Audit Evidence Supporting Going Concern of a Company
The information base providing the audit evidence of going concern of a company is studied. The requirements on the quantity and quality of the audit evidence to be obtained by the audit of financial statements are determined. Particular attention is paid to the procedural provision for the assessment of the risk of company termination in the foreseeable future. In view of the current auditing practice, auditors demand the extension and adaptation of the going concern when preparing financial statements by management personnel, provisions and recommendations of the respective standard for solving problems related with the methodology for testing the validity of the abovementioned assumptions. The article’s objective is to study, systematize and implement provisions of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) and general theoretical organization and methodical approaches to obtaining audit evidence of the going concern of a company.
According to ISA, the auditor’s purpose is to develop and fulfill the audit procedures in a manner allowing him to obtain the audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate for formulating justified conclusions laying the ground for the auditor’s opinion.
A literature review shows that the modern theoretical and methodological framework of audit does not offer methodological tools for the effective assessment of the economic performance of a company for purposes of defining the termination risks. A study of the issue of testing the validity of the application of the going concern when preparing financial statements shows that the auditors are required to be competent in indicative economic parameters and items of financial statements, reflecting, first and foremost, the economic capabilities and economic performance of a company.
The study of the application of the procedural provision recommended by ISA for identification and assessment of indicative performance parameters of a company is used to develop a combination of audit procedures and methods for evaluating the results of their implementation, which allows for the reliable assessment of the risk of the company’s termination in the foreseeable future.
2. Danilevskyi, Yu. A., Shapiguzov, S. M., Remizov, N. A., & Starovoitova, E. V. (1999). Audit [Auditing]. Moscow: ID FBK-PRESS [in Russian].
3. Butynets, F. F. (2001). Audyt i reviziia pidpryiemnytskoi diialnosti [Audit and Revision of Еntrepreneurship]. Zhytomyr: PP “Ruta” [in Ukrainian].
4. Honcharuk, Y. A. (2002). Audyt [Auditing]. Lviv: Svit [in Ukrainian].
5. Davidov, G. M. (2004). Audyt [Auditing]. Kyiv: Liga [in Ukrainian].
6. Kulakovska, L. P., & Picha, Yu. V. (2009). Orhanizatsiia i metodyka audytu [Organization and methods of auditing]. Kyiv: Karavela [in Ukrainian].
7. Petrik, O. A. (2003). Audyt: metodolohiia ta orhanizatsiia [Auditing: methodology and organization]. Kyiv: KNEU [in Ukrainian].
8. Proskurina, N. M. (2011). Protsedurne zabezpechennia audytu. Teoriia ta praktyka [Procedural software of auditing: Theory and practice]. Kyiv: DP “Inform.-analit. ahentstvo” [in Ukrainian].
9. Redko, A. Yu. (2008). Audyt v Ukraini. Morfolohiya [Audit in Ukraine. Morphology]. Kyiv: DP “Inform.-analit. ahentstvo” [in Ukrainian].
10. Savchenko, V. Ya. (2002). Audyt [Auditing]. Kyiv: KNEU [in Ukrainian].
Abstract views: 33 PDF Downloads: 46