Question
Carol Jones is a CPA in solo practice and is performing her annual audit of Seagrass Company Previously, Carol used classical variables sampling in performing
Carol Jones is a CPA in solo practice and is performing her annual audit of Seagrass Company
Previously, Carol used classical variables sampling in performing tests of controls on Seagrass’s accounts receivable Carol decided to use monetary unit sampling for the current year in confirming accounts receivable Carol expected to discover many overstatements but presumed that the MUS sample would still be smaller than the corresponding size for classical variables sampling
Carol thought the MUS sample would automatically result in a stratified sample because each account would have an equal chance of being selected for confirmation She also thought that negative (credit) balance accounts would be handled without special treatment
Carol calculated the sample size using the risk of incorrect acceptance, the total recorded book amount of the receivables, and the number of misstated accounts allowed She divided the total recorded book amount of the receivables by the sample size to determine the sampling interval Carol also calculated the standard deviation of the dollar amount of the accounts selected for evaluation of receivables
Based on her calculations, Carol’s sample size was 80, and the sampling interval was determined to be $10,000 However, only 78 different accounts were selected because two accounts were so large that the sampling interval caused each of them to be selected twice Carol sent confirmation requests to 75 of the 78 customers Three of the accounts initially selected had balances under $20 Carol determined these were too small to be representative so she ignored these and substituted the three largest accounts in the population that had not previously been selected in the sample Each of these accounts had a balance in excess of $8,000, so Carol sent confirmation requests to those customers in place of the small accounts
Carol found two differences when the confirmations were returned One account with an audited amount of $3,000 had been recorded at $4,000 Carol projected this to be a $1,000 misstatement Another account with an audited amount of $2,000 had been recorded at $1,900 Carol did not count the $100 difference because the purpose of the test was to detect overstatements
Carol determined that the accounts receivable balance was not overstated because the projected misstatement was less than the allowance for sampling risk
Instructions:
- Describe each incorrect assumption, statement, and inappropriate application in Carol’s procedures
- Explain how Carol could have used Generalized Audit Software (GAS) in conducting her sampling and confirmation (eg, What would the software have done for Carol?)
Step by Step Solution
3.51 Rating (148 Votes )
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
a Incorrect assumption statement and inappropriate application 1 Carol made a mistake by making an assumption that the sample of MUS could automatical...Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started