Explain Comparison of audit in compliance with latest professional guidance

Overview of Maxall Company Audit

Maxall Company was incorporated 6 years ago and is a wholesale and close-out distributor of kitchen appliances and cookware products. The president, Mary Maxall, has been in sales over twenty years. Maxall is a growing company which is publicly traded. Recently, sales have accelerated at a rapid pace due to the implementation of internet sales and an extensive advertising campaign. Selected financial statement information for 20x1 and 20x2 are attached.

Enter & Mullen, CPAs(EM) are the auditors for Maxall. EM has audited Maxall since January, 20x1. Internal controls were reviewed in early 20x1 and EM determined that lack of segregation of duties existed in many areas of the company. EM decided reliance on internal controls would be impossible and decided to do a substantive audit. In 20x2, the segregation of duties problem continued and , in addition, Maxall made changes in its computer system during the year. Again, the auditors decided it would be more efficient to perform, a substantive audit that to rely on controls.

Accounts Receivable

EM auditors set materiality levels in the planning process and documented these levels in their planning memoranda. In 20x1, materiality was set at $35,000 in the sales/accounts receivable area. In 20x2, due to growth in the company, materiality was set at $50,000.

EM reviewed the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts and inquired about selected balances which were over 90 days old. EM send out positive confirmations on approximately 55% - 60% of the accounts receivable balances in 20x1 and 20x2:

EM applied alternative procedures to accounts when confirmations requested were not received. Some of these alternative procedures are discussed in the next section.

Sales Transactions

EM performed tests of sales transactions in both 20x1 and 20x2 in order to document the auditors' understanding of the flow of sales transactions through the accounting system. The sales transactions tested are summarized below:

In the test of sales transactions in 20x1, the largest sale in the sample was $11,436. There were several unusually large sales that were made near year end:

Southwestern, Inc.:

6 voices dated 12/30/x1 which totaled $370,440

Balco:

1 invoice date 12/28/x1 for #1,244,685

The following audit work was noted in EM's working  papers relative to these two accounts:

Southwestern, Inc.:

The auditors sent Southwestern a positive accounts receivable confirmation at year end. The Maxall records reflected a total receivable of $418,323, which included the 6 invoices dated 12/20/x1 which totaled $370,440. Southwestern confirmed a balance of $19,426 and included a detail listing of the open invoices which made up this balance. The working papers indicated a second confirmation request was sent but the working papers did not include any indication that the second confirmation was received. EM auditors performed alternative procedures on the balance which was not covered in the confirmation from Southwestern. These procedures included tracing the amounts to invoices and shipping documents to verify the validity of the accounts receivable booked by Maxall. The shipping documents EM reviewed were Maxall's vendor invoices that indicated that the products had been shipped to Southwestern on 12/21/x1. In addition, the following note appeared in EM\'s working papers relating to the six invoices totaling $370,440:

"The invoices were sales recorded in late December and not received by the customer as of yearend and therefore not recorded in the customer's accounts  payable. We reviewed the invoices and shipping documents. Appears reasonable, pass further work." (This note was prepared by the audit assistance and the audit senior reviewed and initialed the audit working paper.)

Balco:

Em sent a positive confirmation to Balco and Balco confirmed the balance. The confirmation was included in the working papers. EM's working papers included a note that indicated the inventory included in this sale had been purchased from a Balco subsidiary in October, 20x1 and was resold to a Balco at  year end with a small  mark-up.

In 20x2, there were several large sales made at or near year end involving four customers.

Hallmart, Racines, and Draycon are retail stores. The sales were made late in December 20x2 and were made with payment terms of 90 to 120 days. The Balco sales was similar to the sale which occurred at the end of 20x1 and involved the resale of merchandise previously purchased from a Balco subsidiary.

EM accounts receivable confirmation work included the above accounts and these accounts were positively confirmed. The EM working papers indicated that the payment terms were discussed with Mary Maxall and she stated that they were very good customers so 90 to 120 day terms had been extended based on their past payment history.

Audit Adjustments

In performing cutoff procedures on sales and inventory, EM discovered that a sale of $48,310 had been booked in January 20X3. Upon further investigation, EM noted that the shipment had been made on December 15,20x2. EM\'s working papers indicated they proposed an adjustment and the adjustment was made.

In reviewing the collectability of accounts receivable in 20x2, EM auditors concluded that there was an additional shortage in the allowance for doubtful accounts of $115,401. The working papers contained a note which indicated this was immaterial when compared to the trade receivable balances at year end and an adjustment was passed in the working papers.

Management Representations

Maxall's chief financial officer resigned in February 20x2. Due to a tight job market, Maxall encountered difficulty in finding a replacement. A new chief financial officer was hired in November 20x2. Once he came on board, he was quite helpful answering auditor questions and inquiries. Since the financial officer had not been in place for the entire year, EM did not request that the chief financial officer sign the management representation letter for 20x2.

Was the conduct of this audit in compliance with the latest professional guidance regarding the forensic-type (fraud) phase of the audit?