[ColoradoCPA]

Could please somebody confirm regarding correction of an error and emphasis of paragraph? Under clarity project do we add an emphasis of matter paragraph when there is a correction of an error, not involving application of a principle? Thank you!

FAR 81 ✓
AUD 97 ✓
BEC 75 ✓
REG 84 ✓

[Zaq]

Unless the Clarity Update changed this, correction of an error shouldn't require an EoM. As long as it does not relate to a change in principle (non-GAAP to GAAP).

FAR: 50, 76!
REG: 74... (ouch baby, very ouch), 76!
AUD: 65, 91!?
BEC: 80! Aaaand doneskies!

May 2012 to August 2013. Can't believe it's over.

[ColoradoCPA]

Thank you for your response, InfernoOmni. I read the Wiley book and on p 395 (new standards) – yes – emphasis of matter. p.323 (old) – no – explanatory paragraph.

I wonder is it mistyped? or now you add the EOM to nonpublic for a correction of an error, not involving application of a principle? Is it still no paragraph to public entities? or now you add EoM to nonpublic and public?

My exam is tomorrow. I really want to understand it. What do you think?

FAR 81 ✓
AUD 97 ✓
BEC 75 ✓
REG 84 ✓

[ColoradoCPA]

anyone?

FAR 81 ✓
AUD 97 ✓
BEC 75 ✓
REG 84 ✓

[Mia]

What I have in my notes from Becker –

EoM is required:

1. Going concern problem but for a reasonable period of time

2. Justified accounting principle change

3. Change in audit opinion (subsequent discovery of facts)

4. Special purpose framework is used

BEC 82 Nov 2012 | REG 80 Feb 2013 | FAR 76!!! Apr 2013 | AUD 69 May 2013 | AUD 83!!! Aug 2013

Done!! Thanks Jeff & A71 friends!

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam - For the greater glory of God!

[Mia]

Did more research in the authoritative literature and got this. Emphasis of matter not required but may be necessary: https://cl.ly/image/0M413N2e1737

Don't see error correction anywhere though.

BEC 82 Nov 2012 | REG 80 Feb 2013 | FAR 76!!! Apr 2013 | AUD 69 May 2013 | AUD 83!!! Aug 2013

Done!! Thanks Jeff & A71 friends!

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam - For the greater glory of God!

[Mia]

But maybe if subsequent discovery of facts necessitates the correction of an error and a change in opinion, then it could be that an EoM might be needed?

BEC 82 Nov 2012 | REG 80 Feb 2013 | FAR 76!!! Apr 2013 | AUD 69 May 2013 | AUD 83!!! Aug 2013

Done!! Thanks Jeff & A71 friends!

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam - For the greater glory of God!

[ColoradoCPA]

Mia, thank you for your response I really appreciate it. Here what I have discovered for my question (after my exam). Now you do add the emphasis of matter to nonpublic entity for the correction of the error (since the clarity project applies to nonpublic). You do not need an explanatory paragraph to public company for correction of error (old rule applies).

FAR 81 ✓
AUD 97 ✓
BEC 75 ✓
REG 84 ✓

[ColoradoCPA]

Mia, thank you for your response I really appreciate it. Here what I have discovered for my question (after my exam). Now you do add the emphasis of matter to nonpublic entity for the correction of the error (since the clarity project applies to nonpublic). You do not need an explanatory paragraph to public company for correction of error (old rule applies).

FAR 81 ✓
AUD 97 ✓
BEC 75 ✓
REG 84 ✓

[Anonymous]

The Becker B book says that only a corrections of an error in accounting principle(cash to accrual) affect consistency and require an emphasis of matter paragraph.

Other changes in accounting estimates or corrections of errors(mathematical mistakes, oversights) do not affect consistency and do not require an EofM

but yea wiley definitely says correction of an error not involving the application of a principle requires an EofM.

so i don't know.

[Mia]

Gotta check my Wiley book now. I'm sticking with that explanation. Becker has had more mistakes IMO.

BEC 82 Nov 2012 | REG 80 Feb 2013 | FAR 76!!! Apr 2013 | AUD 69 May 2013 | AUD 83!!! Aug 2013

Done!! Thanks Jeff & A71 friends!

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam - For the greater glory of God!

[Author]

Replies