@for425: Examination engagements are like audits, with unmodified, qualified, disclaimer or withdrawal. Review engagements don’t really fall into those categories; it is more like “here’s the stuff we found†or negative assurance “we didn’t find any stuff.†The other engagement types do not allow for the expression of an opinion.
@HRSexton: If you look at the table of contents, the top folder is “AICPA Professional Standards.†If you look at the next layer of folders, the first name is “How Professional Standards Is Organizedâ€, the second is “Applicability of AICPA Professional Standards…†and the seventh is “Accounting and Review Services [AR-C]â€. That’s the one you want. If you drill down into it, there isn’t much there, so you will find AR-C 90.A6 pretty quick.
@Jackobe24: The restriction is because the engagement was for an audit on F/S, not for internal control. As you recall, one of the things they put in the audit report is something to the effect of “We were not engaged to evaluate internal control, and accordingly, we express no such opinion.†If the auditors happen to find significant deficiencies or material weaknesses, they have to tell management/those charged with governance, but they don’t want that information to overshadow the fact that this is not part of their opinion.
@for425: Becker says to use certain parameters (tolerable misstatement, expected misstatement, acceptable levels of risk, characteristics of the population, and assessed risk) in conjunction with tables or formulas. This sounds like it is a little more complicated than the attribute sampling, so they don’t provide us with any hands-on practice. Although they do show you another table and formula when discussing the PPS sampling.
.
