IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v63y2023i4p4805-4812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Yi (Dale) Fu
  • Noel Harding
  • David C. Hay
  • Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan
  • Tom Scott
  • Harj Singh
  • Sarka Stepankova
  • Nigar Sultana

Abstract

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued for public comment Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence. The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB) also called for comments. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of AFAANZ prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in extant research, responding to a number of the questions asked by the IAASB (and AUASB/NZAuASB). This technical note presents the formal submission made to the IAASB.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi (Dale) Fu & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Tom Scott & Harj Singh & Sarka Stepankova & Nigar Sultana, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4805-4812, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4805-4812
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13126
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13126?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    2. Luc Quadackers & Tom Groot & Arnold Wright, 2014. "Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 639-657, September.
    3. Tamara A. Lambert & Marietta Peytcheva, 2020. "When Is the Averaging Effect Present in Auditor Judgments?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 277-296, March.
    4. Marleen Willekens & Dan Simunic, 2007. "Precision in auditing standards: effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 217-232.
    5. Jonathan H. Grenier, 2017. "Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 241-256, May.
    6. Nolder, Christine J. & Kadous, Kathryn, 2018. "Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    8. Ann G. Backof & Tina D. Carpenter & Jane Thayer, 2018. "Auditing Complex Estimates: How Do Construal Level and Evidence Formatting Impact Auditors' Consideration of Inconsistent Evidence?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 1798-1815, December.
    9. Minlei Ye & Dan A. Simunic, 2013. "The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1191-1215, September.
    10. Candice T. Hux, 2017. "Use of specialists on audit engagements: A research synthesis and directions for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 39(1), pages 23-51, August.
    11. Ashley A. Austin & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Michael A. Ricci, 2020. "Improving Auditors' Consideration of Evidence Contradicting Management's Estimate Assumptions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 696-716, June.
    12. Benjamin P. Commerford & Sean A. Dennis & Jennifer R. Joe & Jenny W. Ulla, 2022. "Man Versus Machine: Complex Estimates and Auditor Reliance on Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 171-201, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sammy Xiaoyan Ying & Chris Patel & Aeson Luiz Dela Cruz, 2023. "The influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements: The moderating role of perceived social influence pressure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3193-3215, September.
    2. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "The microfoundations of audit quality," Other publications TiSEM 6a2b12a5-6060-4544-883b-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    5. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    6. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    7. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    8. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    9. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    10. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    11. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    12. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    13. Brown, Timothy & Majors, Tracie M. & Peecher, Mark E., 2020. "Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Inez G. F. Verwey & Stephen K. Asare, 2022. "The Joint Effect of Ethical Idealism and Trait Skepticism on Auditors’ Fraud Detection," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 381-395, March.
    15. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    16. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    17. Christopher J. Wolfe & Brant E. Christensen & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2020. "Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1598-1621, September.
    18. Downar, Benedikt & Ernstberger, Jürgen & Koch, Christopher, 2021. "Determinants and consequences of auditor dyad formation at the top level of audit teams," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Sebastian Kronenberger & Volker Laux, 2022. "Conservative Accounting, Audit Quality, and Litigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2349-2362, March.
    20. Federica De Santis, 2016. "Auditing Standard Change and Auditors' Everyday Practice: A Field Study," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(12), pages 41-54, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4805-4812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.