APES 210: Audit and Assurance Responsibilities

Classify the Work Before Choosing a Standard

Identify who instructs the member, who will use the output and what conclusion they expect. An assurance engagement involves obtaining evidence to support a conclusion that increases users’ confidence in subject matter information. APES 210 also defines assurance assignments undertaken by members in business.

The AUASB guide to prescribing assurance and related services distinguishes these outputs:

The word “review” in ordinary instructions does not establish a professional review engagement. Ask what proposition the intended user wants supported. Reconstructing payments and concluding that a financial report meets reporting criteria are different tasks.

Identify the Member’s Fundamental Responsibilities

Apply public-interest obligations to the assurance role. Under the 2024 APES 210 standard, audit and review independence comes from APES 110 Part 4A. Other assurance engagements use Part 4B as applicable.

For competence and due care, the member or firm needs the required knowledge and skill. APES 210 permits engaging a suitably qualified external person. If that person is needed but cannot be engaged, the member must decline the engagement.

Outsourcing statement preparation leaves the responsible member’s classification and reporting decisions with that member. Separate the general ethical assessment from the decision about which engagement standard governs the work.

Select the Applicable Assurance Standards

Select standards from the subject matter and proposed conclusion, then establish which requirements apply to the engagement’s legal context. The AUASB Framework for Assurance Engagements explains the relationship between auditing, review and other assurance standards.

Record the underlying subject matter, suitable criteria and intended users before choosing a reporting form. For example, financial report assurance and assurance about an activity’s performance have different subject matter and reporting requirements. The applicable standard determines the procedures and evidence needed.

The Framework explains assurance concepts but creates no additional requirements. A report cannot claim conformity with the Framework as though it were an engagement standard. Distinguish mandatory requirements from application material and relevant guidance.

Quality management needs its own scope check. ASQM 1 covers firms performing audits, reviews, other assurance or related services engagements. An agreed-upon procedures engagement can therefore fall within that framework despite providing no assurance. Keep the separate non-assurance practice requirements under APES 320 distinct.

Resolve a Misdescribed Financial Instruction

Suppose a solicitor asks an accountant to “audit disputed payments” across several supplied accounts. This hypothetical instruction leaves the output unsettled.

For factual reconstruction, the accountant could trace the debits, identify matching credits and explain what the records show. FinTrace supports that work with a searchable statement ledger and findings linked to their source PDF filename and page. This gives the accountant the underlying evidence directly. The separate scope of forensic accounting services determines the wider professional assignment.

If the parties want agreed-upon procedures, settle the specific procedures and their purpose under ASRS 4400. Report the resulting findings without an assurance opinion or conclusion. Users draw their own conclusions from those findings.

If users need assurance about a defined assertion, the member must assess whether an assurance engagement can be accepted. Identify the criteria and evidence needed to support that conclusion. Supplied bank statements alone do not settle whether payments were authorised or whether all relevant liabilities appear in a financial report.

Record the agreed output, procedures and reporting scope in the engagement terms. List outstanding evidence, such as authority records or counterparty explanations, against the proposition each item must resolve.

Check the Conformity Claim Before Reporting

Match the report’s standards claim to the engagement actually performed. Trace the conclusion back to the applicable requirements and the evidence supporting it. A factual findings report must not imply that an audit opinion has been given.

Where a requirement cannot be met, apply the operative engagement standard’s response to that circumstance. Establish whether further work, a changed conclusion or withdrawal is required or permitted. An incomplete evidence file cannot be repaired by adding a general compliance sentence.

APES 210 has a specific rule where legislation or government authority requires departure from auditing and assurance standards. Disclose the departure in the report and make no assertion of compliance with those standards. Keep that exception separate from a voluntary scope restriction.

Before issue, compare the signed engagement terms with the report. Resolve any difference between the promised assurance and the work supporting the proposed conclusion.