IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Auditors’ Assessments of Materiality Between Professional Judgment and Subjectivity

  • Saher Aqel


    (Alquds University, East Jerusalem,Palestine)

Registered author(s):

    Materiality has been and continues to be a topic of importance for auditors. It is considered as a significant factor in the planning of the audit procedures, performing the planned audit procedures, evaluating the results of the audit procedures and issuing an audit report. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the concept of materiality motivated by concerns at the Sarbanes- Oxley Act, Securities and Exchange Commission and International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board issuance of proposed standards on materiality. The objective of this paper is to discuss and analyze comprehensively the concept of audit materiality including how materiality threshold is determined by auditors. Auditing standards settings bodies pointed out that auditor’s determination of materiality threshold is a matter of professional judjment. As a judgmental concept, however, materiality is susceptible to subjectivity. Furthermore, the absence of audting standards on how materiality is determined has highlighted the significance of this issue and indicated that guidance for materiality professional judgments must come from other non-authoritative sources such as empirical researches. A number of new and important areas of materiality are in need of further investigation.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Danubius University of Galati in its journal ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS. OECONOMICA.

    Volume (Year): (2011)
    Issue (Month): 4(4) (August)
    Pages: 72-88

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2011:i:4:p:72-88
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2011:i:4:p:72-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Daniela Robu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.