Question

You are the audit manager at KPMG & Coopers a medium-sized audit firm undertaking the audit for the year ended 30 June 2018 of Vesta Tech Ltd, an electronic component manufacturer located in Sydney. During the planning stage of the audit you discovered that one of Vesta Tech Ltd’s major suppliers went bankrupt one month ago, causing major product shortages. To overcome the problem, Jonathon Marshall, the husband of the finance director, Nimat Marshall provided electronic components to Vesta Tech Ltd through his private company. There is no formal agreement in place with Jonathon Marshall, however, the goods are being provided at competitive prices. You are concerned about the electronic components that Jonathon Marshall’s company is supplying, because his products are new to the market and you have heard some of Vesta Tech Ltd’s staff complaining that they are of poor quality. The board has informed you that although sales have been strong this year, Vesta Tech Ltd has suffered significant cash flow problems because a major debtor, Mimosa Ltd, is experiencing financial difficulties. As a result, Mimosa Ltd is taking well over 120 days to pay outstanding amounts, despite Mimosa Ltd’s terms of trade being payment within 30 days. Mimosa Ltd makes up 40 per cent of Vesta Tech Ltd’s sales and the board has been reluctant to take any action that might adversely affect those sales. As a result, Vesta Tech Ltd has had to increase its dependency on its line of credit, and this has caused it to temporarily breach the debt to equity ratio required in its loan covenant with WestPac Bank Ltd. The management of CGL is currently reviewing the structure of its audit committee to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations. However, the board is confused by the reference in the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations to both independent directors and non-executive directors, as they thought that they were the same thing. As a result, they have sought your advice concerning the structure of their audit committee. Required: a) Identify two key account balances at risk of material misstatement. b) For each account balance identify the key assertion at risk. c) Explain why the account balance and assertion are at risk. (2 marks, maximum 100 words) d) Describe one (1) substantive test of detail that you would undertake for each account to address the assertion and risk identified. (4 marks, maximum 200 words)

(a) Key account balance at risk: (b) Key assertion at risk: (c) Explanation: (d) Substantive test of detail/ Audit Process

Need ans in Table format.

Answer 1

Key account balance at risk	Key assertion at risk	Explanation	Substantive test of detail/ Audit Process
Trade Debtors	Accuracy	Here, the trade debtor is facing a lot of financial difficulties and not paying money to the company for as many as 120 days, whereas the terms are only 30 days. Hence, the management might not be providing provision for bad and doubtful debts which can be an area for concern and can be a risk of material misstatement.	The auditor should ensure that provision for bad and doubtful debts in relation to Mimosa Ltd. should be made by evaluating the future paying capacity of the debtor, Mimosa Ltd.
Inventory	Valuation	Since the quality of parts is under question and the rates are competitive, there can be a misevaluation of the inventory and can cause a risk of material misstatement.	A Registered Valuer should be appointed to make proper valuation of the inventory of Vesta Tech Ltd.