Proposed statement on auditing standards and statement on standards for attestation engagements : audit documentation;Audit documentation; Exposure draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 2001, June 27

The proposed Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) provides an updated framework within which the auditor can exercise professional judgment in determining the nature and extent of audit documentation needed to comply with professional standards. The guidance in the current documentation standard, which is SAS No. 41, Working Papers (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 339), has not been significantly changed since September 1967. Given the changes in the auditing environment in recent years, the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) undertook to develop guidance that would provide an updated framework for practitioners performing audits of financial statements. The proposed SAS and amendments to certain other SASs (see appendix B) are the result of the ASB\u27s efforts. In future standards-setting projects, the ASB will consider the need for specific documentation requirements. The concepts developed for this proposed SAS also are relevant to practitioners performing attestation engagements. Accordingly, the exposure draft includes a proposed amendment to Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 10, Attestation Standards: Revision and Recodification (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AT secs. 101-701) (see appendix B). The proposed SAS: 1. Uses the term audit documentation in place of working papers. 2. Reminds auditors that inspection procedures, as described in Statement of Quality Control Standards No. 3, Monitoring a CPA Firm\u27s Accounting and Auditing Practice (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 2, QC sec. 30), may be used to evaluate the extent of a firm\u27s compliance with its quality control policies and procedures and that review of audit documentation is an inspection procedure. 3. Incorporates the current requirement in SAS No. 22, Planning and Supervision (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 311), for a written audit program (or set of audit programs) for every audit. 4. Introduces the concept that audit documentation should (a) enable a reviewer with relevant knowledge and experience to understand from the information contained therein the nature, timing, extent, and results of auditing procedures performed, and the evidence obtained, and (b) indicate the engagement team member(s) who performed and reviewed the work. 5. Lists factors that the auditor should consider in determining the nature and extent of the audit documentation to be prepared for a particular audit area or auditing procedure. 6. For auditing procedures that involve inspection of documents or confirmation of balances, requires audit documentation to include an identification of the items tested and, where appropriate, abstracts or copies of documents such as significant contracts or agreements. (In a current standards-setting project, the ASB is considering documentation requirements for other types of auditing procedures.) 7. Requires documentation of audit findings or issues that in the auditor\u27s judgment are significant, actions taken to address them, and the basis for the conclusions reached. The proposed Statement includes a list of types of significant audit findings and issues. 8. Requires the auditor to adopt reasonable procedures to prevent unauthorized access to the audit documentation. The proposed amendments to other SASs (see appendix B) accomplish the following: 1. SAS No. 22, Planning and Supervision — Move the guidance in paragraph 5 regarding the audit program, modified as necessary, to the new SAS. 2. SAS No. 47, Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 312) —Add a requirement to document the nature and effect of aggregated misstatements as well as the auditor\u27s conclusion about whether those misstatements cause the financial statements to be materially misstated. 3. SAS No. 56, Analytical Procedures (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 329) —Add a specific documentation requirement that applies when an auditor uses an analytical procedure as the principal substantive test of a significant financial statement assertion. 4. SAS No. 59, The Auditor\u27s Consideration of an Entity\u27s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 341) —Add a requirement to SAS No. 59 for the auditor to document the conditions or events that led him or her to believe that there is substantial doubt about the entity\u27s ability to continue as a going concern; the work performed in connection with the auditor\u27s evaluation of management\u27s plans; the auditor\u27s conclusion as to whether there is substantial doubt about the entity\u27s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time; and the consideration and effect of that conclusion on the financial statements, disclosures, and audit report. The proposed amendment to SSAE No. 10 (see appendix B) incorporates in the attestation standards the concepts and terminology in the proposed SAS. It also unifies the documentation guidance in the attestation standards.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1283/thumbnail.jp

Audit documentation; Statement on auditing standards, 103

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sas/1001/thumbnail.jp

Proposed statement on auditing standards : Audit documentation;Audit documentation; Exposure draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 2005, Jan. 12

This exposure draft introduces a proposed Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) that will replace SAS No. 96, Audit Documentation (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 339). This proposed SAS establishes standards and provides guidance to an auditor on audit documentation for audits of financial statements or other financial information being reported on. Issues surrounding audit documentation continue to be discussed due to events affecting the profession that post-date the development and issuance of SAS No. 96. Specifically, some state regulators and government auditors seek more uniformity in the preparation, filing, and retention of audit documentation of nonissuers. Audit documentation is an essential element of audit quality. Although audit documentation alone does not guarantee audit quality, the process of preparing sufficient and competent audit documentation contributes to the quality of an audit. The Auditing Standards Board (ASB) believes this exposure draft is responsive to the issues that have been raised in the U.S. nonissuer community and will improve audit practice and serve the public interest. In developing this exposure draft, the ASB considered the documentation requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board\u27s Auditing Standard No. 3, Audit Documentation; the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board\u27s exposure draft, ISA 230, Audit Documentation, issued in September 2004; suggestions received from the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy; and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The proposed SAS: 1. Uses an experienced auditor as a reference point. The proposed SAS requires the auditor to consider, when preparing audit documentation, the needs of an experienced auditor having no previous connection with the audit to understand the procedures performed, the evidence obtained, and specific conclusions reached. An experienced auditor, for the purposes of this Statement, is defined as an individual who possesses the competencies and skills that would have enabled him or her to perform the audit and therefore has an understanding of audit processes and of auditing and reporting issues relevant to the industry in which the entity operates. 2. Lists factors that the auditor should consider in determining the nature and extent of the audit documentation to be prepared for a particular audit area or auditing procedure. 3. Requires the auditor, in documenting the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures performed, to record (a) who performed the audit work and the date of such work and (b) who reviewed specific audit documentation and the date of such review. 4. Guides the auditor when making further changes to audit documentation after delivery of the auditor\u27s report. It provides guidance on the auditor\u27s response to information that becomes known in the period after the auditor\u27s report. When new procedures are performed after this date, the auditor should document the change, when and by whom the changes were made, and the effect of the changes on the auditor\u27s previous conclusions. 5. Proposes that the auditor assemble the audit documentation to form the final engagement file within 60 days following the delivery of the auditor\u27s report to the entity. After this date, the proposed SAS requires the auditor not to delete or discard existing audit documentation, and to appropriately document any subsequent additions or changes. 6. Provides guidance on documentation that should be retained and requires the auditor to document audit evidence that is identified as being contradictory or inconsistent with the final conclusions, and how the auditor addressed the contradiction or inconsistency. 7. Specifies a minimum file retention period that is ordinarily not expected to be shorter than five years from the date of the auditor\u27s report, recognizing that state statutes or other regulatory requirements may specify a longer retention period. 8. Requires the auditor to document his or her justification for a departure from the SASs in the working papers. In addition to the proposed audit documentation SAS, the exposure draft includes proposed amendments to SAS No. 1, Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 530.01 and .05, Dating of the Independent Auditor\u27s Report ). The proposed amendment requires that the auditor\u27s report not be dated earlier than the date on which the auditor has obtained sufficient competent audit evidence to support the opinion on the financial statements. It also proposes an amendment to SAS No. 95, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 150.04, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ). The amendment adds a requirement for the auditor to document his or her justification for a departure from the SASs in the working papers. This proposed SAS would supersede SAS No. 96 and amend SAS No. 1 and SAS No. 95.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1311/thumbnail.jp

Systematic Review of Potential Health Risks Posed by Pharmaceutical, Occupational and Consumer Exposures to Metallic and Nanoscale Aluminum, Aluminum Oxides, Aluminum Hydroxide and Its Soluble Salts

Aluminum (Al) is a ubiquitous substance encountered both naturally (as the third most abundant element) and intentionally (used in water, foods, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines); it is also present in ambient and occupational airborne particulates. Existing data underscore the importance of Al physical and chemical forms in relation to its uptake, accumulation, and systemic bioavailability. The present review represents a systematic examination of the peer-reviewed literature on the adverse health effects of Al materials published since a previous critical evaluation compiled by Krewski et al. (2007). Challenges encountered in carrying out the present review reflected the experimental use of different physical and chemical Al forms, different routes of administration, and different target organs in relation to the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure. Wide variations in diet can result in Al intakes that are often higher than the World Health Organization provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI), which is based on studies with Al citrate. Comparing daily dietary Al exposures on the basis of “total Al”assumes that gastrointestinal bioavailability for all dietary Al forms is equivalent to that for Al citrate, an approach that requires validation. Current occupational exposure limits (OELs) for identical Al substances vary as much as 15-fold. The toxicity of different Al forms depends in large measure on their physical behavior and relative solubility in water. The toxicity of soluble Al forms depends upon the delivered dose of Al+ 3 to target tissues. Trivalent Al reacts with water to produce bidentate superoxide coordination spheres [Al(O2)(H2O4)+ 2 and Al(H2O)6 + 3] that after complexation with O2•−, generate Al superoxides [Al(O2•)](H2O5)]+ 2. Semireduced AlO2• radicals deplete mitochondrial Fe and promote generation of H2O2, O2 • − and OH•. Thus, it is the Al+ 3-induced formation of oxygen radicals that accounts for the oxidative damage that leads to intrinsic apoptosis. In contrast, the toxicity of the insoluble Al oxides depends primarily on their behavior as particulates. Aluminum has been held responsible for human morbidity and mortality, but there is no consistent and convincing evidence to associate the Al found in food and drinking water at the doses and chemical forms presently consumed by people living in North America and Western Europe with increased risk for Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD). Neither is there clear evidence to show use of Al-containing underarm antiperspirants or cosmetics increases the risk of AD or breast cancer. Metallic Al, its oxides, and common Al salts have not been shown to be either genotoxic or carcinogenic. Aluminum exposures during neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition (PN) can impair bone mineralization and delay neurological development. Adverse effects to vaccines with Al adjuvants have occurred; however, recent controlled trials found that the immunologic response to certain vaccines with Al adjuvants was no greater, and in some cases less than, that after identical vaccination without Al adjuvants. The scientific literature on the adverse health effects of Al is extensive. Health risk assessments for Al must take into account individual co-factors (e.g., age, renal function, diet, gastric pH). Conclusions from the current review point to the need for refinement of the PTWI, reduction of Al contamination in PN solutions, justification for routine addition of Al to vaccines, and harmonization of OELs for Al substances

Newsletter.

Title varies slightly.Vols. 1-2:2 called "N[ew] S[eries]."Mode of access: Internet

Automation and scientific communication;

Mode of access: Internet