Returns of positive confirmation requests for accounts receivable were very poor. As an alternative procedure, the auditor decided to check subsequent collections. The auditor had satisfied himself that the client satisfactorily listed the customer name next to each cheque listed on the deposit slip; hence, he decided that for each customer for which a confirmation was not received that he would add all amounts shown for that customer on each validated deposit slip for the two months following the balance sheet date. The major fallacy in the auditor's procedure is that:
A) checking of subsequent collections is not an accepted alternative auditing procedure for confirmation of accounts receivable.
B) the deposit slip would not be received directly by the auditor as a confirmation would be.
C) by looking only at the deposit slip the auditor would not know if the payment was for the receivable at the balance sheet date or a subsequent transaction.
D) a customer may not have made a payment during the two- month period.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: You are reviewing sales to discover cutoff
Q3: The auditor should evaluate the qualitative nature
Q4: Tests of details of balances are directed
Q5: A positive confirmation is more reliable evidence
Q7: The most important test of details of
Q8: When customers do NOT respond to positive
Q9: The most reliable evidence from confirmations is
Q10: Analytical procedures are often done:
A) as a
Q11: Which of the audit objectives is performed
Q43: When no reply to a positive confirmation
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents