ACCA/CAT - P7 - 查题吧

P1
P4
P7
P2

问答题

(a) Stanley Co is a frozen food processor, selling its products to wholesalers and supermarkets. From your review of the audit working papers, you have noted that the level of materiality was determined to be $1·5 million at the planning stage, and this materiality threshold has been used throughout the audit. There is no evidence on the audit file that this threshold has been reviewed during the course of the audit.<br>From your review of the audit planning, you know that a new packing machine with a cost of $1·6 million was acquired by Stanley Co in March 2015, and is recognised in the draft statement of financial position at a carrying amount of $1·4 million at 31 December 2015. The packing machine is located at the premises of Aberdeen Co, a distribution company which is used to pack and distribute a significant proportion of Stanley Co’s products. The machine has not been physically verified by a member of the audit team. The audit working papers conclude that ‘we have obtained the purchase invoice and order in relation to the machine, and therefore can conclude that the asset is appropriately valued and that it exists. In addition, the managing director of Aberdeen Co has confirmed in writing that the machine is located at their premises and is in working order. No further work is needed in respect of this item.’<br>Inventory is recognised at $2 million in the draft statement of financial position. You have reviewed the results of audit procedures performed at the inventory count, where the test counts performed by the audit team indicated that the count of some items performed by the company’s staff was not correct. The working papers state that ‘the inventory count was not well organised’ and conclude that ‘however, the discrepancies were immaterial, so no further action is required’.<br>The audit senior spoke to you yesterday, voicing some concerns about the performance of the audit. A summary of his comments is shown below:<br>‘The audit manager and audit engagement partner came to review the audit working papers on the same day towards the completion of the audit fieldwork. The audit partner asked me if there had been any issues on the sections of the audit which I had worked on, and when I said there had been no problems, he signed off the working papers after a quick look through them.<br>When reading the company’s board minutes, I found several references to the audit engagement partner, Joe Lantau. It appears that Joe recommended that the company use the services of his brother, Mick Lantau, for advice on business development, as Mick is a management consultant. Based on that recommendation, Mick has provided a consultancy service to Stanley Co since September 2015. I mentioned this to Joe, and he told me not to record it in the audit working papers or to discuss it with anyone.’<br>Required:<br>Comment on the quality of the audit performed discussing the quality control, ethical and other professional issues raised. (13 marks)<br>(b) Kowloon Co works on contracts to design and manufacture large items of medical equipment such as radiotherapy and X-ray machines. The company specialises in the design, production and installation of bespoke machines under contract with individual customers, which are usually private medical companies. The draft financial statements recognise profit before tax of $950,000 and total assets of $7·5 million.<br>The audit senior has left the following note for your attention:<br>‘One of Kowloon Co’s major customers is the Bay Medical Centre (BMC), a private hospital. In June 2015 a contract was entered into, under the terms of which Kowloon Co would design a new radiotherapy machine for BMC. The machine is based on a new innovation, and is being developed for the specific requirements of BMC. It was estimated that the design and production of the machine would take 18 months with estimated installation in December 2016. As at 31 December 2015, Kowloon Co had invested heavily in the contract, and design costs totalling $350,000 have been recognised as work in progress in the draft statement of financial position. Deferred income of $200,000 is also recognised as a current liability, representing a payment made by BMC to finance part of the design costs. No other accounting entries have been made in respect of the contract with BMC.<br>As part of our subsequent events review, inspection of correspondence between Kowloon Co and BMC indicates that the contract has been cancelled by BMC as it is unable to pay for its completion. It appears that BMC lost a significant amount of funding towards the end of 2015, impacting significantly on the financial position of the company. The manager responsible for the BMC contract confirms that BMC contacted him about the company’s financial difficulties in December 2015.<br>The matter has been discussed with Kowloon Co’s finance director, who has stated that he is satisfied with the current accounting treatment and is not proposing to make any adjustments in light of the cancellation of the contract by BMC. The finance director has also advised that the loss of BMC as a customer will not be mentioned in the company’s integrated report, as the finance director does not consider it significant enough to warrant discussion.<br>Kowloon Co is currently working on six contracts for customers other than BMC. Our audit evidence concludes that Kowloon Co does not face a threat to its going concern status due to the loss of BMC as a customer.’<br>Your review of the audit work performed on going concern supports this conclusion.<br>Required:<br>(i) Comment on the matters to be considered, and recommend the actions to be taken by the auditor; and (7 marks)<br>(ii) Explain the audit evidence you would expect to find in your review of the audit working papers. (5 marks)

问答题

Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted<br>(a) According to ISA 240 The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements:<br>‘When identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud, the auditor shall, based on a presumption that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition, evaluate which types of revenue, revenue transactions or assertions give rise to such risks.’<br>Required:<br>Discuss why the auditor should presume that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition and why ISA 240 requires specific auditor responses in relation to the risks identified. (7 marks)<br>(b) You are the manager responsible for the audit of York Co, a chain of health and leisure clubs owned and managed by entrepreneur Phil Smith. The audit for the year ended 30 November 2015 is nearing completion and the draft financial statements recognise total assets of $27 million and profit before tax of $2·2 million. The audit senior has left the following file notes for your consideration during your review of the audit working papers:<br>(i) Cash transfers<br>During a review of the cash book, a receipt of $350,000 was identified which was accompanied by the description ‘BD’. Bank statements showed that the following day a nearly identical amount was transferred into a bank account held in a foreign country. When I asked the financial controller about this, she requested that I speak to Mr Smith, as he has sole responsibility for cash management. According to Mr Smith, an old friend of his, Brian Davies, has loaned the money to the company to fund further expansion and the money has been invested until it is needed. Documentary evidence concerning the transaction has been requested from Mr Smith but has not yet been received. (7 marks)<br>(ii) Legal dispute<br>At the year end York Co reversed a provision relating to an ongoing legal dispute with an ex-employee who was claiming $150,000 for unfair dismissal. This amount was provided in full in the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2014 but has now been reversed because Mr Smith believes it is now likely that York Co will successfully defend the legal case. Mr Smith has not been available to discuss this matter and no additional documentary evidence has been made available since the end of the previous year’s audit. The audit report was unmodified in the previous year. (6 marks)<br>Required:<br>Evaluate the implications for the completion of the audit, recommending any further actions which should be taken by your audit firm.<br>Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown against each of the issues above.

问答题

You are the manager responsible for the audit of Boston Co, a producer of chocolate and confectionery. The audit of the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2015 is nearly complete and you are reviewing the audit working papers. The financial statements recognise revenue of $76 million, profit before tax for the year of $6·4 million and total assets of $104 million.<br>The summary of uncorrected misstatements included in Boston Co’s audit working papers, including notes, is shown below. The audit engagement partner is holding a meeting with the management team of Boston Co next week, at which the uncorrected misstatements will be discussed.<br>(i) During the year Boston Co impaired one of its factories. The carrying value of the assets attributable to the factory as a single, cash-generating unit totalled $3·6 million at the year end. The fair value less costs of disposal and the value in use were estimated to be $3 million and $3·5 million respectively and accordingly the asset was written down by $100,000 to reflect the impairment. Audit procedures revealed that management used growth rates attributable to the company as a whole to estimate value in use. Using growth rates attributable to the factory specifically, the audit team estimated the value in use to be $3·1 million.<br>(ii) Interest charges of $75,000 relating to a loan taken out during the year to finance the construction of a new manufacturing plant were included in finance charges recognised in profit for the year. The manufacturing plant is due for completion in November 2016.<br>(iii) One of Boston Co’s largest customers, Cleveland Co, is experiencing financial difficulties. At the year end Cleveland Co owed Boston Co $100,000, against which Boston Co made a 5% specific allowance. Shortly after the year end Cleveland Co paid $30,000 of the outstanding amount due but has since experienced further problems, leading to their primary lender presenting a formal request that Cleveland Co be liquidated. If successful, only secured creditors are likely to receive any reimbursement.<br>(iv) During the year Boston Co purchased 150,000 shares in Nebraska Co for $4·00 per share. Boston Co classified the investment as a financial asset held at fair value through profit or loss. On 31 December 2015, the shares of Nebraska Co were trading for $4·29. At the year end the carrying value of the investment in Boston Co’s financial statements was $600,000.<br>Required:<br>(a) Explain the matters which should be discussed with management in relation to each of the uncorrected misstatements, including an assessment of their individual impact on the financial statements; and<br>(b) Assuming that management does not adjust any of the misstatements, discuss the effect on the audit opinion and auditor’s report.<br>The following mark allocation is provided as guidance for this question:<br>(a) 14 marks<br>(b) 6 marks

问答题

Section A – BOTH questions are compulsory and MUST be attempted<br>You are an audit manager in Montreal & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants, and you are responsible for the audit of the Vancouver Group (the Group). The Group operates in the supply chain management sector, offering distribution, warehousing and container handling services.<br>The Group comprises a parent company, Vancouver Co, and two subsidiaries, Toronto Co and Calgary Co. Both of the subsidiaries were acquired as wholly owned subsidiaries many years ago. Montreal & Co audits all of the individual company financial statements as well as the Group consolidated financial statements.<br>You are beginning to plan the Group audit for the financial year ending 31 July 2016, and the audit engagement partner has sent you the following email:<br>Notes from meeting with the Group finance director and audit committee representative<br>The Group has not changed its operations significantly this year. However, it has completed a modernisation programme of its warehousing facilities at a cost of $25 million. The programme was financed with cash raised from two sources: $5 million was raised from a debenture issue, and $20 million from the sale of 5% of the share capital of Calgary Co, with the shares being purchased by an institutional investor.<br>An investigation into the Group’s tax affairs started in January 2016. The tax authorities are investigating the possible underpayment of taxes by each of the companies in the Group, claiming that tax laws have been breached. The Group’s tax planning was performed by another firm of accountants, Victoria & Co, but the Group’s audit committee has asked if our firm will support the Group by looking into its tax position and liaising with the tax authorities in respect of the tax investigation on its behalf. Victoria & Co has resigned from their engagement to provide tax advice to the Group. The matter is to be resolved by a tribunal which is scheduled to take place in September 2016.<br>The Group audit committee has also asked whether one of Montreal & Co’s audit partners can be appointed as a non-executive director and serve on the audit committee. The audit committee lacks a financial reporting expert, and the appointment of an audit partner would bring much needed knowledge and experience.<br>Financial information provided by the Group finance director<br>Consolidated statement of financial position<br>Consolidated statement of profit or loss for the year to 31 July<br>Notes:<br>1. Several old warehouses were modernised during the year. The modernisation involved the redesign of the layout of each warehouse, the installation of new computer systems, and the replacement of electrical systems.<br>2. The deferred tax asset is in respect of unused tax losses (tax credits) which accumulated when Toronto Co was loss making for a period of three years from 2009 to 2012.<br>3. The non-controlling interest has arisen on the disposal of shares in Calgary Co. On 1 January 2016, a 5% equity shareholding in Calgary Co was sold, raising cash of $20 million. The profit made on the disposal is separately recognised in the Group statement of profit or loss.<br>4. The provisions relate to onerous leases in respect of vacant properties which are surplus to the Group’s requirements.<br>Required:<br>Respond to the instructions in the partner’s email. (31 marks)<br>Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown within the email.<br>Professional marks will be awarded for presentation, logical flow, and clarity of explanations provided. (4 marks)

问答题

You are a senior manager in Bunk & Co, a global audit firm with offices in more than 30 countries. You are responsible for monitoring audit quality and ethical situations which arise in relation to audit clients. Wire Co is an audit client whose operations involve haulage and distribution. The audit report for the financial statements of Wire Co for the year ended 31 December 2014 was issued last week. You are conducting a review of the quality of that audit, and of any ethical issues which arose in relation to it. Relevant information obtained from a discussion with Lester Freeman, the audit engagement partner, is given below.<br>(a) Wire Co’s audit committee refused to agree to an increase in audit fees despite the company’s operations expanding into new locations. In response to this, the materiality level was increased during the audit, and some review procedures were not carried out. To reduce sample sizes used in tests of detail, the samples were selected based on judgement rather than statistical methods. In addition, only parts of the population being tested were sampled, for example, certain locations were not included in the sample of non-current assets selected for physical verification. (6 marks)<br>(b) Some of the audit work was performed by an overseas office of Bunk & Co in an ‘off-shoring’ arrangement. This practice is encouraged by Bunk & Co, whose managing partners see it as a way of improving audit efficiency. The overseas office performs the work at a lower cost, and it was largely low-risk, non-judgemental work included in this arrangement for the audit of Wire Co, for example, numerical checks on documentation. In addition, the overseas office read the minutes of board meetings to identify issues relevant to the audit. (5 marks)<br>(c) In July 2014, Russell Bell, Wire Co’s former finance director, joined Bunk & Co as an audit partner, working in the same office as Lester Freeman. Although Russell was not a member of the audit team, he did update Lester on some business developments which had taken place at the company during the period before he left. Russell held a number of equity shares in Wire Co, which he sold in January 2015. Since joining Bunk & Co, Russell has been developing initiatives to increase the firm’s income. One initiative is that audit team members should be encouraged to cross-sell non-audit services and references to targets for the cross-selling of non-audit services to audit clients is now included in partner and employee appraisal documentation. (9 marks)<br>Required:<br>Comment on the quality control, ethical and professional issues raised in respect of the audit of Wire Co and the firm-wide policies of Bunk & Co, and recommend any actions to be taken by the audit firm.<br>Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown against each of the issues above.

问答题

The audit is nearly complete and you are reviewing the audit working papers. The audit senior has brought several matters to your attention:<br>(a) Darren Co is working on a major contract relating to the construction of a bridge for Flyover Co. Work started in July 2014, and it is estimated that the contract will be completed in September 2015. The contract price is $20 million, and it is estimated that a profit of $5 million will be made on completion of the contract. The full amount of this profit has been included in the statement of profit or loss for the year ended 31 January 2015. Darren Co’s management believes that this accounting treatment is appropriate given that the contract was signed during the financial year, and no problems have arisen in the work carried out so far. (8 marks)<br>(b) A significant contract was completed in September 2014 for Newbuild Co. This contract related to the construction of a 20-mile highway in a remote area. In November 2014, several large cracks appeared in the road surface after a period of unusually heavy rain, and the road had to be shut for ten weeks while repair work was carried out. Newbuild Co paid for these repairs, but has taken legal action against Darren Co to recover the costs incurred of $40 million. Disclosure on this matter has been made in the notes to the financial statements. Audit evidence, including a written statement from Darren Co’s lawyers, concludes that there is a possibility, but not a probability, of Darren Co having to settle the amount claimed. (6 marks)<br>(c) For the first time this year, the financial statements are presented as part of an integrated report. Included in the integrated report are several key performance indicators, one of which states that Darren Co’s profit before tax has increased by 20% from the previous year. (6 marks)<br>Required:<br>Discuss the implications of the matters described above on the completion of the audit and on the auditor’s report, recommending any further actions which should be taken by the auditor.<br>Note: The mark allocation is shown next to each of the matters above.

问答题

Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted<br>(a) A high-quality audit features the exercise of professional judgement by the auditor, and importantly, a mind-set which includes professional skepticism throughout the planning and performance of the audit.<br>Required:<br>Explain the meaning of the term professional skepticism, and discuss its importance in planning and performing an audit. (5 marks)<br>You are an audit manager in Soprano & Co, working on the audit of the Tony Group (the Group), whose financial year ended on 31 March 2015. This is the first time you have worked on the Group audit. The draft consolidated financial statements recognise profit before tax of $6 million (2014 – $9 million) and total assets of $90 million (2014 – $82 million). The Group manufactures equipment used in the oil extraction industry.<br>Goodwill of $10 million is recognised in the Group statement of financial position, having arisen on several business combinations over the last few years. An impairment review was conducted in March 2015 by Silvio Dante, the Group finance director, and this year an impairment of $50,000 is to be recognised in respect of the goodwill.<br>Silvio has prepared a file of documentation to support the results of the impairment review, including notes on the assumptions used, his calculations, and conclusions. When he gave you this file, Silvio made the following comment:<br>‘I don’t think you should need any evidence other than that contained in my file. The assumptions used are straightforward, so you shouldn’t need to look into them in detail. The assumptions are consistent with how we conducted impairment reviews in previous years and your firm has always agreed with the assumptions used, so you can check that back to last year’s audit file. All of the calculations have been checked by the head of the Group’s internal audit department.’<br>Silvio has also informed you that two members of the sales team are suspected of paying bribes in order to secure lucrative customer contracts. The internal audit team were alerted to this when they were auditing cash payments, and found significant payments to several new customers being made prior to contracts being signed. Silvio has asked if Soprano & Co would perform. a forensic investigation into the alleged bribery payments.<br>Required:<br>(b) (i) Discuss how professional skepticism should be applied to the statement made by Silvio; and (6 marks)<br>(ii) Explain the principal audit procedures to be performed on the impairment of goodwill. (5 marks)<br>(c) Recommend the procedures to be used in performing a forensic investigation on the alleged bribery payments. (4 marks)

问答题

Section A – BOTH questions are compulsory and MUST be attempted<br>You are a manager in the audit department of Craggy & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants, and you have just been assigned to the audit of Ted Co, a new audit client of your firm, with a financial year ended 31 May 2015. Ted Co, a newly listed company, is a computer games designer and developer, and has grown rapidly in the last few years. The audit engagement partner, Jack Hackett, has sent you the following email:<br>Notes from meeting with Len Brennan<br>Ted Co was formed ten years ago by Dougal Doyle, a graduate in multimedia computing. The company designs, develops and publishes computer games including many highly successful games which have won industry awards. In the last two years the company invested $100m in creating games designed to appeal to a broad, global audience and sales are now made in over 60 countries. The software used in the computer games is developed in this country, but the manufacture of the physical product takes place overseas.<br>Computer games are largely sold through retail outlets, but approximately 25% of Ted Co’s revenue is generated through sales made on the company’s website. In some countries Ted Co’s products are distributed under licences which give the licence holder the exclusive right to sell the products in that country. The cost of each licence to the distributor depends on the estimated sales in the country to which it relates, and licences last for an average of five years. The income which Ted Co receives from the sale of a licence is deferred over the period of the licence. At 31 May 2015 the total amount of deferred income recognised in Ted Co’s statement of financial position is $18 million.<br>As part of a five-year strategic plan, Ted Co obtained a stock market listing in December 2014. The listing and related share issue raised a significant amount of finance, and many shares are held by institutional investors. Dougal Doyle retains a 20% equity shareholding, and a further 10% of the company’s shares are held by his family members.<br>Despite being listed, the company does not have an internal audit department, and there is only one non-executive director on the board. These problems, which Ted Co’s management is hoping to resolve in the next few months, are explained in the company’s annual report, as required by the applicable corporate governance code.<br>Recently, a small treasury management function was established to manage the company’s foreign currency transactions, which include forward exchange currency contracts. The treasury management function also deals with short-term investments. In January 2015, cash of $8 million was invested in a portfolio of equity shares held in listed companies, which is to be held in the short term as a speculative investment. The shares are recognised as a financial asset at cost of $8 million in the draft statement of financial position. The fair value of the shares at 31 May 2015 is $6 million.<br>As a listed company, Ted Co is required to disclose its earnings per share figure. Dougal Doyle would like this to be based on an adjusted earnings figure which does not include depreciation or amortisation expenses.<br>The previous auditors of Ted Co, a small firm called Crilly & Co, resigned in September 2014. The audit opinion on the financial statements for the year ended 31 May 2014 was unmodified.<br>Extract of draft financial statements and results of preliminary analytical review<br>Statement of profit or loss (extract)<br>Required:<br>Respond to the email from the audit partner. (31 marks)<br>Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown in the partner’s email.<br>Professional marks will be awarded for the presentation, clarity of explanations and logical flow of the briefing notes. (4 marks)

问答题

The Adder Group (the Group) has been an audit client of your firm for several years. You have recently been assigned to act as audit manager, replacing a manager who has fallen ill, and the audit of the Group financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2015 is underway. The Group’s activities include property management and the provision of large storage facilities in warehouses owned by the Group. The draft consolidated financial statements recognise total assets of $150 million, and profit before tax of $20 million.<br>(a) The audit engagement partner, Edmund Black, has asked you to review the audit working papers in relation to two audit issues which have been highlighted by the audit senior. Information on each of these issues is given below:<br>(i) In December 2014, a leisure centre complex was sold for proceeds equivalent to its fair value of $35 million, the related assets have been derecognised from the Group statement of financial position, and a profit on disposal of $8 million is included in the Group statement of profit or loss for the year. The remaining useful life of the leisure centre complex was 21 years at the date of disposal.<br>The Group is leasing back the leisure centre complex to use in its ongoing operations, paying a rental based on the market rate of interest plus 2%. At the end of the 20-year lease arrangement, the Group has the option to repurchase the leisure centre complex for its market value at that time.<br>(ii) In January 2015, the Group acquired 52% of the equity shares of Baldrick Co. This company has not been consolidated into the Group as a subsidiary, and is instead accounted for as an associate. The Group finance director’s reason for this accounting treatment is that Baldrick Co’s operations have not yet been integrated with those of the rest of the Group. Baldrick Co’s financial statements recognise total assets of $18 million and a loss for the year to 31 March 2015 of $5 million.<br>Required:<br>In respect of the issues described above:<br>Comment on the matters to be considered, and explain the audit evidence you should expect to find in your review of the audit working papers.<br>Note: The marks will be split equally between each part. (16 marks)<br>(b) The audit senior also left the following note for your attention:<br>‘I have been working on the audit of properties, including the Group’s storage facility warehouses. Customers rent individual self-contained storage areas of a warehouse, for which they are given keys allowing access by the customer at any time. The Group’s employees rarely enter the customers’ storage areas.<br>It seems the Group’s policy for storage contracts which generate revenue of less than $10,000, is that very little documentation is required, and the nature of the items being stored is not always known. While visiting one of the Group’s warehouses, the door to one of the customers’ storage areas was open, so I looked in and saw what appeared to be potentially hazardous chemicals, stored in large metal drums marked with warning signs. I asked the warehouse manager about the items being stored, and he became very aggressive, refusing to allow me to ask other employees about the matter, and threatening me if I alerted management to the storage of these items. I did not mention the matter to anyone else at the client.’<br>Required:<br>Discuss the implications of the audit senior’s note for the completion of the audit, commenting on the auditor’s responsibilities in relation to laws and regulations, and on any ethical matters arising. (9 marks)

问答题

(a) The IAASB has conducted a review of the structure and content of audit reports, including the issuance of an Invitation to Comment on Improving the Auditor’s Report, in which several suggestions were made with the aim of improving the disclosure of matters included in the auditor’s report, including those relating to going concern status.<br>Required:<br>Explain the suggestions made by the IAASB in respect of additional disclosures in the auditor’s report regarding going concern status, and discuss the benefits of such disclosures. (8 marks)<br>(b) You are an audit manager in Taylor & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants, responsible for the audit of Marr Co, with a year ended 28 February 2014. The draft financial statements recognise profit for the year of $11 million. The audit for the year end is nearing completion, and several matters have been highlighted for your attention by the audit senior, Xi Smith. The matters have been discussed with management and will not be adjusted in the financial statements:<br>1. In January 2014 a major customer went into administration. There was a balance of $2·5 million owing to Marr Co from this customer at 28 February 2014, which is still included in trade receivables.<br>2. A court case began in December 2013 involving an ex-employee who is suing Marr Co for unfair dismissal. Lawyers estimate that damages of $50,000 are probable to be paid. The financial statements include a note describing the court case and quantifying the potential damages but no adjustment has been made to include it in the statement of financial position or the statement of profit or loss.<br>Xi Smith has produced a draft audit report for your review, an extract of which is shown below:<br>Basis for opinion and disclaimer of opinion<br>We have performed our audit based on a materiality level of $1·5 million. Our audit procedures have proven conclusively that trade receivables are materially misstated. The finance director of Marr Co, Rita Gilmour, has refused to make an adjustment to write off a significant trade receivables balance. Therefore in our opinion the financial statements of Marr Co are materially misstated and we therefore express a disclaimer of opinion because we do not think they are fairly presented.<br>Emphasis of Matter paragraph<br>Marr Co is facing a legal claim for an amount of $50,000 from an ex-employee. In our opinion this amount should be recognised as a provision but it is not included in the statement of financial position. We draw your attention to this breach of the relevant IFRS.<br>Required:<br>Critically appraise the proposed auditor’s report of Marr Co for the year ended 28 February 2014. Note: You are NOT required to re-draft the extracts from the auditor’s report. (12 marks)

3