[Anonymous]

So in a governmental audit with respect to internal control/compliance you have to go to all the trouble of reporting on the scope, the findings, whether you gathered enough evidence to support an opinion, but then you don’t express an opinion? What is the point of the former (stating whether you gathered enough evidence to express an opinion) if you don’t have to do the latter (express one).

“An additional GAGAS requirement for reporting on financial audits states, in part, that the report should either (1) describe the scope of the auditors’ testing of internal control over financial reporting and of compliance with laws and regulations and present the results of those tests or (2) refer to a separate report containing that information. No statement of assurance is required. However, the auditor should report whether tests provide sufficient appropriate evidence to support an opinion on internal control and on compliance, etc.”

[FAR_WARS]

GAGAS does not require the auditor to render an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. However, the auditor is not precluded from rendering an opinion on internal control if sufficient procedures have been performed.

So most of the time an opinion probably will be expressed. Just note that it is not required.

FAR- 80
BEC- 75
AUD- 78
REG- ?

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I get that. But why write the standard to say whether or not you have gathered enough evidence to express an opinion and then say “but you don't have to express an opinion.” It makes it difficult to be able to rely on any internal consistency when trying to learn this stuff.

Like my overall concept is that a government audit includes a statement on internal control and IC over compliance. That is what differentiates it from a non-govermental audit. But the nuance of the question I got wrong is that yeah, you have to do all this testing (or say whether you didn't) but just remember you're not providing any assurance. Well how is that different from (regular audit) … we performed procedures to obtain an understanding of internal control, but did not evaluate it's effectiveness… therefore express no opinion.

Versus a government audit where you do the same thing but (I guess) have say the exact same thing but you to be explicit about the scope of your review of IC/compliance, reveal any significant deficiencies/material weaknesses, say whether you gathered enough evidence to express an opinion, but then say don't express any opinion.

It's like an opinion tease I swear. LOL. Ugh.

[FAR_WARS]

I think you should ask the government:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb

FAR- 80
BEC- 75
AUD- 78
REG- ?

[Anonymous]

It's not the government, I'm sure the government wanted an opinion but then they got push back from the industry and this was the compromise.

[Author]

Replies