Audit homework.

Please re-write attach file solution in your own words.Please not plagiarism.

Criticize the following working paper that you are reviewing as senior auditor on the December 31 audit of Pratt Company. .:. The client saved a copy of the deposit slip that is filled out. Per discussion with client, this represents cash sales on 12/31/X0. I agreed totals to the Cash Receipts Journal on 12/31/X0. Properly posted on bank statement as having been received by bank on 1/9/X1. Represents December bank service charge. Agreed charge to December bank statement in which bank charged client $2.80. Recorded as cash disbursement in January of 20X1. Per client, check written (to pay account receivable) before year-end, but not mailed until 1/2/X1 because on 12/31/X0 the last office mail was picked up at 3 p.m. due to year-end party of mail room employees. J.M.W. 1-15-X1 SOLUTION: Deficiencies in the Pratt Company audit working paper include the following: (1) The working paper is not properly identified. It appears to be a bank reconciliation; if so, the heading of the paper should include this information as well as the exact title of the ledger account and the name of the bank. In addition, the audit date should be indicated. (2) \"Per bank\" is not a specific identification of the beginning amount in the working paper. A better caption would be \"Balance per bank statement, December 31, 200X.\" (3) \"Per ledger\" is not a specific identification of the ending amount in the working paper. A better caption would be \"Balance per general ledger, December 31, 200X.\" (4) The outstanding checks are not properly identified. The appropriate check numbers should be indicated. (5) Assuming no adjusting journal entries are required, the $42,034.58 balance per general ledger should be cross-referenced to the working trial balance or cash lead schedule. (6) The nature of the verification work performed by the auditor is not clear. The one tick mark and the word \"Verified,\" are inadequate. Separate tick marks should be used for the following legend: \"Confirmed\" (for balance per bank statement, December 31, 200X). \"Examined paid check returned with January, 200Y, cutoff bank statement\" (for the six outstanding checks indicated as \"verified\"). \"Traced to general ledger\" (for balance per general ledger, December 31, 200X). (7) The conclusions of the staff assistant should be stated. (8) Description seems questionable. If these represent cash sales for December 31, 200X, one must question why the bank did not receive the receipts until 1/9/0Y. Further procedures are necessary to determine whether the cash may have been received after year-end. (9) Description is inconsistent with subtracting the bank charges from the balance per bank. The bank has already recorded this as a disbursement. The entry in effect deletes the charge again from the bank's balance. Since the cash disbursement is not recorded on the books until January, it should be necessary to add back the service charge to obtain the book balance at 12/31/0X. Although the amount is obviously immaterial in and of itself, it may be indicative of a much larger problem since one should not be able to reconcile to the penny when there is an incorrect entry such as this. (10) Because the checks described by were on hand at year-end, they do not represent disbursements until January. Accordingly, the entry in which these were recorded as disbursements should be reversed at year-end, and then recorded in January