Auditors of self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) have been in the regulatory spotlight since 2013, when registration became a requirement under the government’s Stronger Super reforms.
Will new technologies create opportunities or just challenges for audit? How will data analytics change the auditor’s role? Should auditors be held liable if they miss fraud? This all adds up to interesting times ahead for auditors.
Plans to introduce a three-year audit cycle for compliant self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) will fail to reduce compliance costs for trustees and instead could force some auditors out of the market, accounting professionals warn.
A recent New South Wales case highlights and redefines the very high standard of care expected from auditors, accountants and other professionals when providing services.
SPONSORED CONTENT: Can you – or your clients – afford to be audited? We find out why it pays to be prepared.
Should detecting fraud or other major infractions be part of an auditor's professional duty of care or is it a step too far?
The growth in self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) shows no signs of slowing, and as the number of funds approaches 600,000, regulators have had to prioritise and set criteria to monitor the sector.
At what point does an auditor decide that a company is at risk of being unable to continue in business – and need to highlight that risk by issuing a “going concern” emphasis of matter in their report?
Many of your clients may not be aware that the entity they manage may not require an audit.
Auditing small entities brings many unique challenges. The applicable auditing and assurance standards for small entities are the same as those for much larger audits. There is no substitute for knowledge of those standards in scaling the approach to each different audit situation.