Auditors commonly use confirmations to verify such items as cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, employee benefit plans and pending litigation. Under U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, an external confirmation is “a direct response to the auditor from a third party either in paper form or by electronic other means, such as through the auditor’s direct access to information held by a third party.”

Some companies may be put off when auditors reach out to customers, lenders and other third parties — and sometimes confirmation recipients fail to respond in a timely, complete manner. But confirmations are an important part of the auditing process that you’ll better appreciate if you learn more about them.

Three formats

The types of confirmations your auditor uses will vary depending on your situation and the nature of your organization’s operations. Confirmations generally come in the following three formats:

1. Positive. Recipients are requested to reply directly to the auditor and make a positive statement about whether they agree or disagree with the information included.

2. Negative. Recipients are requested to reply directly to the auditor only if they disagree with the information presented on the confirmation.

3. Blank. The amount (or other information) isn’t stated on this type of request. Instead, it requests recipients to complete a blank confirmation form.

Confirmation procedures may be performed as of a date that’s on, before or after the balance sheet date. If the procedures aren’t performed as of the balance sheet date, the account balance will need to be rolled forward (or backward) to the balance sheet date.

Mailed vs. electronic forms

In the past, auditors sent out confirmation letters through the U.S. Postal Service. Then, they waited to receive written responses from their audit clients’ customers, suppliers, banks, benefits plan administrators, attorneys and others. This was a cumbersome process. If an auditor failed to receive an adequate level of response, follow-up confirmation letters could be sent, which could lead to delays in the audit process. Alternatively, the auditor could contact nonresponding recipients by phone or in person. Otherwise, the auditor would need to perform alternative procedures.

Although written confirmations are still permitted, auditors routinely use electronic confirmations today. These may be in the form of an email submitted directly to the respondent by the auditor or a request submitted through a designated third-party provider.

Electronic confirmations can be considered reliable audit evidence. Plus, they overcome some of the shortcomings of written confirmations. That is, they’re sent and received instantaneously at no cost, and the electronic confirmation process is generally secure, minimizing the risks of interception or alteration. As a result, some financial institutions no longer respond to paper confirmation requests and will respond only to electronic confirmation requests.

Let’s work together

External confirmations can be a simple and effective audit tool. Contact us if you have questions about how we plan to use confirmations during your next audit or if you have concerns about the efficacy or security of the confirmation process.

© 2022

Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), financial statements are normally prepared based on the assumption that the company will continue normal business operations into the future. When liquidation is imminent, the liquidation basis of accounting may be used instead.

It’s up to the company’s management to decide whether there’s a so-called “going concern” issue and to provide related footnote disclosures. But auditors still must evaluate the appropriateness of management’s assessment. Here are the factors that go into a going concern assessment.

Substantial doubt and potential for mitigation

The responsibility for making a final determination about a company’s continued viability shifted from external auditors to the company’s management under Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements — Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties About an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The updated guidance requires management to decide whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued, to prevent auditors from holding financial statements for several months after year end to see if the company survives).

Substantial doubt exists when relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it’s probable that the company won’t be able to meet its current obligations as they become due. Examples of adverse conditions or events that might cause management to doubt the going concern assumption include:

• Recurring operating losses,
• Working capital deficiencies,
• Loan defaults,
• Asset disposals, and
• Loss of a key franchise, customer or supplier.

After management identifies that a going concern issue exists, it should consider whether any mitigating plans will alleviate the substantial doubt. Examples of corrective actions include plans to raise equity, borrow money, restructure debt, cut costs, or dispose of an asset or business line.

Aligning the guidance

After the FASB updated its guidance on the going concern assessment, the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) unanimously voted to issue a final going concern standard. The ASB’s Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 132, The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern, was designed to promote consistency between the auditing standards and accounting guidance under U.S. GAAP.

The updated guidance requires auditors to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding management’s use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements. It also addresses uncertainties auditors face when the going concern basis of accounting isn’t applied or may not be relevant.

For example, SAS No. 132 doesn’t apply to audits of single financial statements, such as balance sheets and specific elements, accounts, or items of a financial statement. Some auditors contend that the evaluation of whether there’s substantial doubt about a company’s ability to continue as a going concern can be performed only on a complete set of financial statements at an enterprise level.

Prepare for your next audit

With increased market volatility, rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, labor shortages and skyrocketing interest rates, the going concern assumption can’t be taken for granted. Management must take current and expected market conditions into account when making this call — and be prepared to provide auditors with the appropriate documentation. Contact us before year end if you have concerns about your company’s going concern assessment. We can provide objective market data to help evaluate your situation.

© 2022

The updated lease accounting standard is currently in effect for private companies. After several postponements during the pandemic, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) voted unanimously to move forward with the changes. That means private companies and private not-for-profit entities that follow U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) must adopt the new standard for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. Surprisingly, some organizations still haven’t completed the implementation process, however. (Note: The updated accounting rules for long-term leases took effect for public companies in 2019.)

In a nutshell

Under the updated guidance, organizations must report both operating and finance leases on their balance sheets (with the exception of short-term leases with terms of 12 months or less). Previously, operating leases didn’t have to be recorded on the balance sheet.

This means lessees must now record a “right-to-use” asset and a corresponding liability for lease payments over the expected term. Generally, the asset and liability are based on the present value of minimum payments expected to be made under the lease, with certain adjustments. The updated guidance also requires additional disclosures about the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows related to leases.

How will these changes affect your organization’s financial statements? The effects vary, but if you have significant operating leases for buildings, equipment, vehicles, technology and other assets, adopting the updated standard will immediately increase your company’s assets and liabilities, making it appear to be more leveraged than before. This can cause technical violations of loan covenants that limit your debt or require you to maintain certain debt ratios. You might want to forewarn your lenders if you expect major changes to your year-end financial results under the updated guidance.

A major undertaking

Based on our experiences with public companies and other organizations that have already implemented the updated lease standard, the biggest challenge will be to locate all of your leases and extract the data necessary. Leases generally aren’t standardized, so reviewing them and gathering the required data — including lease terms, payment schedules, end-of-term options and incentives — can be a time-consuming, manual task.

Another challenge will be identifying leasing arrangements that must be accounted for under the updated standard but aren’t found in traditional lease agreements. If an agreement gives you the right to control an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for payment, then it may be considered a lease under the updated guidance. For example, leases may be “embedded” in service, supply, transportation or information technology agreements. With embedded leases, you’ll need to separate the contract’s lease and nonlease components for reporting purposes.

Leverage external resources

Organizations with significant leasing arrangements might want to consider purchasing lease accounting software to automate the process of managing and tracking their leases and calculating their lease-related assets and liabilities. If you haven’t yet started the implementation process, we can help you evaluate software options and get your accounting records and systems up to speed. Contact us for more information.

© 2022

In the spirit of Independence Day, it’s a good time to review the rules for auditor independence. If you discover potential issues now, there’s still plenty of time to take corrective action before next year’s audit begins.

Definition of independence

Independence is one of the most important requirements for audit firms. It’s why investors and lenders trust CPAs to provide unbiased opinions about the presentation of a company’s financial results. The AICPA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have rules regarding auditor independence. Even the U.S. Department of Labor has issued independence guidance for auditors of employee benefit plans.

The AICPA specifically goes to great lengths to explain how audit firms can maintain their independence from the companies they audit. In short, auditors can’t provide any services for an audit client that would normally fall to the company’s management to complete. Auditors also can’t engage in any relationships with their clients that would 1) compromise their objectivity, 2) require them to audit their own work, or 3) result in self-dealing, a conflict of interest or advocacy.

Independence is a matter of professional judgment, but it’s something that accountants take seriously. A firm that violates the independence rules calls into question the accuracy and integrity of its clients’ financial statements.

Prohibited services

Under Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, the SEC specifically prohibits auditors from providing the following nonaudit services to a publicly traded audit client or its affiliates:

• Bookkeeping,
• Financial information systems design and implementation,
• Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports,
• Actuarial services,
• Internal audit outsourcing services,
• Management functions or human resources,
• Broker-dealer, investment advisor or investment banking services, and
• Legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit.

This list isn’t exhaustive. Audit committees should consider whether any service provided by the audit firm may impair the firm’s independence in fact or appearance. SEC independence rules also prohibit audit firms and auditors from engaging in financial relationships with their public audit clients, such as contingent fees, banking, insurance, debtor-creditor arrangements, broker-dealer relationships and futures commission merchant accounts.

In the spotlight

In a recent statement, the SEC’s Acting Chief Accountant Paul Munter noted that current market conditions have caused many companies to engage in complex business arrangements, including restructurings and special purpose acquisition companies. “Such arrangements have the potential to undermine auditor independence. The [general standard of independence, Rule 2-01(b)] is the heart of the Commission’s auditor independence rule, it always applies, and the Commission investigates and enforces against violations of the general standard,” said Munter.

Independence is a critical issue for public and private companies alike. Contact your auditor to discuss any questions you may have regarding auditor independence.

© 2022