________________________ (Signature) __________________ (Date)

         I disagree with one or more of the above statements, because:___________________________



         The Reviewer should now complete the Review Report (FP 452 B) and supply copies to the
         National Education Manager within 2 weeks of the date of the review.

Review of SMSF Audit Engagements April 2007   Page 11 of 11      D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\b0886ce1-2d5c-4f3a-97a8-9479a8ff8d34.doc

Shared By:
Description: Sample Accounting Engagement Checklist Audit document sample