(b) Describe the content of a reference. (5 marks)

正确答案：
(b) Continuous auditing
Continuous auditing is a methodology that enables independent auditors to give written assurance on a subject matter (e.g.
inventory levels, receivables balances, financial statements) using a series of auditor’s reports issued simultaneously with (or
a short period of time after) the occurrence of events underlying the subject matter. Thus it increases the frequency of
reporting (e.g. may be issued daily, weekly).
Technological development is making increasingly sophisticated information systems available to more entities at a decreasing
cost. This has promoted a more widespread dependence on technology to produce more timely information. This has
increased the demand for timely assurance on the information provided. Auditors have had to respond with highly automated
procedures and audit tools that are integrated with the entity’s systems and controls.
Tutorial note: XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) increases the viability of continuous auditing. It provides a
widely agreed-upon set of descriptors for elements in a business report that can be read and interpreted by computer
systems. It allows an auditor to review data at any stage and determine the origin of the information and the controls that
have been incorporated.
Results of automated audit procedures must be communicated promptly, particularly if anomalies or errors identified require
that follow-up procedures be performed by audit personnel. Secure electronic communication links are therefore essential.
As entities’ reporting has moved from annual and interim reports to the monthly/daily/weekly reporting of key performance
indicators (‘KPIs’)/critical success factors (‘CSFs’), the professional accountant’s assignment has expanded from the audit of
financial statements. For example, to review reports (e.g. on interim financial statements), special purpose reports (e.g. on
the effectiveness of [outsourced] control procedures) to continuous auditing reports.
For continuous audits, auditors’ reports need to be produced automatically and safeguarded against unauthorised changes.
Reports may be ‘evergreen’ (i.e. always available to users and dated at the time of access to the information) or ‘on demand’
(i.e. available when specifically requested and dated at the time of request).
Auditors must be technically proficient to handle any engagement undertaken. For continuous audit assurance engagements
that will require a high level of expertise in various aspects of information technology as well as a sound grasp of the subject
matter being audited.
Continuous audit work requires the frequent or continuous use of audit tools integrated with the client’s systems. For example
embedded audit modules (EAMs) are subroutines that perform. control or audit procedures concurrently with the client’s
normal application processing.

正确答案：
(b) ‘Opinion shopping’
Explanation of term
‘Opinion shopping’ occurs when management approach auditing firms (other than their incumbent auditors) to ask their views
on the application of accounting standards or principles to specific circumstances or transactions.
Ethical risks
The reasons for ‘opinion shopping’ may be:
■ to find alternative auditors; or
■ to get advice on a matter of contention with the incumbent auditor.
The member who is not the entity’s auditor must be alert to the possibility that their opinion – if it differs from that of the
incumbent auditor – may create undue pressure on the incumbent auditor’s judgement and so threaten the objectivity of the
audit.
Furthermore, by aligning with the interests of management when negotiating taking on an engagement, an incoming auditor
may compromise their objectivity even before the audit work commences. There is a risk that the audit fee might be seen to
be contingent upon a ‘favourable’ opinion (that is, the audit judgement coinciding with management’s preferences).
Employed professional accountants (accountants in industry) who support their company’s management in seeking second
opinions may call into question their integrity and professional behaviour.
Sufficiency of current ethical guidance
Current ethical guidance requires that when asked to provide a ‘second opinion’ a member should seek to minimise the risk
of giving inappropriate guidance, by ensuring that they have access to all relevant information.
The member should therefore:
■ ascertain why their opinion is being sought;
■ contact the auditor to provide any relevant facts;
■ with the entity’s permission, provide the auditor with a copy of their opinion.
The member’s opinion is more likely to differ if it is based on information which is different (or incomplete) as compared with
that available to the incumbent auditor. The member should therefore decline to act if permission to communicate with the
auditor is not given.
‘Opinion shopping’ might be less prevalent if company directors had no say in the appointment and remuneration of auditors.
If audit appointments were made by an independent body ‘doubtful accounting practices’ would (arguably) be less of a
negotiating factor. However, to be able to appoint auditors to multi-national/global corporations, such measures would require
the backing of regulatory bodies worldwide.
Statutory requirements in this area could also be more stringent. For example, an auditor may be required to deposit a
‘statement of circumstances’ (or a statement of ‘no circumstances’) in the event that they are removed from office or resign.
However, disclosure could be made more public if, when a change in accounting policy coincides with a change of auditors,
the financial statements and auditor’s report highlight the change and the auditors state their concurrence (or otherwise) with
the change. This could be made a statutory requirement and International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) amended to give
guidance on how auditors should report on changes.
Further, if the incoming auditor were to have a statutory right of access to the files and working papers of the outgoing auditors
they would be able to make a better and informed assessment of the desirability of the client and also appreciate the validity
(or otherwise) of any ‘statement’ issued by the outgoing auditor.

正确答案：
(b) Wallace Co
Being the audit manager, Valerie Hobson is clearly in a position to influence the outcome of the audit. She appears to have
entered into a private commercial transaction with her client. IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants does not
prohibit such commercial transactions so long as they are:
– In the normal course of business,
– At arm’s length, and
– The value is not material to either party.
In this case the transaction is in the normal course of business for the client. Rental of storage space is not the main business
of Wallace Co, but it appears that this type of transaction is quite common for the company. However the note on the invoice
indicates that a substantial discount has been offered and accepted, and so the transaction is not at arm’s length. The value
is not material to Wallace Co, but could represent a significant discount to normal commercial terms to the audit manager.
Goods and services can be received from an audit client, but only if the value is clearly insignificant.
A self-interest threat is clearly established. Valerie Hobson is benefiting financially from her position as audit manager. She
may compromise the audit approach – which has recently been planned – and furthermore she may compromise the audit
opinion to keep the client happy. She may also have other audit clients where bias could have occurred.
Action to be taken:
– The ethics partner will need to evaluate whether the value of the transaction and the discount received is ‘clearly
insignificant’.
– Her benefiting from a discount on services provided by Wallace Co, which was not disclosed, could result in disciplinary
action.
– Valerie should be removed from the audit immediately, and a new audit manager assigned to Wallace Co.
– The audit planning for year ended 31 May 2008 should be subject to independent review and amendments made where
necessary.
– The transaction should be disclosed to the audit committee of Wallace Co, or to those charged with governance.
– The ethics partner may wish to consider Valerie’s relationships with other audit clients for any evidence of transactions
or other indicators of potential bias.

正确答案：

Tutorial note:
In order to apply any piece of legislation, judges have to determine its meaning. In other words they are required to interpret the
statute before them in order to give it meaning. The diffi culty, however, is that the words in statutes do not speak for themselves and
interpretation is an active process, and at least potentially a subjective one depending on the situation of the person who is doing
the interpreting.
Judges have considerable power in deciding the actual meaning of statutes, especially when they are able to deploy a number of
competing, not to say contradictory, mechanisms for deciding the meaning of the statute before them. There are, essentially, two
contrasting views as to how judges should go about determining the meaning of a statute – the restrictive, literal approach and the
more permissive, purposive approach.
(a) The literal approach
The literal approach is dominant in the English legal system, although it is not without critics, and devices do exist for
circumventing it when it is seen as too restrictive. This view of judicial interpretation holds that the judge should look primarily
to the words of the legislation in order to construe its meaning and, except in the very limited circumstances considered below,
should not look outside of, or behind, the legislation in an attempt to fi nd its meaning.
Within the context of the literal approach there are two distinct rules:
(i) The literal rule
Under this rule, the judge is required to consider what the legislation actually says rather than considering what it might
mean. In order to achieve this end, the judge should give words in legislation their literal meaning, that is, their plain,
ordinary, everyday meaning, even if the effect of this is to produce what might be considered an otherwise unjust or
undesirable outcome (Fisher v Bell (1961)) in which the court chose to follow the contract law literal interpretation of
the meaning of offer in the Act in question and declined to consider the usual non-legal literal interpretation of the word
(offer).

(ii) The golden rule
This rule is applied in circumstances where the application of the literal rule is likely to result in what appears to the court
to be an obviously absurd result. It should be emphasised, however, that the court is not at liberty to ignore, or replace,
legislative provisions simply on the basis that it considers them absurd; it must fi nd genuine diffi culties before it declines
to use the literal rule in favour of the golden one. As examples, there may be two apparently contradictory meanings to a
particular word used in the statute, or the provision may simply be ambiguous in its effect. In such situations, the golden
rule operates to ensure that preference is given to the meaning that does not result in the provision being an absurdity.
Thus in Adler v George (1964) the defendant was found guilty, under the Offi cial Secrets Act 1920, with obstruction
‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited area, although she had actually carried out the obstruction ‘inside’ the area.
(b) The purposive approach
The purposive approach rejects the limitation of the judges’ search for meaning to a literal construction of the words of
legislation itself. It suggests that the interpretative role of the judge should include, where necessary, the power to look beyond
the words of statute in pursuit of the reason for its enactment, and that meaning should be construed in the light of that purpose
and so as to give it effect. This purposive approach is typical of civil law systems. In these jurisdictions, legislation tends to set
out general principles and leaves the fi ne details to be fi lled in later by the judges who are expected to make decisions in the
furtherance of those general principles.
European Community (EC) legislation tends to be drafted in the continental manner. Its detailed effect, therefore, can only be
determined on the basis of a purposive approach to its interpretation. This requirement, however, runs counter to the literal
approach that is the dominant approach in the English system. The need to interpret such legislation, however, has forced
a change in that approach in relation to Community legislation and even with respect to domestic legislation designed to
implement Community legislation. Thus, in Pickstone v Freemans plc (1988), the House of Lords held that it was permissible,
and indeed necessary, for the court to read words into inadequate domestic legislation in order to give effect to Community
law in relation to provisions relating to equal pay for work of equal value. (For a similar approach, see also the House of Lords’
decision in Litster v Forth Dry Dock (1989) and the decision in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 2) (1996).) However,
it has to recognise that the purposive rule is not particularly modern and has its precursor in a long established rule of statutory
interpretation, namely the mischief rule.

The mischief rule
This rule permits the court to go behind the actual wording of a statute in order to consider the problem that the statute is
supposed to remedy.
In its traditional expression it is limited by being restricted to using previous common law rules in order to decide the operation
of contemporary legislation. Thus in Heydon’s case (1584) it was stated that in making use of the mischief rule the court
should consider what the mischief in the law was which the common law did not adequately deal with and which statute law
had intervened to remedy. Use of the mischief rule may be seen in Corkery v Carpenter (1950), in which a man was found
guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage although he was in fact only in charge of a bicycle.

正确答案：
(b) Need to analyse the group structure
A certain amount of analysis of the group structure will be undertaken before an auditor accepts the role of group auditor,
particularly if the auditor is not directly responsible for the whole group.
An analysis of the group structure is necessary to:
■ ensure that particular attention is given to the more unusual aspects of corporate structures (e.g. partnership
arrangements that may be a joint venture, components in tax havens, shell companies and horizontal groups);
■ arrange access to information relating to all ‘significant’ components (i.e. those representing 20% or more of group
assets, liabilities, cash flows, profit or revenue), on a timely basis;
■ identify the applicable financial reporting framework for each component and any local statutory reporting requirements;
■ plan work to deal with different accounting frameworks/policies applied throughout the group and differences between
International Auditing Standards (ISAs) and national standards;
■ integrate the group audit process effectively with local statutory audit requirements;
■ identify related parties and effectively audit the completeness of disclosures in the group accounts in accordance with
IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures.
Any doubts about the group structure will need to be clarified against publicly available information as soon as possible to
ensure an effective audit of the relevant components (i.e. subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures). The auditor can then
plan the level of assurance required on each component well in advance of the year end.
Having established thoroughly the group structure from the outset the auditor will then need only to update the structure for
changes year-on-year.