[Angela]

Harper, a CPA, is auditing F/S of Lampworks Co.has identified significant deficiencies. One of the questions says “Harper should communicate to lampworks previously existing significant deficiencies.”

The answer is “always.” but I think it should be “sometimes” because we only communicate this matter when it is not corrected and the question doesn’t mention anything about whether it has been corrected or not.

Another question is does the question imply any info about whether the company is public or private? Cause for public companies auditors are required to audit internal controls, so the question would imply two situations:(1) financial statement audits of private companies; (2) integrated audit of public companies

Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!!

Audit 92 2013
Far 80 2014
Reg: May 2014

[Zaq]

A previously existing significant deficiency, to my understanding, assumes that at the time internal control was examined it existed and was not corrected. Let's assume this is from the 20X5 report. During the 20X6 report on internal control the deficiency is corrected, and the report communicates that the significant deficiency was corrected.

That's my take on the question, but I agree it is very circumstancial and a bit vague.

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.

[Angela]

@InfernoOmni

Thanks! But, to my understanding, we don't need to communicate corrected previously existing significant deficiencies. We only need to communicate again when it is not corrected.

Audit 92 2013
Far 80 2014
Reg: May 2014

[Author]

Replies