Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation 696. Evaluation of the results of checking elements in the selected population

1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international standards audit, establishes common goals and basic principles for conducting an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as the audit), which the audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) are required to comply with.

2. The purpose of the audit is to express an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entities and compliance with the procedure for maintaining accounting legislation Russian Federation. The auditor expresses his opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements in all material respects.

Although the auditor's opinion may contribute to the growth of confidence in the financial (accounting) statements, the user should not take this opinion either as an expression of confidence in the continuity of the entity being audited in the future, or as confirmation of the effective conduct of business by the management of this entity.

3. In the performance of his professional duties, the auditor must be guided by the standards established by professional audit associations, of which he is a member (professional standards), as well as the following ethical principles:

4. The auditor in the course of planning and conducting the audit must show professional skepticism and understand that there may be circumstances that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.

The manifestation of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically evaluates the weight of the received audit evidence and carefully examines audit evidence that is inconsistent with any management documents or statements or casts doubt on the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit, in particular, not to overlook suspicious circumstances, not to make unjustified generalizations in drawing conclusions, not to use erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures, as well as in evaluating their results.

When planning and conducting an audit, the auditor should not assume that the management of the entity being audited is dishonest, but should not assume that management is unconditionally honest. Oral and written representations by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor's opinion.

5. The term "audit scope" refers to the audit procedures that are considered necessary to achieve the audit objective under the circumstances. The procedures necessary for conducting an audit must be determined by the auditor, taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing, internal rules (standards) of auditing, applied in professional audit associations, of which he is a member, as well as the rules (standards) of auditing activities of the auditor. In addition to the rules (standards), the auditor, when determining the scope of the audit, must take into account federal laws, other regulatory legal acts and, if applicable, the terms of the audit engagement and reporting requirements.

6. The audit is designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements considered as a whole do not contain material misstatements. The concept of reasonable assurance is a general approach relating to the process of accumulating audit evidence necessary and sufficient for the auditor to conclude that there are no material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements, considered as a whole. The concept of reasonable assurance applies to the entire audit process.

7. The limitations inherent in the audit and affecting the auditor's ability to detect material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements take place due to the following reasons:

The majority of audit evidence provides evidence to support a specific conclusion and is not exhaustive.

8. An additional factor limiting the reliability of an audit is that the work performed by the auditor to form his opinion is based on his professional judgment, in particular with respect to:

Preparing conclusions based on audit evidence, for example, when determining the reasonableness of accounting estimates obtained by the management of the entity under audit in the course of preparing financial (accounting) statements.

9. In addition, there are other limitations that may affect the strength of the evidence used to draw conclusions about certain financial (accounting) reporting assertions (for example, transactions between affiliates). For such cases, some rules (standards) of audit activity define special procedures that, by virtue of the content of certain premises, provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence in the absence.

GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION N 696 of September 23, 2002 on APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITIES (as amended and supplemented, in accordance with Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation of 04.07.2003 N 405, of 07.10.2004 N 532, of 16.04 .2005 N 228, dated 25.08.2006 N 523) in accordance with federal law "On Auditing Activities" The Government of the Russian Federation decides: To approve the attached federal rules (standards) for auditing activities. Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation M. KASYANOV Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2002 N 696 FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITY (as amended by Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation of 04.07.2003 N 405, of 07.10.2004 N 532, of 16.04 .2005 N 228, dated 25.08.2006 N 523) RULE (STANDARD) N 1. PURPOSE AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE AUDIT OF FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) STATEMENTS (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 07.10.2004 N 532) Introduction 1. This federal rule ( standard) of auditing activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes common goals and basic principles for conducting an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as the audit), which the audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) are required to comply with. The purpose of the audit 2. The purpose of the audit is to express an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entities and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation. The auditor expresses his opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements in all material respects. Although the auditor's opinion may contribute to the growth of confidence in the financial (accounting) statements, the user should not take this opinion either as an expression of confidence in the continuity of the entity being audited in the future, or as confirmation of the effective conduct of business by the management of this entity. The paragraph is excluded. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532. General principles of audit 3. When performing his professional duties, the auditor must be guided by the standards established by the professional audit associations of which he is a member (professional standards), as well as the following ethical principles: independence; honesty; objectivity; professional competence and integrity; confidentiality; professional behaviour. 4. The auditor in the course of planning and conducting the audit must show professional skepticism and understand that there may be circumstances that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements. The exercise of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically assesses the weight of the audit evidence obtained and carefully examines audit evidence that contradicts any documents or statements of management or casts doubt on the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit, in particular, not to overlook suspicious circumstances, not to make unjustified generalizations in drawing conclusions, not to use erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures, as well as in evaluating their results. When planning and conducting an audit, the auditor should not assume that the management of the entity being audited is dishonest, but should not assume that management is unconditionally honest. Oral and written representations by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor's opinion. Audit Scope 5. The term "audit scope" refers to the audit procedures that are considered necessary to achieve the audit objective under the circumstances. The procedures necessary for conducting an audit must be determined by the auditor, taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing, internal rules (standards) of auditing, applied in professional audit associations, of which he is a member, as well as the rules (standards) of auditing activities of the auditor. In addition to the rules (standards), when determining the scope of the audit, the auditor must take into account federal laws, other regulatory legal acts and, if necessary, the terms of the audit assignment and the requirements for preparing an opinion. Reasonable Assurance 6. An audit is designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements, taken as a whole, are free from material misstatement. The concept of reasonable assurance is a general approach relating to the process of accumulating audit evidence necessary and sufficient for the auditor to conclude that there are no material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements, considered as a whole. The concept of reasonable assurance applies to the entire audit process. 7. The limitations inherent in the audit and affecting the auditor's ability to detect material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements take place due to the following reasons: sampling methods and testing are used during the audit; any accounting system internal control are imperfect (for example, cannot guarantee the absence of collusion); The majority of audit evidence provides evidence to support a particular conclusion, and is not exhaustive. 8. An additional factor limiting the reliability of an audit is that the work performed by the auditor to form an opinion is based on the auditor's professional judgment, in particular with respect to: Gathering audit evidence, including in determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures ; drawing conclusions based on audit evidence, for example, when determining the reasonableness of accounting estimates obtained by the management of the entity under audit in the course of preparing financial (accounting) statements. 9. In addition, there are other limitations that may affect the strength of the evidence used to draw conclusions about certain financial (accounting) reporting assertions (for example, transactions between affiliates). For such cases, some rules (standards) of audit activity define special procedures that, due to the content of certain prerequisites, provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence in the absence of: unusual circumstances that increase the risk of material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements in excess of what would be expected under normal conditions ; a sign indicating the presence of any material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements. Responsibility for the financial (accounting) statements 10. While the auditor is responsible for formulating and expressing an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements, the responsibility for the preparation and presentation of the financial (accounting) statements lies with the management of the entity being audited. An audit of financial (accounting) statements does not release the management of the audited entity from such responsibility. RULE (STANDARD) N 2. AUDIT DOCUMENTATION (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 7, 2004 N 532) Introduction audit of financial (accounting) statements. 2. The audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) must document all the information that is important in terms of providing evidence supporting the audit opinion, as well as evidence that the audit was conducted in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of auditing . 3. The term "documentation" refers to working papers and materials prepared by and for the auditor, or received and retained by the auditor in connection with the audit. Working documents may be presented in the form of data recorded on paper, photographic film, in electronic form or in another form. 4. Working papers are used: when planning and conducting an audit; when exercising current control and checking the work performed by the auditor; to record the audit evidence obtained to support the auditor's opinion. Form and Content of Working Papers 5. The auditor should write working papers in a form that is sufficiently complete and detailed to provide an overall understanding of the audit. 6. The auditor should reflect in the working papers information about the planning of the audit work, the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures performed, their results, as well as the conclusions drawn from the obtained audit evidence. working papers should contain the auditor's rationale for all important points on which professional judgment is required, together with the auditor's conclusions thereon. In cases where the auditor has reviewed complex matters of principle or expressed professional judgment on any matters important to the audit, the working papers should include the facts that were known to the auditor at the time of formulating the conclusions, and the necessary arguments. 7. The auditor has the right to determine the scope of documentation for each specific audit, guided by his professional opinion. Reflection in the documentation of each document or issue considered by the auditor during the audit is not necessary. At the same time, the scope of the audit documentation should be such that, if it becomes necessary to transfer work to another auditor who does not have experience in this assignment, the new auditor could solely on the basis of this documentation (without resorting to additional conversations or correspondence with the previous auditor) to understand the work done and the validity of the previous auditor's decisions and conclusions. 8. The form and content of working papers are determined by such factors as: the nature of the audit engagement; requirements for an audit report; the nature and complexity of the activities of the entity being audited; the nature and condition of the accounting and internal control systems of the entity being audited; the need to give instructions to the auditor's employees, to monitor them and check their work; specific methods and techniques used in the audit process. 9. Working papers should be drawn up and systematized in such a way as to meet the circumstances of each specific audit and the needs of the auditor during its implementation. in order to increase the efficiency of preparation and verification of working documents, it is recommended to develop standard forms of documentation in the audit organization (for example, the standard structure of the audit file (folder) of working documents, forms, questionnaires, standard letters and appeals, etc.). This standardization of documentation makes it easier to assign work to subordinates and at the same time allows you to reliably control the results of their work. 10. To improve the efficiency of the audit, it is allowed to use during the audit schedules, analytical and other documentation prepared by the entity being audited. in these cases, the auditor should be satisfied that such materials are properly prepared. 11. Working papers usually contain: information regarding the legal form and organizational structure the entity being audited; extracts or copies of the necessary legal documents, agreements and protocols; information about the industry, economic and legal environment in which the audited entity operates; information reflecting the planning process, including audit programs and any changes thereto; evidence of the auditor's understanding of the accounting and internal control systems; evidence supporting assessment of inherent risk, level of risk controls and any adjustments to those estimates; (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532) evidence confirming the fact that the auditor analyzed the internal audit work of the audited entity and the conclusions drawn by the auditor; analysis of financial and economic operations and balances of accounting accounts; analysis of the most important economic indicators and tendencies of their change; information about the nature, time frame, scope of audit procedures and the results of their implementation; evidence confirming that the work performed by the auditor's employees was carried out under the supervision of qualified specialists and was verified; information about who performed the audit procedures, with an indication of the time they were performed; detailed information on the procedures applied to the financial (accounting) statements of divisions and/or subsidiaries audited by another auditor; copies of communications sent to and received from other auditors, experts and third parties; copies of letters and telegrams on audit issues brought to the attention of the heads of the audited entity or discussed with them, including the terms of the audit agreement or identified significant shortcomings in the internal control system; written statements received from the audited entity; conclusions drawn by the auditor on the most significant audit matters, including errors and unusual circumstances that were identified by the auditor in the course of performing audit procedures, and details of actions taken in connection with this auditor; copies of financial (accounting) statements and audit report. 12. in the case of audits over a number of years, some files of working documents (folders) may be categorized as permanent, updated as new information becomes available, but still significant, in contrast to the current audit files (folders), which contain information relating primarily to the audit of a particular period. Confidentiality, Security, and Ownership of Working Papers 13. The auditor should establish appropriate procedures to ensure the confidentiality, security, and retention of working papers for a sufficient period of time, based on the nature of the auditor's business and legal and professional requirements, but not less than 5 years. 14. Working papers are the property of the auditor. Although parts of the documents or excerpts from them may be provided to the audited entity at the discretion of the auditor, they cannot serve as a substitute for the accounting records of the audited entity. RULE (STANDARD) N 3. AUDIT PLANNING (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532) Introduction accounting) reporting (hereinafter referred to as audit) applies primarily to audits that the auditor has been conducting for more than a year in relation to this audited entity. To conduct an audit during the first year, the auditor is required to expand the planning process to include matters other than those specified in this rule (standard). 2. An audit organization and an individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) are obliged to plan their work so that the audit is carried out effectively. 3. Audit planning involves the development of an overall strategy and a detailed approach to the expected nature, timing and extent of audit procedures. Work planning 4. The auditor's work planning helps ensure that important areas of the audit are given the necessary attention, that potential problems are identified, and that the work is performed cost-effectively, efficiently, and in a timely manner. Planning allows you to effectively distribute the work among the members of the group of specialists involved in the audit, as well as coordinate such work. 5. The time spent on planning work depends on the scope of the audited entity, the complexity of the audit, the auditor's experience with this entity, as well as knowledge of the characteristics of its activities. 6. Obtaining information about the activities of the audited entity is an important part of work planning, it helps the auditor to identify events, transactions and other features that may have a significant impact on the financial (accounting) statements. 7. The auditor has the right to discuss certain sections of the overall audit plan and certain audit procedures with employees, as well as with members of the board of directors and members audit commission of the audited entity to improve the effectiveness of the audit and to coordinate audit procedures with the work of the personnel of the audited entity. At the same time, the auditor is responsible for the correct and complete development of the overall plan and audit program. Overall Audit Plan 8. The auditor should develop and document an overall audit plan that describes the intended scope and procedure for the audit. The overall audit plan should be detailed enough to guide the development of the audit program. At the same time, the form and content of the general audit plan may vary depending on the scope and specifics of the audited entity, the complexity of the audit and the specific methods used by the auditor. 9. When developing an overall audit plan, the auditor needs to take into account: a) the activities of the audited entity, including: general economic forces and conditions in the industry that affect the activities of the entity; features of the audited entity, its activities, financial condition, requirements for its financial (accounting) or other reporting, including changes that have occurred since the date of the previous audit; general level of management competence; b) accounting and internal control systems, including: the accounting policy adopted by the audited entity and its changes; the impact of new regulatory legal acts in the field of accounting on the reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the results of financial and economic activity the entity being audited; plans for the use of controls and substantive procedures during the audit tests; c) risk and materiality, including: expected estimates of inherent risk and risk of controls, identification of the most important areas for audit; establishing levels of materiality for the audit; the possibility (including based on past audits) of material misstatement or fraud; (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532) identifying complex areas of accounting, including those where the result depends on the subjective judgment of the accountant, for example, when preparing estimates; d) the nature, timing and extent of the procedures, including: the relative importance of the various sections of accounting for the audit; impact on the availability audit computer system accounting and its specific features; the existence of an internal audit unit of the audited entity and its possible impact on external audit procedures; e) coordination and direction of work, current control and verification of the work performed, including: involvement of other audit organizations in the verification of branches, divisions, subsidiaries the entity being audited; involvement of experts; the number of territorially separate divisions of one audited entity and their spatial remoteness from each other; the number and qualifications of specialists required to work with this audited entity; f) other matters, including: the possibility that the entity's going concern assumption may be in question; circumstances requiring special attention, such as the existence of affiliates; features of the contract for the provision of audit services and legal requirements; the term of work of the auditor's employees and their participation in the provision of related services to the audited entity; the form and terms of preparation and submission to the audited entity of conclusions and other reports in accordance with the legislation, rules (standards) of audit activity and the terms of a specific audit assignment. Audit program

RESOLUTION of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2002 n 696 (as amended on October 7, 2004) ON APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITIES

GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RESOLUTION
dated September 23, 2002 N 696
ON APPROVAL OF FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS)
AUDITING ACTIVITIES
(as amended by Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated 04.07.2003 N 405, dated 07.10.2004 N 532)
In accordance with the Federal Law "On Auditing", the Government of the Russian Federation decides:
Approve the attached federal rules (standards) of audit activity.
Prime Minister
Russian Federation
M.KASYANOV

Approved
Government Decree
Russian Federation
dated September 23, 2002 N 696
FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS)
AUDITING ACTIVITIES
(as amended by Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated 04.07.2003 N 405, dated 07.10.2004 N 532)
RULE (STANDARD) N 1.
PURPOSE AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE AUDIT
FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) STATEMENTS

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes common goals and basic principles for conducting an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as the audit), which the audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) are required to comply.
Purpose of the audit
2. The purpose of the audit is to express an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entities and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation. The auditor expresses his opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements in all material respects.
Although the auditor's opinion may contribute to the growth of confidence in the financial (accounting) statements, the user should not take this opinion either as an expression of confidence in the continuity of the entity being audited in the future, or as confirmation of the effective conduct of business by the management of this entity.
General audit principles
3. In the performance of his professional duties, the auditor must be guided by the standards established by professional audit associations, of which he is a member (professional standards), as well as the following ethical principles:
independence;
honesty;
objectivity;
professional competence and integrity;
confidentiality;
professional behaviour.
4. The auditor in the course of planning and conducting the audit must show professional skepticism and understand that there may be circumstances that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.
The exercise of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically assesses the weight of the audit evidence obtained and carefully examines audit evidence that contradicts any documents or statements of management or casts doubt on the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit, in particular, not to overlook suspicious circumstances, not to make unjustified generalizations in drawing conclusions, not to use erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures, as well as in evaluating their results.
When planning and conducting an audit, the auditor should not assume that the management of the entity being audited is dishonest, but should not assume that management is unconditionally honest. Oral and written representations by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor's opinion.
Audit Scope
5. The term "audit scope" refers to the audit procedures that are considered necessary to achieve the audit objective under the circumstances. The procedures necessary for conducting an audit must be determined by the auditor, taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing, internal rules (standards) of auditing, applied in professional audit associations, of which he is a member, as well as the rules (standards) of auditing activities of the auditor. In addition to the rules (standards), when determining the scope of the audit, the auditor must take into account federal laws, other regulatory legal acts and, if necessary, the terms of the audit assignment and the requirements for preparing an opinion.
Reasonable Confidence
6. The audit is designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements considered as a whole do not contain material misstatements. The concept of reasonable assurance is a general approach relating to the process of accumulating audit evidence necessary and sufficient for the auditor to conclude that there are no material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements, considered as a whole. The concept of reasonable assurance applies to the entire audit process.
7. The limitations inherent in the audit and affecting the auditor's ability to detect material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements take place due to the following reasons:
sampling methods and testing are used during the audit;
any accounting and internal control systems are imperfect (for example, they cannot guarantee the absence of collusion);
The majority of audit evidence provides evidence to support a particular conclusion, and is not exhaustive.
8. An additional factor limiting the reliability of an audit is that the work performed by the auditor to form his opinion is based on his professional judgment, in particular with respect to:
gathering audit evidence, including when determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures;
drawing conclusions based on audit evidence, for example, when determining the reasonableness of accounting estimates obtained by the management of the entity under audit in the course of preparing financial (accounting) statements.
9. In addition, there are other limitations that may affect the strength of the evidence used to draw conclusions about certain financial (accounting) reporting assertions (for example, transactions between affiliates). For such cases, some rules (standards) of audit activity define special procedures that, by virtue of the content of certain premises, provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence in the absence of:
unusual circumstances that increase the risk of material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements beyond what would be expected under normal circumstances;
a sign indicating the presence of any material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.
Responsibility for financial
(accounting) reporting
10. While the auditor is responsible for formulating and expressing an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements, the responsibility for the preparation and presentation of financial (accounting) statements lies with the management of the entity being audited. An audit of financial (accounting) statements does not release the management of the audited entity from such responsibility.

RULE (STANDARD) N 2.
AUDIT DOCUMENTATION

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the preparation of documentation in the process of auditing financial (accounting) statements.
2. The audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) must document all the information that is important in terms of providing evidence supporting the audit opinion, as well as evidence that the audit was conducted in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of auditing .
3. The term "documentation" refers to working papers and materials prepared by and for the auditor, or received and retained by the auditor in connection with the audit. Working documents may be presented in the form of data recorded on paper, photographic film, in electronic form or in other form.
4. Working papers are used:
when planning and conducting an audit;
when exercising current control and checking the work performed by the auditor;
to record the audit evidence obtained to support the auditor's opinion.
Form and content of working papers
5. The auditor should write working papers in sufficient detail and in sufficient detail to provide an overall understanding of the audit.
6. The auditor should reflect in the working papers information about the planning of the audit work, the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures performed, their results, as well as the conclusions drawn from the obtained audit evidence. The working papers should contain the auditor's rationale for all significant points on which it is necessary to express his professional judgment, together with the auditor's conclusions on them. In cases where the auditor has reviewed complex matters of principle or expressed professional judgment on any matters important to the audit, the working papers should include the facts that were known to the auditor at the time of formulating the conclusions, and the necessary arguments.
7. The auditor has the right to determine the scope of documentation for each specific audit, guided by his professional opinion. Reflection in the documentation of each document or issue considered by the auditor during the audit is not necessary. At the same time, the scope of the audit documentation should be such that, if it becomes necessary to transfer work to another auditor who does not have experience in this assignment, the new auditor could solely on the basis of this documentation (without resorting to additional conversations or correspondence with the previous auditor) to understand the work done and the validity of the previous auditor's decisions and conclusions.
8. The form and content of working documents are determined by factors such as:
the nature of the audit engagement;
requirements for an audit report;
the nature and complexity of the activities of the entity being audited;
the nature and condition of the accounting and internal control systems of the entity being audited;
the need to give instructions to the auditor's employees, to monitor them and check their work;
specific methods and techniques used in the audit process.
9. Working papers should be drawn up and systematized in such a way as to meet the circumstances of each specific audit and the needs of the auditor during its implementation. In order to increase the efficiency of preparation and verification of working documents, it is recommended that standard forms of documentation be developed in an audit organization (for example, a standard structure of an audit file (folder) of working documents, forms, questionnaires, standard letters and appeals, etc.). This standardization of documentation makes it easier to assign work to subordinates and at the same time allows you to reliably control the results of their work.
10. To improve the efficiency of the audit, it is allowed to use during the audit schedules, analytical and other documentation prepared by the entity being audited. In these cases, the auditor must ensure that such materials are properly prepared.
11. Working papers usually contain:
information regarding the legal form and organizational structure of the audited entity;
extracts or copies of necessary legal documents, agreements and protocols;
information about the industry, economic and legal environment in which the audited entity operates;
information reflecting the planning process, including audit programs and any changes thereto;
evidence of the auditor's understanding of the accounting and internal control systems;
evidence supporting the assessment of inherent risk, the level of risk of controls, and any adjustments to those assessments;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
evidence confirming the fact that the auditor analyzed the work of the audited entity on internal audit and the conclusions drawn by the auditor;
analysis of financial and economic operations and balances of accounting accounts;
analysis of the most important economic indicators and their trends;
information about the nature, time frame, scope of audit procedures and the results of their implementation;
evidence confirming that the work performed by the auditor's employees was carried out under the supervision of qualified specialists and was verified;
information about who performed the audit procedures, with an indication of the time they were performed;
detailed information on the procedures applied to the financial (accounting) statements of divisions and/or subsidiaries audited by another auditor;
copies of communications sent to and received from other auditors, experts and third parties;
copies of letters and telegrams on audit issues brought to the attention of the heads of the audited entity or discussed with them, including the terms of the audit agreement or identified significant shortcomings in the internal control system;
written statements received from the audited entity;
conclusions drawn by the auditor on the most significant audit matters, including errors and unusual circumstances that were identified by the auditor in the course of performing audit procedures, and details of actions taken in connection with this auditor;
copies of financial (accounting) statements and audit report.
12. In the case of audits over a number of years, some files of working documents (folders) can be classified as permanent, updated as they become available. new information, but remaining still significant, in contrast to the current audit files (folders), which contain information related mainly to the audit of a particular period.
Privacy, worker safety
documents and ownership of them
13. The auditor needs to establish appropriate procedures for ensuring confidentiality, safety of working documents, as well as for their storage for a sufficient period of time, based on the characteristics of the auditor's activities, as well as legal and professional requirements, but not less than 5 years.
14. Working papers are the property of the auditor. Although parts of the documents or excerpts from them may be provided to the audited entity at the discretion of the auditor, they cannot serve as a substitute for the accounting records of the audited entity.

RULE (STANDARD) N 3.
AUDIT PLANNING
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for planning an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as an audit), applies primarily to audits that the auditor conducts for more than a year in for that audited entity. To conduct an audit during the first year, the auditor is required to expand the planning process to include matters other than those specified in this rule (standard).
2. An audit organization and an individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) are obliged to plan their work so that the audit is carried out effectively.
3. Audit planning involves the development of an overall strategy and a detailed approach to the expected nature, timing and extent of audit procedures.
Work planning
4. The planning of the auditor's work helps to ensure that important areas of the audit are given the necessary attention, so that potential problems are identified and the work is performed at optimal cost, quality and in a timely manner. Planning allows you to effectively distribute the work among the members of the group of specialists involved in the audit, as well as coordinate such work.
5. The time spent on planning work depends on the scope of the audited entity, the complexity of the audit, the auditor's experience with this entity, as well as knowledge of the characteristics of its activities.
6. Obtaining information about the activities of the audited entity is an important part of work planning, it helps the auditor to identify events, transactions and other features that may have a significant impact on the financial (accounting) statements.
7. The auditor has the right to discuss certain sections of the general audit plan and certain audit procedures with employees, as well as with members of the board of directors and members of the audit committee of the audited entity in order to increase the effectiveness of the audit and coordinate audit procedures with the work of the audited entity's personnel. At the same time, the auditor is responsible for the correct and complete development of the overall plan and audit program.
General audit plan
8. The auditor needs to develop and document the overall audit plan, describing in it the expected scope and procedure for the audit. The overall audit plan should be detailed enough to guide the development of the audit program. At the same time, the form and content of the general audit plan may vary depending on the scope and specifics of the audited entity, the complexity of the audit and the specific methods used by the auditor.
9. In developing the overall audit plan, the auditor should take into account:
a) activities of the audited entity, including:
general economic factors and conditions in the industry that affect the activities of the entity being audited;
features of the audited entity, its activities, financial condition, requirements for its financial (accounting) or other reporting, including changes that have occurred since the date of the previous audit;
general level of management competence;
b) accounting and internal control systems, including:
the accounting policy adopted by the audited entity and its changes;
the impact of new regulatory legal acts in the field of accounting on the reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the results of the financial and economic activities of the audited entity;
plans for the use of controls and substantive procedures during the audit tests;
c) risk and materiality, including:
expected assessments of inherent and control risks, identifying the most important areas for audit;
establishing levels of materiality for the audit;
the possibility (including based on past audits) of material misstatement or fraud;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
identification of complex areas of accounting, including those where the result depends on the subjective judgment of the accountant, for example, when preparing estimates;
d) the nature, time frame and scope of procedures, including:
the relative importance of the various sections of accounting for the audit;
the impact on the audit of the presence of a computer accounting system and its specific features;
the existence of an internal audit unit of the audited entity and its possible impact on external audit procedures;
e) coordination and direction of work, current control and verification of work performed, including:
involvement of other audit organizations in the audit of branches, divisions, subsidiaries of the audited entity;
involvement of experts;
the number of territorially separate divisions of one audited entity and their spatial remoteness from each other;
the number and qualifications of specialists required to work with this audited entity;
e) other aspects, including:
the possibility that the entity's going concern assumption may be in question;
circumstances requiring special attention, such as the existence of affiliates;
features of the contract for the provision of audit services and legal requirements;
the term of work of the auditor's employees and their participation in the provision of related services to the audited entity;
the form and terms of preparation and submission to the audited entity of conclusions and other reports in accordance with the legislation, rules (standards) of audit activity and the terms of a specific audit assignment.
Audit program
10. The auditor should establish and document an audit program that defines the nature, timing and extent of the planned audit procedures needed to carry out the overall audit plan. The audit program is a set of instructions for the auditor performing the audit, as well as a means of monitoring and verifying the proper performance of the work. The audit program may also include verifiable assertions for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements for each of the areas of the audit and the time planned for the various areas or procedures of the audit.
11. In the process of preparing the audit program, the auditor must take into account the assessments of inherent risk and risk of controls obtained by him, as well as the required level of assurance that must be provided in substantive procedures, the timing of tests of controls and substantive procedures, coordination any assistance that is expected to be received from the audited entity, as well as the involvement of other auditors or experts. In the process of developing an audit program, the issues specified in paragraph 9 of this rule (standard) should be taken into account.
Changes in the overall plan and audit program
12. The overall audit plan and audit program should be updated and revised as necessary during the course of the audit. The auditor's planning of his work is carried out continuously throughout the duration of the audit engagement due to changing circumstances or unexpected results obtained during the performance of audit procedures. Reasons for significant changes to the overall audit plan and program should be documented.

RULE (STANDARD) N 4.
MATERIALITY IN THE AUDIT

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements regarding the concept of materiality and its relationship with audit risk.
2. An audit organization and an individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) in the process of conducting an audit are required to assess materiality and its relationship with audit risk.
3. Information about individual assets, liabilities, income, expenses and business transactions, as well as components of capital, is considered material if its omission or distortion may affect the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of financial (accounting) statements. Materiality depends on the value of the indicator of financial (accounting) statements and/or errors, assessed in case of their absence or distortion.
materiality
4. The auditor evaluates what is material in his professional judgment.
When developing an audit plan, the auditor establishes an acceptable level of materiality in order to identify significant (from a quantitative point of view) misstatements. However, both the magnitude (quantity) and nature (quality) of misstatements must be taken into account. Examples of qualitative distortions are:
insufficient or inadequate description accounting policy when there is a possibility that the user of financial (accounting) statements will be misled by such a description;
failure to disclose information about a violation of regulatory requirements in the case where it is likely that the subsequent application of sanctions could have a significant impact on the results of the activities of the entity.
5. The auditor needs to consider the possibility of misstatements in relation to relatively small amounts, which together can have a significant impact on the financial (accounting) statements. For example, an error in a month-end procedure could indicate a possible material misstatement if such an error were repeated every month.
6. The auditor considers materiality both at the level of financial (accounting) statements as a whole, and in relation to balances on individual accounting accounts, groups of similar transactions and cases of information disclosure. Materiality may be influenced by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as factors related to individual accounting accounts of financial (accounting) statements and the relationships between them. Depending on the considered aspect of the financial (accounting) statements, different levels of materiality are possible.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
7. The auditor should consider materiality when:
determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures;
assessment of the effects of misstatements.
Relationship between materiality
and audit risk
8. When planning an audit, the auditor considers what could cause a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements. The auditor's assessment of materiality, relating to individual accounting accounts and groups of similar transactions, helps the auditor decide such issues as, for example, the question of which indicators of financial (accounting) statements to check, as well as the use of selective checks and analytical procedures. This allows the auditor to select audit procedures that are expected to collectively reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level.
9. There is an inverse relationship between materiality and audit risk, that is, the higher the level of materiality, the lower the level audit risk, and vice versa. The inverse relationship between materiality and audit risk is taken into account by the auditor when determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures. For example, if, after planning specific audit procedures, the auditor determines that the acceptable level of materiality is lower, then audit risk is increased. The auditor compensates for this either by reducing the pre-assessed level of control risk where possible and maintaining the lower level through enhanced or additional tests of controls, or by reducing the risk of misstatement by changing the nature, timing and extent of planned substantive procedures.
Materiality and audit risk in assessing
audit evidence
10. The assessment of materiality and audit risk at the initial stage of planning may differ from such an assessment after summing up the results of audit procedures. This may be due to a change in circumstances or a change in the auditor's knowledge of the results of the audit. For example, if the audit is planned before the end of the reporting period, the auditor can only predict the results of business activities and financial position audited entity. If actual results of operations and financial position are materially different from those projected, the assessment of materiality and audit risk may change. In addition, the auditor, in planning his or her work, may deliberately set the acceptable level of materiality at a level lower than that which is intended to be used to evaluate the audit results. This may be done to reduce the likelihood that misstatements will not be detected, as well as to provide the auditor with some degree of security in assessing the consequences of misstatements discovered during the audit.
Assessing the Consequences of Misstatements
11. When evaluating the reliability of financial (accounting) statements, the auditor should determine whether the totality of uncorrected misstatements identified during the audit is material.
12. The set of uncorrected misstatements includes:
specific misstatements identified by the auditor, including the results of uncorrected misstatements identified during a previous audit;
the auditor's best estimate of other misstatements that cannot be specifically identified (ie, predictable errors).
13. If the auditor concludes that misstatements may be material, the auditor should reduce audit risk by performing additional audit procedures or by requiring the entity's management to amend the financial (accounting) statements. Management has the right to amend the financial (accounting) statements taking into account the identified misstatements.
14. If the entity's management refuses to amend the financial (accounting) statements, and the results of the extended (additional) audit procedures do not allow the auditor to conclude that the totality of uncorrected misstatements is not material, the auditor should consider appropriate modification of the auditor's report. in accordance with the federal rule (standard) of audit activity "Auditor's report on financial (accounting) statements".
15. If the aggregate of uncorrected misstatements identified by the auditor approaches materiality, the auditor needs to determine whether it is probable that undetected misstatements, taken together with the aggregate of detected but uncorrected misstatements, could exceed the auditor's determination of materiality. Therefore, as the cumulative uncorrected misstatements approach the level of materiality, the auditor considers reducing the risk through additional audit procedures or requires the entity's management to amend the financial (accounting) statements to take into account the identified misstatements.

RULE (STANDARD) N 5.
AUDITOR'S EVIDENCE

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the quantity and quality of evidence that must be obtained during the audit of financial (accounting) statements, as well as for procedures performed to obtain evidence.
2. The audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in order to formulate reasonable conclusions on which the auditor's opinion is based.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
3. Audit evidence is obtained as a result of a set of tests of internal controls and the necessary substantive procedures. In some situations, evidence may be obtained solely through substantive procedures.
4. Audit evidence is the information obtained by the auditor during the audit, and the result of the analysis of this information, on which the auditor's opinion is based. Audit evidence includes, in particular, source documents and accounting records, which are the basis of financial (accounting) statements, as well as written explanations of authorized employees of the audited entity and information received from various sources (from third parties).
5. Tests of internal controls means activities performed to obtain audit evidence regarding the proper organization and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
6. Substantive procedures are carried out in order to obtain audit evidence of material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements. These verification procedures are carried out in the following forms:
detailed tests evaluating the correctness of the reflection of transactions and the balance of funds on the accounts of accounting;
analytical procedures.
Sufficient Appropriate Audit Evidence
7. The concepts of sufficiency and appropriateness are interrelated and apply to audit evidence obtained as a result of tests of internal controls and substantive audit procedures. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. Appropriate nature is the qualitative side of audit evidence, which determines their coincidence with a specific premise of the preparation of financial (accounting) statements and its reliability. Typically, the auditor finds it necessary to rely on audit evidence that only provides evidence to support a particular conclusion, and is not exhaustive, and often collects audit evidence from different sources or from documents of different content in order to support the same business transaction or group. similar business transactions.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
8. When forming an audit opinion, the auditor usually does not check all the business transactions of the entity being audited, since the conclusions regarding the correct reflection of the balance of funds in the accounts of accounting, a group of similar business transactions or internal controls may be based on judgments or procedures carried out in a selective way.
9. The auditor's judgment about what is sufficient appropriate audit evidence is influenced by the following factors:
audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of financial (accounting) statements and at the level of the balance of funds in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;
the nature of the accounting and internal control systems, as well as the assessment of the risk of internal controls;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
the materiality of the item being checked in the financial (accounting) statements;
experience gained during previous audits;
the results of audit procedures, including the possible discovery of fraud or error;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
source and reliability of information.
10. When obtaining audit evidence using tests of internal controls, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence to support an assessment of the level of risk of internal controls.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
11. The objects of assessment of accounting and internal control systems, regarding which the auditor collects audit evidence, include:
organization - the arrangement of accounting and internal control systems that ensures the prevention and (or) detection, as well as the correction of material misstatements;
functioning - the effectiveness of the operation of accounting and internal control systems during the relevant period of time.
12. When obtaining audit evidence using substantive audit procedures, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of this evidence, along with evidence obtained from tests of internal controls, in order to confirm the financial (accounting) reporting assertions.

13. Prerequisites for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements - statements made by the management of the audited entity in an explicit or implicit form, reflected in the financial (accounting) statements. These prerequisites include the following elements:
existence - availability as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;
rights and obligations - belonging to the audited entity as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;
occurrence - a business transaction or event related to the activity of the audited entity that took place during the relevant period;
completeness - the absence of assets, liabilities, business transactions or events or undisclosed accounting items that are not reflected in the accounting records;
valuation - reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the proper balance sheet value of an asset or liability;
accurate measurement - the accuracy of reflecting the amount of a business transaction or event with the attribution of income or expenses to the corresponding period of time;
presentation and disclosure - explanation, classification and description of an asset or liability in accordance with the rules for its reflection in financial (accounting) statements.
14. Audit evidence, as a rule, is collected, taking into account each premise of the preparation of financial (accounting) statements. Audit evidence relating to one assertion, such as the existence of inventory, cannot compensate for the lack of audit evidence relating to another assertion, such as a valuation. The nature, timing and extent of substantive testing procedures depend on the assertion being tested. During tests, the auditor may obtain evidence related to more than one assertion, for example, when checking repayment accounts receivable it can reveal audit evidence both about its existence and about its size (valuation).
15. The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source (internal or external), as well as on the form of its presentation (visual, documentary or oral). When evaluating the reliability of audit evidence, depending on the specific situation, proceed from the following:
audit evidence obtained from external sources (from third parties) is more reliable than evidence obtained from internal sources;
audit evidence obtained from internal sources is more reliable if existing accounting and internal control systems are effective;
audit evidence collected directly by the auditor is more reliable than evidence obtained from the entity being audited;
Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.
16. Audit evidence is more persuasive if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other. In such cases, the auditor may provide more a high degree assurance compared to that which would be obtained by considering the audit evidence individually. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with evidence obtained from another, the auditor should determine what additional procedures need to be performed to determine the reasons for such a discrepancy.
17. The auditor should weigh the costs associated with obtaining audit evidence against the usefulness of the information obtained. However, the complexity of the work and the costs are not sufficient grounds for refusing to perform the necessary procedure.
18. If there are serious doubts about the reliability of the reflection of business transactions in the financial (accounting) statements, the auditor should try to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to eliminate such doubt. If it is not possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the auditor should express his opinion with an appropriate qualification or disclaim an opinion.
Procedures for Obtaining Audit Evidence
19. The auditor obtains audit evidence by performing the following substantive procedures: inspection, observation, inquiry, confirmation, recalculation (checking the entity's arithmetic calculations), and analytical procedures. The duration of these procedures depends, in particular, on the period allotted for obtaining audit evidence.
20. Inspection is the examination of records, documents or tangible assets. During the inspection of records and documents, the auditor obtains audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability, depending on their nature and source, as well as on the effectiveness of internal controls over the process of their processing.
Documentary audit evidence, characterized by varying degrees of reliability, includes:
documentary audit evidence created by and held by third parties (external information);
documentary audit evidence created by third parties, but held by the audited entity (external and internal information);
documentary audit evidence created by and held by the audited entity (inside information).
An inspection of the entity's tangible assets provides reliable audit evidence regarding their existence, but not necessarily their ownership or valuation.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
21. Observation is the auditor's observation of a process or procedure performed by others (for example, the auditor's observation of inventory counts carried out by employees of the entity being audited, or the observation of internal control procedures for which no audit trail remains).
22. An inquiry is a search for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the entity being audited. The request in the form can be either a formal written request addressed to third parties or an informal verbal question addressed to employees of the entity being audited. Answers to inquiries (questions) may provide the auditor with information that he did not previously have or that confirm audit evidence.
23. Confirmation is a response to a request for information contained in accounting records (for example, the auditor usually requests confirmation of receivables directly from debtors).
24. Recalculation is a verification of the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary documents and accounting records or the performance of independent calculations by the auditor.
25. Analytical procedures are the analysis and evaluation of the information received by the auditor, the study of the most important financial and economic indicators of the audited entity in order to identify unusual and (or) incorrectly reflected business transactions in accounting, identify the causes of such errors and distortions.

RULE (STANDARD) N 6.
AUDIT REPORT
FOR FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) STATEMENTS
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the form and content of an audit report, which is drawn up based on the results of an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as an audit). Most of these requirements can be used to prepare audit reports on accounting information that is not financial (accounting) statements.
2. The auditor's report is an official document intended for users of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entities, drawn up in accordance with this rule and containing the opinion of the audit organization or individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) expressed in the prescribed form on the reliability in all material respects of the financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
3. Reliability in all material respects is understood as the degree of accuracy of financial (accounting) reporting data, which allows users of these reporting to draw correct conclusions about the results of economic activity, financial and property status of audited entities and make informed decisions based on these conclusions. To assess the degree of compliance of financial (accounting) statements with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the auditor must establish the maximum allowable deviations by determining, for the purposes of the audit, the materiality of accounting indicators and financial (accounting) statements in accordance with the federal rule (standard) of audit activity "Materiality in Audit" .
Key Elements of the Auditor's Report
4. The auditor's report includes:
a) name;
b) addressee;
c) the following information about the auditor:
legal form and name, for an individual auditor - last name, first name, patronymic and an indication of the implementation of his activities without forming a legal entity;
location;
number and date of the certificate of state registration;
number, date of granting a license to carry out auditing activities and the name of the body that granted the license, as well as the validity period of the license;
membership in an accredited professional audit association;
d) the following information about the audited entity:
legal form and name;
location;
number and date of the certificate of state registration;
paragraph is excluded. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532;
e) introductory part;
e) a part describing the scope of the audit;
g) the part containing the opinion of the auditor;
h) the date of the auditor's report;
i) auditor's signature.
The form and content of the auditor's report should be consistent in order to facilitate its understanding by the user and to help detect unusual circumstances if they occur.
5. The auditor's report should have the title "Auditor's report on the financial (accounting) statements" in order to distinguish the auditor's report from the reports drawn up by other persons, for example, officials of the entity being audited, the board of directors.
6. The auditor's report must be addressed to the person stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation and (or) the audit agreement. As a rule, the audit report is addressed to the owner of the audited entity (shareholders), the board of directors, etc.
7. The auditor's report must contain a list of audited financial (accounting) statements of the audited entity, indicating the reporting period and its composition.
8. The auditor's report should include a statement that the responsibility for accounting, preparation and presentation of financial (accounting) statements is assigned to the audited entity, and a statement that the auditor's responsibility lies only in expressing an opinion on the reliability of this financial (accounting) statements in all material respects and compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
9. An example of the presentation of information in the introductory part of the auditor's report:
"We have audited the attached financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20 (XX) inclusive. The financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" consists of:
balance sheet;
income statement;
appendices to the balance sheet and income statement;
explanatory note.
Responsibility for the preparation and presentation of these financial (accounting) statements lies with the executive body of the organization "YYY". Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the reliability in all material respects of these financial statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation based on the audit."
10. The audit report should describe the scope of the audit, indicating that the audit was conducted in accordance with federal laws, federal rules (standards) of auditing, internal rules (standards) of auditing in force in professional audit associations, of which the auditor is a member, or in accordance with other documents. Audit scope refers to the auditor's ability to perform the audit procedures that are considered necessary in the circumstances, based on an acceptable level of materiality. This is necessary to give the user confidence that the audit was conducted in accordance with the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, rules and standards.
11. The auditor's report must contain a statement that the audit was planned and performed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements do not contain material misstatements.
12. The auditor's report should indicate that the audit was conducted on a selective basis and included:
study, based on testing, of evidence confirming the numerical indicators and disclosure in the financial (accounting) statements of information on the financial and economic activities of the audited entity;
assessment of the form of compliance with the principles and rules of accounting used in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements;
consideration of the main estimated indicators obtained by the management of the audited entity in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements;
assessment of presentation of financial (accounting) statements.
(clause 12 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
13. The auditor's report must contain the auditor's statement that the audit provides sufficient grounds for expressing an opinion on the reliability in all material respects of the financial (accounting) statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
14. An example of the presentation of information in the part describing the scope of the audit:
"

(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)


The audit was planned and conducted in such a way as to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements do not contain material misstatements. The audit was carried out on a selective basis and included the study, based on testing, of evidence confirming the numerical indicators in the financial (accounting) statements and the disclosure of information about financial and economic activities in it, assessing compliance with the accounting principles and rules used in the preparation of financial (accounting) reporting, consideration of the main estimated indicators obtained by the management of the audited entity, as well as an assessment of the presentation of financial (accounting) statements. We believe that the conducted audit provides sufficient grounds for expressing our opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation."

15. To express the auditor's opinion, the words are used: "In our opinion, the financial (accounting) statements of the organization" YYY "represent fairly in all material respects ...".
16. The auditor's report must clearly indicate the basic principles and methods (applied procedure) of accounting and preparation of financial (accounting) statements of the entity being audited.
17. The main principles and methods of accounting and preparation of financial (accounting) statements are determined by the relevant regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.
18. In addition to the opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements, it may be necessary to express in the auditor's report an opinion on the compliance of these statements with other requirements, as well as on other documents and transactions related to the financial and economic activities of the entity being audited, if they are subject to mandatory audit in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
19. An example of the presentation of information in the part containing the auditor's opinion:
"In our opinion, the financial (accounting) statements of the organization" YYY "represent fairly in all material respects the financial position as of December 31, 20(XX) and the results of its financial and economic activities for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20(XX) d. inclusively in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the preparation of financial (accounting) statements (and/or specify the documents that define the requirements for the procedure for preparing financial (accounting) statements)".
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
20. The auditor should date the auditor's report with the date when the audit was completed, as this circumstance provides the user with reason to believe that the auditor has taken into account the impact that the financial (accounting) statements and the auditor's report had on the events and transactions known to the auditor and occurred before this date .
(clause 20 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
21. Since the auditor must issue an auditor's report on the financial (accounting) statements prepared and presented by the management of the entity being audited, the auditor should not indicate in the report a date prior to the date of signing or approval of the financial (accounting) statements by the management of the entity being audited.
22. The audit report must be signed by the head of the auditor or an authorized head of the person and the person who conducted the audit (the person who led the audit), indicating the number and validity of his qualification certificate. These signatures must be sealed. If the audit was carried out by an individual auditor who independently conducted the audit, the audit report can be signed only by this auditor.
23. The auditor's report is accompanied by financial (accounting) statements in respect of which an opinion is expressed and which is dated, signed and sealed by the audited entity in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the preparation of such statements. The auditor's report and the specified reporting must be bound in a single package, the sheets are numbered, laced, sealed with the auditor's seal indicating the total number of sheets in the package. The audit report is prepared in the number of copies agreed upon by the auditor and the audited entity, but both the auditor and the audited entity must receive at least one copy of the audit report and the attached financial (accounting) statements.
Audit report
24. An unconditionally positive opinion should be expressed when the auditor concludes that the financial (accounting) statements give a fair idea of ​​the financial position and results of the financial and economic activities of the entity being audited in accordance with the established principles and methods of accounting and preparation financial (accounting) reporting in the Russian Federation.
25. An example of an auditor's report expressing an unconditionally favorable opinion:
"AUDIT REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
(ACCOUNTING) REPORTING
Destination.
Auditor
Name: limited liability company "ХХХ".
Location: zip code, city, street, house number, etc.
State registration: number and date of registration certificate.
License: number, date, name of the body that granted the audit organization a license to carry out audit activities, validity period.
Is a member of (indicate the name of an accredited professional audit association).
Auditee
Name: open joint stock company "YYY".
Location: zip code, city, street, house number, etc.
State registration: number and date of registration certificate.
The paragraph is excluded. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 7, 2004 N 532.
We have audited the accompanying financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20(XX) inclusive. The financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" consist of:
balance sheet;
income statement;
explanatory note.

We have audited in accordance with:
Federal Law "On Auditing";
federal rules (standards) of audit activity;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
internal rules (standards) of audit activity (indicate an accredited professional association);
rules (standards) of auditor's activity;
regulatory acts of the body that regulates the activities of the audited entity.
The audit was planned and conducted in such a way as to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements do not contain material misstatements. The audit was carried out on a selective basis and included the study, based on testing, of evidence confirming the numerical indicators in the financial (accounting) statements and the disclosure of information about financial and economic activities in it, assessing compliance with the accounting principles and rules used in the preparation of financial (accounting) reporting, consideration of the main estimated indicators obtained by the management of the audited entity, as well as an assessment of the presentation of financial (accounting) statements. We believe that the conducted audit provides sufficient grounds for expressing our opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
In our opinion, the financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" fairly reflect in all material respects the financial position as of December 31, 20(XX) and the results of its financial and economic activities for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20(XX) .including in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation in terms of the preparation of financial (accounting) statements (and/or indicate the documents that define the requirements for the procedure for preparing financial (accounting) statements).
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
"XX" month 20(XX)
The head (or other authorized person) of an audit organization or an individual auditor (full name, signature, position).
The head of the audit (full name, signature, number, type of qualification certificate and its validity period).
Auditor's stamp.
Modified Auditor's Report
26. The auditor's report is considered modified if:
factors that do not affect the auditor's opinion, but are described in the auditor's report in order to draw the attention of users to any situation that has developed with the audited entity and disclosed in the financial (accounting) statements;
Factors affecting the auditor's opinion that may result in a qualified opinion, a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion.
27. Under certain circumstances, the auditor's report may be modified by including a part that draws attention to the situation affecting the financial (accounting) statements, but considered in the explanatory notes to the financial (accounting) statements.
28. The auditor, if necessary, should modify the auditor's report by including a part indicating an aspect relating to compliance with the going concern principle of the entity being audited.
29. The auditor should also consider modifying the auditor's report by including a portion that indicates a significant uncertainty (other than going concern) that depends on future events and that may have an impact on the financial (accounting) statements.
30. The non-influencing part of the auditor's opinion is usually included after the opinion part and contains an indication that this situation does not warrant the inclusion of a qualification in the auditor's opinion.
31. An example of an auditor's report in the part that attracts attention:
"We have audited the attached financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20 (XX) inclusive. The financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" consists of:
balance sheet;
income statement;
appendices to the balance sheet and income statement;
explanatory note.
Responsibility for the preparation and presentation of these financial (accounting) statements lies with the executive body of the organization "YYY". Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the accuracy in all material respects of these financial statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation based on the audit.
We have audited in accordance with:
Federal Law "On Auditing";
federal rules (standards) of audit activity;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532)
internal rules (standards) of audit activity (indicate an accredited professional association);
rules (standards) of auditor's activity;
regulatory acts of the body that regulates the activities of the audited entity.
The audit was planned and conducted in such a way as to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements do not contain material misstatements. The audit was carried out on a sample basis and included examination, through testing, of the evidence supporting the numerical

GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

RESOLUTION

On Amendments to the Federal Rules (Standards) of Auditing Activities Approved

(as amended on December 22, 2011)

No longer valid from January 1, 2018 on the basis of
dated October 23, 2017 N 1289
____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
Document as amended by:
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2008 N 863 (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 49, 08.12.2008);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 2, 2010 N 586 (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 32, 08/09/2010);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 27, 2011 N 30 (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 5, 01/31/2011);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2011 N 1095 (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 1, 02.01.2012).
____________________________________________________________________

Government of the Russian Federation

decides:

Approve the attached changes that are made to the federal rules (standards) of auditing, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2002 N 696 (Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2002, N 39, Art. 3797).

Prime Minister
Russian Federation
M. Fradkov

Changes that are made to the federal rules (standards) of auditing, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2002 N 696

APPROVED
Government Decree
Russian Federation
dated October 7, 2004 N 532

1. The last paragraph of clause 2 of rule (standard) No. 1 shall be excluded.

2. In paragraph seven of clause 11 of rule (standard) No. 2, delete the word: "applications".

3. In the fourth paragraph of subparagraph "c" of paragraph 9 of rule (standard) No. 3, the word: "fraudulent" shall be replaced by the word: "unscrupulous".

4. The first sentence of clause 6 of rule (standard) No. 4 shall be stated as follows:

"6. The auditor considers materiality both at the level of the financial (accounting) statements as a whole, and in relation to the balances of individual accounting accounts, groups of similar transactions and cases of information disclosure.".

5. The clause has become invalid - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2011 N 1095 ..

6. The clause has become invalid - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 2, 2010 N 586 ..

7. Supplement the federal rules (standards) of auditing with the rules (standards) of auditing N 12-16 with the following content:

Rule (standard) N 12. Agreement on the terms of the audit

Introduction

1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements:

a) to the procedure for agreeing the terms of the audit with the audited entity;

b) the actions of the audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) in the event that the management of the audited entity requests the auditor to change the terms of the assignment to terms that imply a lower level of confidence in the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements than reasonable certainty, required to express an opinion in the auditor's report.

2. The auditor and the management of the audited entity must reach agreement on the terms of the audit. The agreed conditions must be documented in the contract for the provision of audit services.

The auditor may use, in the course of reaching an agreement with the management of the audited entity, an audit letter - a document sent by the auditor to the prospective audited entity and signed by the management of the audited entity in case of agreement with the main terms of the audit engagement.

An example of an audit letter is given in the appendix to this federal rule (standard) of audit activity.

3. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity can be applied when providing services for inspections that are not audits or special audit assignments, as well as for audit-related services. In the case of providing services related to the audit, it may be appropriate to draw up separate letters for these services.

4. Despite the fact that the objectives and scope of the audit, as well as the obligations of the auditor are established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, the auditor is recommended to include these provisions in the contract (or in the audit letter preceding the contract).

Contract for the provision of audit services

5. From the point of view of the interests of the auditor and the audited entity, it is advisable to sign an agreement for the provision of audit services with the prospective audited entity in advance.

6. The form and content of contracts for the provision of audit services (letters of audit) for various audited entities may have features, but, as a rule, the contract for the provision of audit services (letter of audit) indicates:

the purpose of the audit of financial (accounting) statements;

responsibility of the management of the audited entity for the preparation and presentation of financial (accounting) statements;

the auditor's report and any other documents that are expected to be prepared as a result of the audit;

information that due to the use of selective testing methods during the audit and other limitations inherent in the audit, along with the limitations inherent in the accounting and internal control systems of the entity being audited, there is an unavoidable risk that some, including material, misstatements of the financial (accounting) statements may remain undetected;

requirement for free access to all accounting documentation and other information requested in the course of the audit;

the price of the audit (or the method of its determination), as well as the procedure for recognizing the service as rendered and the procedure for settlements.

7. The contract for the provision of audit services (letter on the audit) may also indicate:

arrangements related to the coordination of the work of the auditor and employees of the audited entity in the course of planning the audit;

the right of the auditor to obtain from the management of the entity being audited formal written representations made in connection with the audit;

a commitment by the entity's management to cooperate with inquiries credit organizations and counterparties of the audited entity in order to obtain the information necessary for the audit;

the obligation of the management of the audited entity to ensure the presence of the auditor's employees during the inventory of the property of the audited entity.

8. If necessary, the contract for the provision of audit services (letter on the audit) or its annexes may also contain:

an agreement to involve other auditors and experts in the work on any audit issues;

an agreement to involve internal auditors, as well as other employees of the audited entity, in joint work;

Arrangements that facilitate the interaction of the proposed auditor with the predecessor auditor (if any);

any limitation of the auditor's liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and federal rules (standards) of audit activity;

information about any additional agreements between the auditor and the audited entity.

9. If the auditor of the parent organization is also the auditor of subsidiaries, then the auditor's decision on whether to enter into a separate audit contract with these subsidiaries (whether to send a separate audit letter) is influenced by the following factors:

the procedure for appointing the auditor of subsidiaries;

the need to draw up a separate audit report on a subsidiary;

requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation;

the amount of work performed by other auditors;

share of ownership of the parent organization;

the degree of independence of the management of a subsidiary from the parent organization.

Recurring audit

10. In the case of recurring audits over a number of years, the auditor should consider whether there is a need to revise the terms of the audit engagement or to remind the auditee of the existing terms of the engagement.

11. The auditor may decide not to write a new audit letter each time. However, the following factors may make it worthwhile to write a new letter:

any indication that the entity may misunderstand the purpose and scope of the audit;

any revised or special terms of the audit engagement;

personnel changes in senior management, the board of directors or in the structure of the entity being audited;

changes in the ownership structure of the audited entity;

Significant changes in the nature or extent of the entity's activities;

requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Changing the engagement

12. If the audited entity, before completing the audit engagement, requests the auditor to change its terms to terms that provide a lower level of confidence in the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements than reasonable assurance, the auditor should consider the appropriateness of such a change.

13. The auditee's request to the auditor to change the audit engagement may be due to a change in circumstances affecting the need for the service, a misunderstanding of the nature of the audit or related services originally requested, or a limitation on the scope of the audit, either by the auditee's management or for other reasons. The auditor should carefully consider the reason for this request and possible consequences limits on the scope of the audit.

14. A change in circumstances affecting the entity's requirements, or a misunderstanding of the nature of the service originally requested, is generally considered a valid reason for requesting a change in engagement. A change in an audit engagement cannot be considered reasonable if it is caused by inaccurate or incomplete information.

15. Before agreeing to a change in the terms of an audit engagement that could result in the audit being replaced by audit-related services, the auditor should consider the possible legal implications of such changes.

16. If the auditor concludes that the change in the terms of the audit engagement is reasonable, and also if the auditor's work complies with federal rules (standards) of audit activity that can be applied to the changed engagement, then the report or conclusion must comply with the revised terms of the engagement. To avoid misleading the user, the report or conclusion should not include references to:

initial task;

any procedures that could have been performed in accordance with the original engagement, unless the engagement is changed to engagement on agreed procedures and therefore reference to the procedures performed is one of the elements of the relevant report.

17. In the event of a change in the terms of the assignment, the auditor and the entity that was previously the audited entity must agree on the new terms.

18. The auditor should not agree to a change in the terms of the engagement without reasonable justification. For example, the auditor should not agree to a change in the terms of the engagement if the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the receivables and the auditee requests that the auditor change the engagement to a review engagement in order to avoid the auditor's qualified opinion or the auditor's disclaimer of opinion.

19. If the auditor cannot agree to a change in the engagement to a different engagement and the auditee objects to continuing with the original engagement, the auditor should withdraw from the engagement or consider communicating the situation to interested parties (e.g., the board of directors). or shareholders).

Appendix. Example of an audit letter

Appendix
to the rule (standard)
N 12

The board of directors or an appropriate senior management representative of the organization

You have contacted us with a request to statutory audit financial (accounting) statements as part of (specify composition) for (specify fiscal year). By this letter, we confirm our consent and our understanding of this assignment. The audit will be carried out by us in order to express an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

We will conduct an audit in accordance with federal rules (standards) for auditing. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial (accounting) statements are free from material misstatement. The audit is carried out on a selective basis and includes the study, based on testing, of evidence confirming the numerical values ​​in the financial (accounting) statements and the disclosure of information about financial and economic activities in them. The audit also includes an assessment of the applied principles and methods of accounting, the rules for preparing financial (accounting) statements, determining the main estimated values ​​formed by the management of the audited entity, as well as assessing general form presentation of financial (accounting) statements.

Due to the sampling and testing methods used in the audit, and due to other limitations inherent in the audit, along with the limitations inherent in any accounting and internal control system, there is an unavoidable risk that some, even material, misstatements may remain undetected.

In addition to the auditor's report containing our opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements, we plan to provide you with a separate letter (report, written information) regarding any material deficiencies we have noticed in accounting and in the internal control system.

We remind you that in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the management of your organization is responsible for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements, including the disclosure of the necessary information in them. This includes maintaining accounting records in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, the existence and proper operation of internal controls, the choice and application of accounting policies, as well as measures for the preservation and proper use of the organization's assets. We will require from the management of the organization (and this is part of the audit process) formal written confirmations regarding the most important clarifications and statements made in connection with the audit.

We look forward to cooperating with your staff and that we will be provided with any records, documentation and other information requested in connection with the audit. Audit fees, based on invoices that will be issued as the service is performed, are calculated based on the time spent by professionals on the assignment and include coverage travel expenses. Hourly payment varies depending on the level of responsibility of the specialists used, their experience and qualifications.

This letter is considered valid in the future until it is changed or replaced by another one or until it is terminated.

Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to confirm that it is consistent with your understanding of the arrangement for us to audit your organization's financial (accounting) statements.

Rule (standard) N 13. Auditor's obligations to address errors and fraud during the audit

(repealed due to
Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated January 27, 2011 N 30

Rule (standard) N 14. Accounting for the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation during the audit

(repealed due to
Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated January 27, 2011 N 30

Rule (standard) N 15. Understanding the activities of the audited entity

(the rule is no longer in effect due to
Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation
of November 19, 2008 N 863

Rule (standard) N 16. Audit sample

Introduction

1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for selective audits in an audit, as well as methods for selecting elements to be verified in order to collect audit evidence.

2. When developing audit procedures, an audit organization or an individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) should determine the appropriate methods for selecting the elements to be checked when collecting audit evidence to achieve the objectives of audit tests.

Definitions used in this rule (standard) of audit activity

3. For the purposes of this federal rule(standard) of auditing activity the following terms mean:

a) "audit sampling (selective check)" - the application of audit procedures to less than all elements of one reporting item or group of similar transactions. Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about certain characteristics of the items selected to form, or help form, conclusions about the population from which the sample is drawn;

b) "error":

deviation from the normal functioning of an internal control tool (when performing tests of internal control tools);

misrepresentation in accounting or reporting (when performing substantive audit procedures);

c) "general error":

the degree of deviation from the normal functioning of the internal control (when performing tests of internal controls);

total misstatement in accounting or reporting (when performing substantive audit procedures);

d) "anomalous error" - an error due to a single event that cannot occur again (except in certain cases) and, therefore, is not representative of the error in terms of this population;

e) "population" - a complete set of elements from which the auditor selects the population and in relation to which he wants to draw conclusions. The general population can be divided into strata (subsets), where each stratum is checked separately;

f) "sampling elements" - individual elements, reflected in the account and constituting the general population. For example, the same type of primary documents, separate entries in bank statements, sales invoices, turnovers on personal accounts of debtors;

g) "statistical sampling approach (statistical sampling)" means the application of any sampling approach that has the following characteristics:

random (or systematic with a random choice of the starting point) selection of the test population;

application of the theory of probability to assess the results of the sample, including the assessment of the risk associated with the use of the audit sample.

A sampling approach that does not meet any of the above characteristics is considered non-statistical (non-statistical sampling);

h) "stratification" - the process of dividing the general population into strata (subsets), each of which is a group of sample elements with similar characteristics (for example, with cost);

i) "tolerable error" - the maximum amount of population error that the auditor considers acceptable.

4. The risk associated with the use of audit sampling arises when the auditor's conclusion based on the selected population may differ from the conclusion that could be drawn if identical audit procedures were applied to the population as a whole.

There are two types of risks associated with the use of audit sampling:

a) the risk that the auditor:

comes to the conclusion that the risk of internal controls is lower than in reality (when performing tests of internal controls);

will come to the conclusion that a material error does not exist, despite the fact that it actually does (when performing substantive audit procedures).

Risk of this type affects the reliability of the audit and is likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion;

b) the risk that the auditor:

comes to the conclusion that the risk of internal controls is higher than in reality (when performing tests of internal controls);

comes to the conclusion that there is significant error, while in reality it does not exist (when performing substantive audit procedures).

This type of risk has an impact on the effectiveness of the audit because it usually leads to additional work to establish that the initial conclusions were incorrect.

The mathematical addition of these risks are the so-called confidence levels, for example:

high risk corresponds to a low level of trust;

average risk corresponds to an average level of trust;

corresponds to low risk high level trust.

5. Risk not associated with the use of audit sampling arises from factors that lead the auditor to erroneous conclusions for any reason other than those related to the size of the sample (ie, the number of items to be tested). For example, in most cases, audit evidence only provides evidence in support of a certain conclusion, and is not exhaustive, and the auditor may use inappropriate procedures or misinterpret the evidence and be unable to recognize the error.

Audit Evidence

6. Based on an understanding of the accounting and internal control system, the auditor determines characteristics or indicators that describe the results of the application of internal controls, as well as conditions for possible deviations that indicate a deviation from adequate performance. The presence or absence of such indicators can then be tested by the auditor.

7. An audit sample for tests of internal controls is generally appropriate if there is evidence that internal controls have been applied (for example, documentary evidence of the entity's management allowing data to be entered into a computer system for processing).

8. When performing substantive audit procedures in the form of detailed tests, an audit sample can be used when checking and obtaining audit evidence of the correctness of one or more assumptions for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements for a specific numerical indicator (for example, the existence of receivables) or when evaluating any or an indicator (for example, an assessment of obsolete or lost their original quality stocks).

Accounting for Risk in Obtaining Audit Evidence

9. When obtaining audit evidence, the auditor should use professional judgment to evaluate audit risk and design audit procedures that reduce that risk to an acceptably low level. Audit risk is the risk that the auditor will express an inappropriate audit opinion if there are material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements. Audit risk includes inherent risk, internal control risk and detection risk.

10. Components of audit risk may be affected by risk associated with the use of audit sampling and risk not associated with the use of audit sampling.

For example, when performing tests of internal controls, the auditor may not detect errors in the sample population and conclude that the risk of internal controls is low, while the error rate in the population is in fact unacceptably high (risk related to using an audit sample). There may be errors in the selected population that the auditor could not detect (risk not associated with the use of audit sampling).

With respect to substantive procedures, the auditor may use a variety of techniques to reduce detection risk to an acceptably low level. Depending on their nature, these methods will be subject to audit sampling risk and/or non-audit sampling risk. For example, the auditor may choose an inappropriate analytical procedure (non-audit sampling risk) or detect only minor misstatements on detailed testing when misstatements in the population are larger than acceptable (audit sampling risk).

When conducting tests of controls and substantive audits, the risk associated with the use of audit sampling can be reduced by increasing the size of the selected population, and the risk not associated with the use of audit sampling - by proper planning of the engagement, monitoring the work of members of the audit team and verification of procedures.

Selecting Items for Testing to Obtain Audit Evidence

11. When developing audit procedures, the auditor should determine the appropriate methods for selecting items for testing. The auditor can:

select all elements (solid check);

select specific (certain) elements;

select individual elements (form an audit sample).

12. The choice of method or combination of methods depends on the circumstances of the audit, in particular audit risk and audit effectiveness. In doing so, the auditor should be satisfied that the methods used by him are reliable in terms of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to achieve the objectives of testing.

13. The auditor may decide that it would be most appropriate to examine the entire population of items that make up the transactions in an account or a group of similar transactions (or a stratum within the population). A complete check is generally not used when conducting tests of internal controls; it is more commonly used in substantive audit procedures.

For example, a blanket check might be appropriate if:

the general population consists of a small number of elements of great value;

inherent and internal control risks are high and other controls do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence;

the repetitive nature of calculations or other processes carried out by a computerized accounting system makes a complete check cost-effective.

14. The auditor may decide to select specific (certain) members of the population based on the following factors:

understanding of the activities of the entity being audited;

preliminary assessment of the inherent risk and the risk of internal controls;

characteristics and features of the tested general population.

15. The selection of specific elements based on the auditor's professional judgment involves a risk not associated with the use of a sampling method. Selected specific articles may include:

a) high-value items or so-called key sampling items. The auditor may decide to select certain items in the population for testing based on their high value or some other characteristic, such as items that are suspicious, unusual, particularly at risk, or that have been previously error-prone;

b) elements exceeding a certain value. The auditor may decide to select elements whose value exceeds a certain amount in order to subject to verification a large part of the total amount of turnover on an accounting account or group of similar transactions;

c) elements for obtaining information. The auditor can check certain elements to obtain information on such issues as the characteristics of the activities of the entity being audited, the nature of business transactions, certain features of the accounting and internal control system;

d) elements for checking procedures. The auditor may rely on his or her judgment to select and test individual elements to determine whether a particular procedure is being performed by the entity being audited.

16. Examination of selected specific items within an account or group of similar transactions can be an effective means of obtaining audit evidence. However, it is not an audit sample, since the conclusions from the results of the procedures applied to the elements selected in this way cannot be extended to the entire population. The auditor should consider the need to obtain appropriate audit evidence about the remainder of the population if the remainder is material.

17. The auditor may decide to conduct a random audit within the limits of the turnover of an accounting account or a group of similar transactions. Spot testing can be applied using a statistical or non-statistical approach.

Statistical and Non-Statistical Approaches to Spot Testing

18. The decision to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter of the auditor's professional judgment in terms of more effective way obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence in the circumstances.

For example, when testing internal controls, an analysis of the nature and cause of errors will generally be more important than statistical analysis the very presence or absence (that is, counting) of errors. In such a situation, a non-statistical sampling approach may be most appropriate.

19. When using statistical sampling, the size of the selected population can be determined based on the approaches of probability theory and mathematical statistics or the professional judgment of the auditor. The sample size is not a valid criterion for distinguishing between statistical and non-statistical approaches. The volume of the selected population is a function of the factors that are given in Appendixes No. 1 and 2. Under similar circumstances, the effect on the volume of the selected population of factors given in Appendixes No. 1 and 2 to this federal rule (standard) will be similar regardless of whether whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.

20. In some cases, when the chosen approach does not meet the definition of a statistical sample, separate components of the statistical approach are applied (for example, random selection of elements is used based on random numbers obtained using electronic computer technology). However, statistical measures of risk associated with the use of a sampling method will be valid when the approach adopted has all the characteristics of a statistical sampling.

Sampling

21. In reviewing the population to be tested, the auditor should take into account the objectives of the test and the characteristics of the population.

22. The auditor first considers the specific objectives to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that will best achieve those objectives. An analysis of the nature of the audit evidence sought and the possible conditions associated with the errors, or other characteristics related to such audit evidence, will help the auditor determine what constitutes an error and what population should be used for sampling.

23. The auditor analyzes which conditions constitute an error based on the objectives of the test. A clear understanding of what constitutes an error is important to ensure that all conditions that are relevant to the objectives of the test are included in the predicted error scores.

For example, under a substantive procedure (such as an acknowledgment) regarding the existence of a receivable, payments made by the customer prior to the acknowledgment date but received shortly after that date by the entity are not considered to be in error.

Writing any amount to the wrong analytic account opened for a specific buyer does not affect total amount owed in the form of receivables. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider this an error in evaluating the sample results of this particular procedure, even though it could have a significant impact on other areas of the audit (for example, assessing the likelihood of fraud).

24. When testing internal controls, the auditor usually makes a preliminary assessment of the level of error that he expects to detect in relation to the population being tested, and the level of risk of internal controls. Such an assessment is based on the auditor's prior knowledge or the study of a small number of elements of the population. Similarly, for substantive procedures, the auditor typically makes a preliminary assessment of the level of error on the population.

Such preliminary estimates are recommended to be used when organizing the population selected for the audit and determining its volume. For example, if the expected level of error is unacceptably high, tests of internal controls are usually not performed. However, when conducting substantive procedures, if the expected error rate is large, it may be appropriate to perform a complete test or use a larger sample size.

25. It is important for the auditor to ensure that the population is:

a) an appropriate sampling procedure for the purpose (which implies an analysis of the direction of testing). For example, if the auditor's objective is to test for an overstatement accounts payable, then the population can be defined as a list of debts to creditors.

On the other hand, when checking for understatement of accounts payable, the population will not be a list of accounts payable, but rather a list of subsequent payments, unpaid invoices, supplier documents, unreconciled acceptance certificates, or other data that would provide audit evidence of an understatement of accounts payable;

b) complete. For example, if the auditor is going to select primary documents from a folder for spot check, it is impossible to come to certain conclusions about all documents for the corresponding period, if the auditor is not sure that indeed all documents were filed in the folder.

Similarly, if the auditor intends to use the selected population in order to reach any conclusions about the operation of the accounting and internal control systems for reporting period, the population must include all relevant elements throughout the period. Another approach could be to stratify the population and use the sample only to draw any conclusions about the control, for example for the first 10 months of the year, and use alternative procedures or self-selection for the remaining 2 months.

26. The effectiveness of the audit can be enhanced if the auditor stratifies the population by dividing it into discrete subsets that have some identifying characteristics. The purpose of stratification is to reduce the variability of elements within each stratum and thereby reduce the sample size without proportionally increasing the risk associated with the use of sampling. The strata (subsets) must be carefully defined so that each sample element can only be included in one stratum.

27. When performing a substantive verification procedure, the turnover on an accounting account or a group of transactions of the same type is often stratified by value. This allows the audit to focus more on the higher cost items that may have the largest potential bias in terms of overestimation.

The population may also be stratified according to a particular characteristic that suggests a higher risk of error (for example, when testing the valuation of receivables, the corresponding amounts may be stratified by age).

28. The results of procedures applied to any selected set of elements within one stratum can only be extended to the elements that make up that stratum. To make a conclusion about the entire population, the auditor needs to analyze risk and materiality with respect to the remaining strata that make up the entire population.

For example, 20 percent of the total number of elements of the general population may account for 90 percent of the amount of turnover on the accounting account. The auditor may examine a selected set of these elements. In this case, the auditor evaluates the results of this sample and draws conclusions about the properties of the elements that make up 90 percent of the cost, apart from the remaining 10 percent, for which a different selection or other methods of obtaining evidence will be used, or such 10 percent may be considered immaterial.

29. When conducting substantive audit procedures, especially when testing for overstatement, it is often effective to define sample items as individual monetary values ​​(for example, rubles) that make up the turnover on an accounting account or a group of similar transactions. Selecting individual concrete indicators in monetary terms from the general population (for example, the amount of receivables), the auditor then examines specific elements (for example, individual turnovers on an accounting account) that contain such indicators in monetary terms. This approach to sample selection ensures that the auditor's work is focused on testing items of greater value, as they are more likely to be selected and this may result in a smaller sample size. This technique is usually used in conjunction with the method of systematic selection of the test population and is most effective when selecting items from a computerized database.

Sample size

30. In determining the sample size (number of items to be tested), the auditor should consider whether the risk associated with the use of the sampling method has been reduced to an acceptably low level. The level of risk associated with the use of a sampling method that the auditor is willing to accept affects the size of the sample. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the larger the sample size required.

31. The sample size may be determined using special formulas derived from the theory of probability and mathematical statistics, or determined on the basis of the professional judgment of the auditor. Annexes Nos. 1 and 2 to this federal rule (standard) of audit activity provide examples of factors affecting the volume of selected populations for testing internal controls and for substantive testing.

Selection of the set of elements to be checked

32. The auditor should select elements for the population to be audited on the basis that each individual element of the sample in the population has a probability of being selected. Statistical sampling requires that items be selected randomly, that is, so that each item has some non-zero probability of being selected. Sample items can be physical items (such as invoices) or monetary values. In non-statistical sampling, the auditor relies on professional judgment to select items.

Since the purpose of sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population, the auditor tries to form a representative population by selecting sample members that have characteristics typical of the population. The set of elements to be checked must be formed in such a way that bias is excluded.

33. The main methods of population selection are random, systematic and unsystematic methods. The characteristics of these methods are given in Appendix N 3.

Carrying out audit procedures

34. The auditor should perform audit procedures that are appropriate for the specific purpose of the test for each item selected.

35. If the selected element is not appropriate for the application of the procedure, then the procedure is usually performed in relation to some replacement element.

36. Sometimes the auditor is unable to apply planned audit procedures to a selected element because, for example, documents relating to that element have been lost. If no suitable alternative procedures can be performed on such an item, then the auditor generally considers that the item is in error. An example of a suitable alternative procedure would be to check subsequent cash receipts in the event that in response to a request in a positive form for confirmation of receivables, no response was received.

The nature and cause of errors

37. The auditor should consider the results of the spot check, the nature and cause of any errors identified, and their possible impact on the objectives of the particular test and on other areas of the audit.

38. When testing internal controls, the auditor focuses on the organization and performance of these controls, as well as assessing their risk. If this reveals errors, the auditor should review:

direct impact of identified errors on the reliability of financial (accounting) statements;

the reliability of the accounting and internal control system, as well as its impact on the planned audit procedures, for example, when errors are the result of actions by the management of the entity being audited, committed by circumventing internal controls.

39. When analyzing the errors found, the auditor may determine that many of them have common characteristics (for example, type of transaction, location of the transaction, site of production, period). In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all members of the population that share this common characteristic and perform audit procedures on that stratum. In addition, such errors may be intentional and indicate the possibility of fraud.

40. In some cases, the auditor may determine that the error is due to a particular event that does not occur only in specifically defined cases, and therefore it is not representative of similar errors in the population (anomalous error). To recognize an error as anomalous, the auditor must be reasonably certain that the error is not representative of the population. The auditor provides this assurance by performing additional work.

Additional work depends on the specific situation, but it should be adequate in terms of providing the auditor with sufficient appropriate evidence that the error does not affect the remainder of the population. One example is an error caused by a failure in the operation of electronic computing equipment, which occurred only once during a certain period of time. In this case, the auditor evaluates the consequences of the specified failure (for example, by examining the specific transactions processed during that day) and analyzes the impact of the causes of such failure on the audit procedures and conclusions.

Another example is an error that is caused by using an incorrect formula when calculating all inventory values ​​in a particular unit of the entity being audited. In order to recognize an error as anomalous, the auditor must verify that the correct formula was used in all other departments.

Extrapolation (propagation) of errors

41. Based on the results of substantive audit procedures, the auditor should extrapolate (spread) the errors identified in the selected population, estimating their full possible value in the entire general population, and should analyze the impact of the predicted (extrapolated) error on the objectives of a particular test and on other areas of the audit . The auditor evaluates the total error in the population in order to obtain a generalized representation of the range of error and compare it with the allowable error.

For a substantive procedure, the tolerable error is the tolerable misstatement and represents an amount less than or equal to the auditor's estimate of materiality used for the individual audited account balances.

42. When an error is recognized as anomalous, it can be excluded by extrapolating the errors found in the selected population to the entire population. The consequences of any such error, if left uncorrected, must still be considered in addition to estimating the total magnitude of errors that are not anomalous. If the turnovers on the accounting account or a group of transactions of the same type were divided into strata, then the extrapolation of errors is carried out separately for each stratum. The set of typical, predictable and anomalous errors for each stratum is considered from the point of view of their impact on the reliability of the account balance or the entire group of similar transactions.

43. Explicit extrapolation of errors is not required for tests of internal controls, since the error rate in the sampled population is at the same time the predicted error rate in the population as a whole.

Evaluation of the results of checking elements in the selected population

44. The auditor should evaluate the results of testing items in the selected population to determine whether the preliminary assessment of the relevant characteristic of the population was confirmed or the assessment should be revised.

When testing internal controls, an unexpectedly high proportion of errors in the sample population could increase the estimated level of control risk unless additional audit evidence is obtained to support the initial estimate.

On a substantive basis, an unexpectedly high error in a sample population may lead the auditor to believe that an account balance or group of similar transactions is materially misstated in the absence of additional audit evidence that such material misstatements do not occur.

45. If the combined amount of typical, predictable, and abnormal errors is less than but close to the tolerable error, the auditor evaluates the persuasiveness of the sampling results in terms of other audit procedures and may consider obtaining additional audit evidence appropriate. The combined value of typical, predictable and abnormal errors is the auditor's best estimate of error for all elements of the population.

The conclusions of the sampling are affected by the risk associated with the use of the sampling method. If the best error estimate approaches the tolerable error, the auditor assesses the risk that a different sample would result in a different error estimate that could exceed the tolerable error. Reviewing the results of other audit procedures allows the auditor to assess this risk. At the same time, this risk is reduced if additional audit evidence has been obtained during the audit.

46. ​​If an analysis of the results of the sample test indicates that it is necessary to revise the preliminary assessment of the relevant characteristic of the population, then the auditor may:

apply to the management of the audited entity with a request to analyze the identified errors, recommend that the management of the audited entity take measures to detect other errors in this area of ​​accounting, and also make the necessary adjustments;

modify planned audit procedures;

consider the impact of the results of the screening of the selected population on the conclusions contained in the auditor's report.

Annex N 1. Examples of factors affecting the size of the selected population for testing internal controls

Appendix No. 1
to the rule (standard)
N 16

Factors affecting the size of the sample population for testing internal controls should be considered together.

1. Extent to which the auditor intends to rely on the system of accounting and internal controls

The more confidence the auditor expects to obtain from the accounting and internal control system, the lower his assessment of the risk of internal controls and the larger the sample size should be. For example, a preliminary assessment of internal control risk as low indicates that the auditor expects to rely heavily on the effective operation of specific internal controls. In this situation, the auditor would need to obtain more audit evidence to support such an assessment than would be necessary if the risk of internal control was assessed more highly (that is, if the auditor planned to rely less on such systems).

2. The degree of deviation from the prescribed control procedure, which the auditor is willing to accept acceptable

The lower the degree of deviation that the auditor is willing to accept, the larger the sample size should be.

3. The degree of deviation from the prescribed control procedure that the auditor expects to identify in the population

The higher the degree of deviation expected by the auditor, the larger the sample size must be in order for the auditor to adequately estimate the actual degree of deviation. There are the following factors that are important in terms of the analysis of the expected degree of deviation:

the auditor's understanding of the activities of the entity being audited (in particular, the procedures for achieving an understanding of the accounting and internal control system);

change of personnel or change in the system of accounting and internal control;

the results of other audit procedures.

A high expected error rate usually does not guarantee or guarantees little or no reduction in the risk of internal controls. Under these circumstances, testing of internal controls is not normally performed.

The more the auditor needs to be confident that the results of the selected population are realistically indicative of the actual error rate in the population, the larger the sample size should be.

5. Number of elements of the general population

With a large general population, its actual volume has only a slight effect on the volume of the selected population. With a small population, the audit sample is often not as effective as alternative methods obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.

Appendix No. 2. Examples of factors affecting the size of the selected population for substantive testing

Appendix No. 2
to the rule (standard)
N 16

Factors affecting the size of the population selected for substantive testing should be considered together.

1. The auditor's assessment of inherent risk

The higher the auditor assesses the inherent risk, the larger should be the size of the selected population. Higher inherent risk implies that a lower level of detection risk is needed to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level. A lower risk of non-detection can be achieved by increasing the sample size.

2. The auditor's assessment of the risk of internal controls

The higher the auditor's assessment of the risk of internal controls, the larger the sample size should be. For example, assessing the risk of internal controls as high indicates that the auditor cannot rely heavily on the effective operation of internal controls in relation to a particular assertion of financial (accounting) reporting. Therefore, in order to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level, the auditor needs to maintain a low level of detection risk and will rely more heavily on audit substantive procedures. The more the auditor relies on substantive audit procedures (ie, the lower the detection risk), the larger the sample size should be.

3. Use of other substantive audit procedures aimed at confirming the same assertion in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements

The more the auditor relies on other substantive procedures (detailed tests of business transactions and account turnovers or analytical procedures) to reduce to an acceptably low level the risk of misstatement in relation to a particular account balance or a particular group of similar transactions, the more The less confidence the auditor will require from the spot check and hence the smaller the sample size may be.

4. Required degree of auditor confidence

The more the auditor needs to be confident that the results of checking the elements of the selected population are realistically indicative of the actual value of the error made in the population, the larger should be the size of the selected population.

5. The value of the total error that the auditor is willing to admit is acceptable

The lower the value of the total error that the auditor is willing to accept, the larger should be the size of the selected population.

6. The value of the error that the auditor expects to detect in the population

The larger the error that the auditor expects to detect in the population, the larger the sample size must be in order to give a reasonable estimate of the actual level of error in the population.

Factors relevant to the auditor's analysis of expected error are:

the degree of subjectivity with which the valuation of the elements is made;

results of testing of internal controls;

the results of audit procedures performed in previous periods;

results of other substantive procedures.

7. Stratification of the general population

When items in a population vary widely in value, it is useful to group items that are similar in value into separate strata. With proper stratification of the population, the total sampled population by strata is usually less than the size of the sampled population that would be needed to achieve a given level of risk associated with the use of the sampling method, when a single sampled population would be formed for the entire population.

8. Number of elements of the general population

With a large general population, its actual volume has only a slight effect on the volume of the selected population. With a small population, audit sampling is often not as effective as alternative methods of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.

When using sampling monetary elements an increase in the value of the population leads to an increase in the size of the selected population, if this is not offset by a corresponding increase in the level of materiality.

Annex N 3. Characteristics of the population selection methods

Appendix No. 3
to the rule (standard)
N 16

1. Random selection

For random selection, a random number generator is used (as software in electronic computing) or tables of random numbers.

2. Systematic selection

For systematic sampling, the number of items in the population is divided by the sample size so as to provide a sampling interval (e.g. 50), and after a starting point within the first 50 items is determined, every 50th item in the sample is then selected.

The selected population is more random if the starting point is determined by using a computer random number generator or random number tables.

In systematic sampling, the elements of the selected population within the population should not be structured in such a way that the sampling intervals correspond to any particular feature of the structure of the population.

3. Random selection

With unsystematic selection, the selected population is formed without following any systematization.

Although systematization is not used, the auditor should still avoid any bias or predictability (for example, not avoiding any elements that are difficult to detect, or not always choosing or avoiding choosing the first or last accounting entries in a given page) and will try to ensure that all items in the population can be elected.

Random selection is not applied when statistical sampling is used.

4. Selection of elements for checking by blocks

There is a practice of selecting elements for block testing, that is, choosing adjacent elements of the general population (for example, primary documents any section of accounting relating to one particular month).

Block selection is not the primary method of selecting a population and cannot normally be used to select items to be audited because most populations are structured in such a way that successive items can be expected to have similar characteristics, yet differ from other items in the population. .

While an audit procedure to test a block of elements may be appropriate in some circumstances, this technique is rarely the appropriate method for generating a sample if the auditor expects to draw meaningful conclusions about the entire population from the sample.

Revision of the document, taking into account
changes and additions prepared
JSC "Kodeks"

FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITIES

(approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation

Rule (standard) N 34.

Quality control of services in audit organizations

Introduction

1. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity, developed taking into account international audit standards, establishes uniform requirements for the quality control system for services in an audit organization. The requirements of this rule (standard) of audit activity shall be applied accordingly to the activity of an individual auditor, unless otherwise follows from the nature of the activity of an individual auditor.

2. The audit organization must establish a quality control system for services (tasks) that provides reasonable assurance that this audit organization and its employees conduct an audit and provide audit-related services in accordance with the requirements of legislative and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, federal rules ( standards) of auditing activities, internal rules (standards) of auditing activities, as well as that the conclusions and other reports issued by the audit organization comply with the conditions of specific assignments.

3. The service quality control system is based on the principles that ensure the achievement of the goals provided for in paragraph 2 of this federal rule (standard) of audit activity, and includes the procedures necessary to implement and comply with these principles and monitor their compliance.

4. This federal rule (standard) of audit activity is applied by all audit organizations. The principles and procedures developed independently by an audit organization in accordance with this federal rule (standard) of audit activity depend on the scale and organization of its activities, participation in a group of related audit organizations and other factors.

5. The concepts used in this federal rule (standard) of audit activity mean the following:

a) "task manager" - the head of the audit organization or other authorized person of the audit organization, who (who) is responsible for the performance of the assignment, as well as for the report (conclusion) issued on behalf of the audit organization;

b) "engagement quality control review" - a process designed to objectively evaluate, prior to issuing an engagement report, the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached in preparing the report;

c) "Engagement Quality Reviewer" means the firm's principal or other authorized person, third party competent person or group of such persons who has sufficient appropriate experience and authority to conduct a quality assurance review of the engagement;

d) "audit team" - all employees involved in the performance of the engagement, including any experts engaged by the audit organization in connection with the performance of this engagement;

e) "inspection" - procedures performed on completed engagements to confirm that the audit team complies with the audit firm's quality control principles and procedures;

f) "socially significant economic entity" - an economic entity, in commercial activity which directly or indirectly involves the funds of an unlimited number of persons - an open joint-stock company and other organization that has publicly placed (placed) and (or) publicly traded securities, financial institution working with the means of physical and legal entities, other organizations;

g) "monitoring" - the process of continuously reviewing and evaluating the audit firm's quality control system, including periodic inspection on a random basis of completed engagements, to achieve reasonable assurance that the quality control system is operating effectively;

h) "network organization" - an economic entity that has common control, common owners or management with another organization and which can be recognized on a reasonable basis by any third party with relevant information as part of a national or international network of organizations;

i) "employees of an audit organization" - managers and specialists of an audit organization;

j) "specialists of the audit organization" - persons who are in labor and civil law relations with the audit organization and participate in the audit and the provision of services related to the audit, with the exception of the management of the audit organization;

k) "management of the audit organization" - persons with the authority to conclude contracts for the provision of audit and audit-related services on behalf of the audit organization;

l) "reasonable certainty" - a high, but not absolute degree of certainty;

m) "outside competent person" - a person who is not an employee of the audit organization, who has sufficient professional competence to be the leader of a similar engagement (for example, the head of another audit organization or a representative of a professional audit association whose members can conduct an audit and provide audit-related services ).

6. The firm's quality assurance system should establish policies and procedures for each of the following elements:

a) the responsibilities of the management of the audit organization to ensure the quality of services provided by the audit organization;

b) ethical requirements;

c) accepting a new client for service and continuing cooperation;

d) personnel work;

e) task completion;

e) monitoring.

7. The principles and procedures for quality control of services must be documented and communicated to the employees of the audit organization. The principles and procedures for quality control of services, as well as the goals for which they are established, must be brought to the attention of each employee, information that each employee is personally responsible for the quality of services and is obliged to comply with the established principles and procedures. In addition, the firm's management should recognize the importance feedback with employees on service quality control issues, for which it is necessary to encourage employees to express their point of view regarding service quality control issues.

Responsibilities of the management of the audit organization

to ensure the quality of services provided

audit organization

8. The audit firm should establish policies and procedures that promote the maintenance of an internal culture based on the recognition that service quality is paramount. These principles and procedures should provide for the responsibility of the firm's management for the firm's quality control system.

9. The management of the audit organization has a significant impact on the culture of the audit organization. Maintaining a quality-oriented production culture depends on clear, consistent operational actions and orders from all levels of the audit organization's management, demonstrating the importance of a quality control system for services in the audit organization and the need to:

provision of audit services in accordance with federal rules (standards) and the requirements of regulatory legal acts;

issuance of an auditor's report or other report appropriate to the terms of a particular engagement.

Such actions and directives from the firm's management help maintain a culture of performance that values ​​and rewards high quality work. Information about them can be brought to the attention of employees of the audit organization through training seminars, meetings, formal and informal conversations, internal reports or information messages. These instructions must be contained in the internal regulations of the audit organization, including teaching materials, and should also be taken into account in the procedures for assessing the results of individual work and the level of professional competence of both the heads of the audit organization and specialists.

10. Of particular importance is the recognition by the management of the audit organization as the most important goal of the audit organization to achieve a high quality of performance of all tasks.

For this :

a) the firm must establish management's responsibilities in such a way that commercial considerations do not override the quality of the work performed;

b) the firm's policies and procedures for performance appraisal, remuneration and promotion (including the reward system) of employees should demonstrate the firm's commitment to quality;

c) the audit organization should allocate sufficient funds to the development and documentation of the principles and procedures for quality control of services.

11. The person appointed by the audit firm's management to be responsible for the operation of the quality control system should have sufficient appropriate experience and professional competence, as well as the necessary authority to perform his functions.

12. Sufficient appropriate experience and professional competence will enable the person responsible for the operation of the quality control system to identify and understand service quality control problems, and to develop appropriate policies and procedures. The necessary authority will help this person to implement the principles and procedures for quality control of services.

Ethical Requirements

13. The firm should have policies and procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that its employees comply with the necessary ethical requirements.

14. Ethical requirements applicable to audits and reviews of financial (accounting) statements, as well as to other assignments that provide assurance or related to the provision of audit-related services, include the standards established by the Code of Ethics for Auditors of Russia, and are based on the ethical principles provided for by the Federal rule (standard) of audit activity N 1.

15. The audit firm should establish policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance that the firm, its employees and other persons who are required to maintain independence (including contracted experts and network organization employees) maintain independence in cases established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Code of Ethics for Auditors of Russia. Such policies and procedures should allow:

a) communicate independence requirements to the firm's employees and others who must comply with such requirements;

b) identify and evaluate circumstances and relationships that create threats to independence, and take appropriate action to eliminate such threats or reduce them to an acceptable level by taking appropriate precautions or (if necessary) withdrawing from the assignment.

16. The principles and procedures specified in paragraph 15 of this federal rule (standard) of audit activity must establish:

a) the obligation of engagement partners to provide the firm with appropriate engagement information, including the scope of services provided, so that the firm can assess whether it maintains its independence in dealing with the client;

b) the obligation of employees of the audit organization to promptly inform the audit organization about circumstances and relationships that may pose a threat to its independence;

c) the need to collect and accumulate relevant information by a specially authorized employee of the audit organization in order to:

the audit organization and its employees could determine whether the requirements of independence are met;

the audit firm is able to document and update information relevant to independence matters;

the firm could have taken appropriate action in relation to identified threats to independence.

17. The audit firm should establish policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that any breaches of independence will be identified and appropriate remedial action taken by the firm. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the following requirements:

a) all who are required to comply with the requirement of independence are required to immediately report to the audit organization any violations of independence of which they become aware;

b) the audit firm must promptly report any violations of these principles and procedures to the audit or other engagement partner, who must correct the violation at the audit firm’s management level, to other employees of the audit firm related to this, and to other persons obliged to maintain independence, who must will take appropriate action;

c) the engagement partner, as well as other persons with a duty of independence, should promptly inform the audit firm of the measures taken to correct the violation so that the audit firm can assess the need for additional measures.

18. Violations of independence principles and procedures that become known should be promptly brought to the attention of audit or other engagement heads, other employees of the audit organization concerned, and, if appropriate, third-party experts and employees of network organizations for appropriate action to be taken. Appropriate actions taken by the firm and the engagement partner include actions to ensure that threats to independence are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, up to and including abandoning the engagement. In addition, the audit firm should include independence issues in training programs for employees who are required to comply with the requirement of independence.

19. At least once a year, employees of the audit organization who are required to maintain independence must provide the audit organization with written confirmation of compliance with the established principles and procedures of independence.

20. Written confirmation may be made on paper or electronic media. By obtaining such confirmation and taking appropriate action in the event of a violation of independence, the audit organization clearly demonstrates to its employees how important it attaches to issues of independence.

21. A “familiarity” threat can arise from being assigned to the same assurance engagement for long periods of time by the same people who manage the same assurance engagement. different levels. Therefore, the audit organization should develop principles and procedures:

a) establishing criteria to enable timely recognition of a “habituation” threat that has arisen, requiring the adoption of appropriate security measures to reduce it to an acceptable level in cases where the same employees are assigned for a long time to the same assurance task;

b) providing for periodic (at least once every 7 years) rotation of employees who manage the audit of the same socially significant economic entity at different levels.

22. When establishing criteria to identify the need for security measures to address threats of habituation or other negative impact on engagement quality, the firm should consider:

a) the nature of the engagement, including whether it is in the public interest;

b) the duration of work of employees on a specific task.

Such safeguards may include, for example, periodic rotation of people who lead an audit or other engagement at different levels, or a mandatory review of the quality of the engagement.

Taking on a new client

or continuation of cooperation

23. The firm should have policies and procedures in place to govern the decision to accept a new client or continue with an existing client, providing reasonable assurance that accepting a new client or continuing to work with an existing client will be performed only in relation to tasks:

a) in which the firm has positively assessed the integrity of the management of the proposed entity or entity to whom audit-related services will be provided and does not have information to the contrary;

b) which the audit firm is able to perform given the necessary capabilities, time and resources;

c) under which the audit organization will not violate ethical requirements.

24. When deciding whether to take on a new client or continue to work with an existing client, the audit firm should obtain information that it considers necessary in the circumstances. In the event that the audit firm found any problems, but nevertheless, the audit firm decided to accept a new client or continue cooperation with an existing client, the way the problems were resolved should be documented.

25. When evaluating the integrity of a prospective client's management, the firm should consider, for example:

a) the identity and business reputation of the main owners of the potential client, its management, affiliates, representatives of the owner;

b) the nature of the client's business operations, including its business practices;

c) information on the attitude of the main owners of a potential client, its management, representatives of the owner to the control environment or the issue of inadequate interpretation of regulatory legal acts on accounting;

d) how inadequately low the client seeks to set the amount of monetary remuneration of the audit organization for conducting an audit or providing audit-related services;

g) manifestations of inappropriate limitation of the scope of the audit;

f) signs that the client is engaged in the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime or other criminal activities;

g) the reasons for the appointment of this audit organization and the non-appointment of the previous auditor.

26. The audit firm may obtain information about the integrity of the management of a potential client, for example, from the following sources:

a) communication with an audit firm providing services to a potential client in the current period or in previous periods, discussions with other third parties;

b) requests to third parties such as banks, organizations providing legal services to the client, other representatives of the financial and business circles;

c) other open sources of information.

27. When evaluating the capability, expertise, time frame and resources of an audit firm to decide whether to accept a new client or continue with an existing client, the firm should consider the specific requirements for the engagement, the engagement partner, and all levels of staff. In particular, the audit organization analyzes:

a) knowledge of workers in a particular industry or area;

b) experience in applying the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation or the ability to quickly acquire the necessary skills and knowledge;

c) the presence of a sufficient number of employees to complete the task, possessing the necessary knowledge and having the appropriate professional competence;

d) the possibility of attracting external experts, if necessary;

e) the presence of employees who meet the criteria and requirements for persons capable of performing reviews of the quality of the assignment, if applicable;

f) the audit firm's ability to complete the engagement within the specified time frame.

28. The firm should also assess whether hiring a new client or continuing to work with an existing client could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. When a potential conflict of interest is identified, the firm should evaluate the appropriateness of accepting the engagement.

29. The decision to continue cooperation with the client involves an assessment of all significant issues that have arisen in the course of the current or previous assignments, as well as their consequences for the possible continuation of cooperation. For example, the client may have begun to expand into an industry in which the firm lacks knowledge and experience.

30. If the firm receives information that would have led the firm to withdraw from the engagement had it become known earlier, then the principles and procedures for continuing the engagement and cooperating with the client should include an assessment of:

a) the professional and legal responsibilities applicable to the circumstances, including the possible requirement for the firm to communicate relevant information to the person(s) who appointed it;

b) the possibility of refusing to complete the assignment or simultaneously from completing the assignment and from further cooperation with the client.

31. The principles and procedures governing the procedure for refusing to perform an assignment or simultaneously from performing an assignment and from further cooperation with a client provide for the following:

a) discussing with authorized persons of the client's management and representatives of the client's owner the actions that the audit firm can take in the circumstances;

b) discussing with authorized persons of the client's management and representatives of the client's owner the possibility of refusing to perform the assignment or simultaneously from performing the assignment and continuing cooperation, as well as the reasons for refusal, if the audit organization considers the refusal to be appropriate;

c) consideration of the issue of whether there are requirements of federal rules (standards) of audit activity or other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regarding the exclusion or provision of an opportunity for an audit organization to refuse to perform an assignment or simultaneously from performing an assignment and continuing cooperation with reporting the reasons for refusal to the relevant regulatory authorities;

d) documenting significant issues, their discussion, conclusions drawn with their argumentation.

Personnel work

32. The audit organization must establish principles and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that it has a sufficient number of personnel, possessing the necessary knowledge, experience, ethical principles, able to perform tasks in accordance with federal rules (standards) of auditing and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as that the audit reports and other reports issued by the audit organization comply with the conditions of a specific assignment.

33. The principles and procedures established by the audit firm should cover the following elements of personnel work:

a) hiring workers;

b) evaluation of the results of the work;

c) professional skills of employees;

d) professional competence;

e) professional development;

f) promotion;

g) wages;

h) assessment of the needs of employees.

The solution of these issues allows the audit organization to establish qualification requirements and metrics for hiring the people the audit firm needs to perform its engagements. The recruitment process includes procedures to select honest workers who are willing to develop the skills and professional competence required for the job.

34. The development of skills and professional competence of employees is carried out through:

a) vocational education;

b) continuous professional training;

c) gaining experience in the process of work;

d) training of less experienced specialists by more experienced ones, including within the audit team.

35. The professional competence of the employees of an audit organization largely depends on the appropriate level of continuous professional training, which allows maintaining and increasing the knowledge and skills of employees. To do this, in its activities, the audit organization should attach particular importance to the need for continuous professional training of employees at all levels. If in-house training resources are not available, the firm may use the services of third-party competent persons with appropriate qualifications.

36. Performance appraisal, remuneration and promotion procedures should give due consideration to and encourage the development and maintenance of professional competence and ethical principles. In particular, the audit firm should:

a) inform employees about their expectations regarding the performance of tasks and compliance with ethical principles;

b) evaluate and advise employees in relation to the order of performance of work, the development of professional competence and professional growth;

c) help employees understand that appointment to a more responsible position depends, among other things, on the quality of work performance and compliance with ethical requirements;

d) help employees understand that non-compliance with established policies and procedures may result in disciplinary action.

37. The significance and size of the audit organization and specific circumstances affect the process of evaluating the results of work. Smaller audit firms require less formal methods for evaluating their employees.

38. The audit organization must have established following principles and procedures:

a) the head of the audit or other engagement and the employees of the audit firm performing the audit or other engagement should have the appropriate skills, professional competence, authority and time to perform their functions;

b) the responsibilities of the head of the audit or other engagement and the employees of the firm performing the audit or other engagement should be clearly defined and communicated to them.

39. Established policies and procedures should include actions to record and control workload.

40. The audit organization must also appoint appropriate specialists to perform the assignment with the necessary skills, professional competence and time necessary to perform work in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of audit activity and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.

41. The audit firm should have established procedures for assessing the skills and professional competence of its employees. When assigning audit teams and determining the required level of oversight, the following issues should be considered:

a) understanding of assignments and practical experience in performing assignments of a similar nature and complexity, acquired through appropriate training and previous work;

b) knowledge and understanding of the federal rules (standards) of auditing, as well as the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

c) relevant technical knowledge, including knowledge of relevant information technologies;

d) knowledge of the industry in which the client operates;

e) the ability to form professional judgment;

f) an understanding of the quality control principles and procedures established by the firm.

Completing a task

42. The audit organization must establish principles and procedures that provide reasonable assurance that assignments are performed in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of audit activity and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as that audit reports and other reports , issued by the audit organization, correspond to the conditions of a particular assignment.

43. The audit firm, through the establishment of appropriate policies and procedures, should strive to ensure the quality of its engagements on an ongoing basis. Typically, this is achieved through the use of appropriate manuals in paper or electronic form, using software and standardized forms of documents, as well as industry and problem-oriented guidelines covering the following topics:

a) briefing the engagement team before the engagement to ensure that members understand and understand the goals and objectives;

b) the procedure for compliance with applicable standards;

c) the procedure for supervising the performance of the assignment, training and briefing employees;

d) methods for conducting a review of the quality of the engagement, significant judgments and the issued auditor's report or other report;

e) appropriate documentation of the work performed and the timing and scope of the engagement quality review;

f) the procedure for updating the principles and procedures.

44. All members of the audit team should understand the purpose and objectives of their engagement. Teamwork and related training is necessary to help less experienced members of the audit team clearly understand the objectives of the work assigned to them.

45. Assignment supervision includes:

a) monitoring the progress of the task;

b) assessing the skills and professional competence of each member of the audit team, whether they have sufficient time to complete the engagement, understand the instructions given to them, and whether their work is consistent with the planned approach;

c) addressing significant issues that arise during the course of the assignment, assessing their significance and, if necessary, changing the planned approach accordingly;

d) identifying issues that require consultation or consideration by more experienced members of the engagement team during the engagement.

46. ​​Oversight functions involve reviewing the work of less experienced members of the audit team by more experienced members, including the audit or other engagement partner. Supervisors evaluate:

a) whether the performed work complies with the federal rules (standards) of audit activity, as well as the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

b) whether significant issues have arisen that require further consideration;

c) whether consultations were held and, if so, whether the conclusions of these consultations were documented and applied in practice;

d) whether there is a need to review the nature, timing and scope of the work performed;

e) to what extent the work performed confirms the findings and is documented;

f) the sufficiency and appropriateness of the audit evidence obtained on which the audit opinion or other report is based;

g) whether the objectives of the procedures performed have been achieved.

47. The firm should establish policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that:

a) complex and contentious issues appropriate advice can be obtained;

b) there are sufficient resources to obtain appropriate advice;

c) the nature and extent of such consultations should be documented;

d) conclusions drawn from consultations should be documented and applied in practice.

48. Consulting involves discussing, at an appropriate professional level, both within the firm itself and with third-party competent persons with relevant knowledge and experience, solutions to complex or contentious issues.

49. When consulting, appropriate information sources are used, as well as the collective experience and knowledge of the employees of the audit organization. The audit firm should maintain a culture of performance in consultations that promote quality engagement and professional judgment. Consultation is an important aspect of the activities of the audit organization, and the desire of employees to consult on complex and controversial issues should be encouraged.

50. In order for consultations with competent persons to be effective, it is necessary that these persons be provided with all the initial information on the basis of which they could give appropriate recommendations on methodological, ethical and other issues. The procedure for obtaining advice involves contacting persons with relevant knowledge, authority and experience, both in the audit organization and outside it. The conclusions drawn from such consultations should be properly documented and put into practice.

51. If the audit firm does not have adequate internal resources, it may seek the advice of outside competent persons:

a) other audit organizations;

b) professional audit associations and regulatory bodies;

c) other organizations that provide relevant services in the field of quality control of audit and audit-related services.

Before entering into a contract for the provision of quality control services, the audit organization must assess whether the professional competence of a third party is appropriate in the circumstances.

52. Documentation relating to consultations on complex or controversial issues with a competent person must be agreed upon by both parties - the person who requested the consultation and the person who provided the advice. Documentation must be complete and detailed enough to disclose:

a) the subject matter of the consultation;

b) the results of the consultation, including any decisions made, the reasons for those decisions and how they are applied in practice.

53. The firm should have established policies and procedures for resolving disagreements between members of the engagement team and the individual providing advice, or between the engagement partner and the individual performing the quality review of the engagement. The dispute resolution process should be documented and applicable in practice.

54. These procedures help to identify disputes at an early stage, provide clear guidance on follow-up actions, and require the resolution of disputes to be documented and applied in practice. An auditor's report or other report may be issued only after all disputes have been resolved.

55. A firm that uses competent third parties to conduct an engagement quality review should recognize that differing opinions may exist and establish appropriate procedures for resolving disagreements, for example, by seeking advice from a third party competent person or other audit firm, a professional audit association or a regulatory body.

56. The firm should have policies and procedures in place for conducting performance reviews for certain types of engagements in order to objectively evaluate the significant judgments and conclusions of the audit team that form the basis of the audit opinion or other report issued. Such policies and procedures should:

a) provide for the conduct of review checks of the quality of performance of all audits of financial (accounting) statements of socially significant economic entities;

b) state criteria under which engagement quality reviews should also be conducted for certain audits, reviews financial information, other tasks;

c) provide for the conduct of review checks of the quality of the performance of all assignments that meet the criteria provided for in subparagraph "b" of this paragraph.

57. The firm's policies and procedures should prohibit the issuance of audit opinions or other reports until the engagement quality review has been completed.

58. When determining the criteria for assignments not related to the audit of financial (accounting) statements of socially significant economic entities that are subject to a review of the quality of their implementation, audit organizations take into account:

a) the nature of the engagement, including whether it is in the public interest;

b) there are unusual circumstances or risks in a particular engagement or class of engagements.

59. The audit organization should develop principles and procedures that establish:

a) the nature, timing and extent of the quality assurance review of assignments;

b) the criteria and requirements for persons performing a review of the quality of the assignment;

c) requirements for documenting the review of the quality of the assignment.

60. An engagement quality review typically includes a discussion with the audit or other engagement leader, a review of the financial (accounting) statements or other substantive information, and an analysis of the audit report or other report, in particular, its compliance with the terms of a particular engagement. An engagement quality review also includes a selective review of auditor working papers that relate to significant judgments and conclusions reached by the audit team. The extent of an engagement quality review depends on the complexity of the engagement and the risk that the auditor's report or other report may not be appropriate for the particular engagement. An engagement quality review does not reduce the responsibility of the engagement partner or other engagement partner.

61. A review of the quality of performance of assignments related to the audit of financial (accounting) statements of socially significant economic entities covers the following issues:

a) the assessment by the audit team of the independence of the audit organization, taking into account the specific assignment;

b) an assessment of significant risks identified during the course of the engagement and procedures performed in response to the risks assessed by the auditor;

c) judgments regarding audit materiality and significant risks;

d) receiving appropriate advice on complex or contentious issues or when there is a difference of opinion, as well as the conclusions drawn from these consultations;

e) the significance of corrected and uncorrected misstatements identified during the engagement;

f) circumstances, information about which should be brought to the attention of management, representatives of the owner or other persons of the entity being audited;

g) the compliance of the auditor's working documents selected for analysis with the work performed, which served as the basis for the formation of significant judgments and conclusions;

h) compliance of the draft audit report or other report with the conditions of a particular assignment.

Quality reviews of the performance of assignments that are not an audit of the financial (accounting) statements of socially significant economic entities may, depending on the circumstances, cover all of these aspects in full or in part.

62. The engagement quality reviewer should conduct the engagement quality review in a timely manner, at the appropriate stage of the engagement, so that significant matters can be resolved promptly before an auditor's report or other report is issued.

63. If the engagement partner disagrees with the recommendations of the engagement quality reviewer and the disagreement cannot be resolved, the auditor’s report or other report cannot be issued until the matter has been resolved in accordance with the procedures established by the engagement partner. in an audit firm to resolve disputes.

64. The firm's policies and procedures should also include the appointment of an engagement quality reviewer and the following criteria and requirements:

a) the level of qualifications required to perform these functions, including the necessary experience and authority;

b) the extent of engagement-related advice provided by the engagement quality reviewer, beyond which the person's objectivity may be compromised.

65. The firm's policies and procedures regarding the skill level of an engagement quality reviewer relate to the professional competence, knowledge, experience and authority required to perform those functions. The level of sufficient professional competence, knowledge, experience and authority depends on the conditions of a particular assignment. In addition, the engagement quality reviewer should have sufficient experience and authority to serve as the engagement leader for the relevant engagement.

66. The firm's policies and procedures are designed so as not to compromise the objectivity of the person performing the engagement quality review. For this purpose, the engagement quality reviewer shall:

a) shall not be selected at the direction of the audit partner or other engagement;

b) during the period of the review of the quality of the engagement, shall not participate in any way in the performance of this assignment;

c) should not make decisions for the audit team;

d) must not be placed in any other conditions that could endanger its objectivity.

67. The engagement partner may consult with the engagement quality reviewer during the course of the engagement, to the extent that that person's objectivity is not compromised. If the nature and extent of such consultation becomes significant, then the engagement team members and the engagement quality reviewer should be careful not to compromise the auditor's objectivity. If this is not possible, another member of the firm's staff or an outside competent person should be assigned to the role of the engagement quality reviewer or the person advising the engagement team on matters related to the engagement. The firm should have procedures in place to replace the engagement quality reviewer when their objectivity may be questioned.

68. When it is necessary to conduct reviews of the quality of an engagement performed by an individual auditor or a small audit firm, an external competent person may be involved. Individual auditors or smaller firms may engage other firms to perform engagement quality reviews. If a third-party competent person is involved, the rules provided for in paragraphs 61, 62, 64 - 67 of this federal rule (standard) of audit activity must be observed.

69. Policies and procedures related to documenting an engagement quality review should document that:

a) the firm's procedures for reviewing the quality of the engagement have been implemented;

b) the procedures for reviewing the quality of the engagement were carried out prior to the issuance of the auditor's report or other report;

c) the engagement quality reviewer does not become aware of any unresolved issues during the engagement that could lead the engagement team to conclude that significant judgments and conclusions made by the engagement team are inappropriate.

Monitoring

70. The audit firm should establish policies and procedures related to the quality system to provide reasonable assurance that they are relevant, adequate, effective and followed in practice. These policies and procedures should include ongoing review and evaluation of the firm's quality control system, as well as periodic random inspections of completed engagements.

71. The purpose of monitoring compliance with the principles and procedures of quality control is to assess:

a) compliance with federal rules (standards) of auditing activities and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

b) proper organization and effective functioning of the quality control system;

c) proper application of the principles and procedures of quality control, as a result of which the audit reports and other reports issued by the audit organization comply with the conditions of specific assignments.

72. In the audit firm, the responsibility for monitoring should be assigned to the firm's senior staff or other persons with sufficient experience and authority. The monitoring of the quality control system carried out by authorized persons covers the issues of its organization and efficiency of functioning.

73. The ongoing review and evaluation of the quality system covers the following issues:

a) analysis of accounting by the audit organization of relevant changes in the federal rules (standards) of auditing and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regarding the principles and procedures of the quality control system, written confirmation of compliance with the principles and procedures of independence, continuous professional training, issues related to acceptance for service a new client or continuation of cooperation with an existing client on specific assignments;

b) identifying the need for changes to the quality control system or its improvement;

c) bringing to the attention of the employees of the audit organization the shortcomings identified in the quality control system, both at the level of its organization and compliance with its principles and procedures in practice;

d) control by authorized persons over the timely introduction of the necessary changes to the principles and procedures of the quality control system of the audit organization.

74. Selective inspection of completed assignments, as a rule, is carried out on a cyclical basis by authorized persons specified in paragraph 72 of this federal rule (standard) of audit activity. The assignments selected for inspection include at least one assignment from each assignment leader completed within a cycle period, which is typically no more than 3 years. The organization of the inspection cycle, including the timing of task selection, depends on many factors, such as:

a) the scope of the activities of the audit organization;

b) the number and location of divisions of the audit organization;

c) results of previous monitoring procedures;

d) the level of authority delegated to employees and divisions of the audit organization (for example, individual divisions may be authorized to independently carry out inspections, or only the central office has the right to do so);

e) the nature and complexity of the audit practice and its organization;

f) the risks associated with the clients of the audit organization and the special assignments performed.

75. The inspection process includes the selection of individual engagements, some of which may be selected without notice to the audit teams that performed them. Inspectors should not participate either in the performance of the assignment itself or in the review of the quality of its performance. In determining the scope of the inspection, the firm may also take into account the conclusions drawn from the results of independent external quality control. However, carried out independent control quality cannot be a substitute for an internal monitoring program.

76. Small audit firms and individual auditors may engage an external competent person or other audit firm to conduct inspections and other monitoring procedures. They may also establish ways to share these resources with peer organizations to facilitate the implementation of monitoring procedures.

77. The audit firm should evaluate the consequences of deficiencies identified as a result of monitoring and determine whether they are:

a) cases that do not necessarily indicate that the quality control system of the audit organization is not able to provide reasonable assurance that the audit organization and its employees carry out the audit and provide audit-related services in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of audit activity and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as that the audit reports and other reports issued by the audit organization comply with the conditions of a specific assignment;

b) systematic, recurring or other significant deficiencies requiring timely adoption of appropriate measures.

78. The audit organization should report the shortcomings identified as a result of monitoring, as well as recommendations for their elimination, to the heads of audits and other engagements, as well as related employees.

79. The audit firm's assessment of each deficiency should result in a recommendation regarding one or more of the following:

a) taking action in relation to a particular task or a particular employee;

b) communicating the findings to those responsible for continuing professional education;

c) changes in the principles and procedures of quality control;

d) the application of disciplinary measures against persons who do not comply with the principles and procedures of the audit firm, especially those who do this systematically.

80. If the monitoring results indicate that the issued audit opinion or other report does not comply with the conditions of a particular assignment or that certain procedures are not followed during the assignment, the audit organization must decide what further measures should be taken in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of auditing and the requirements normative legal acts of the Russian Federation. In this case, the need to obtain legal advice should also be considered.

81. At least once a year, the audit organization should report the results of monitoring the quality control system to the heads of audits and other engagements and other senior staff of the audit organization. Such a communication will allow the audit organization and these persons to take timely and necessary actions in accordance with their responsibilities and authorities. The information to be reported should include:

a) a description of the monitoring procedures performed;

b) conclusions drawn from the results of the monitoring carried out;

c) description of systematic, recurring or other significant deficiencies (if any), as well as measures taken to eliminate them.

82. When deficiencies are reported to others other than the heads of audits and other engagements and other senior members of the audit firm, the names of the engagements are usually not mentioned, except when it is necessary to do so in order for those involved in these engagements to carry out their duties properly.

83. Some audit firms that are members of networks or associations may perform monitoring procedures that partially or completely correspond to network monitoring procedures. If audit organizations are members of a network that requires monitoring in accordance with the principles and procedures common to the network, as well as this federal rule (standard) of audit activity, and rely on such a monitoring system, then:

a) the network should at least once a year provide all information on the scope, time frame and results of monitoring to the relevant persons of the network organizations;

b) the network should promptly report the identified deficiencies in the quality control system to the appropriate persons of the network organizations so that appropriate measures can be taken;

c) network engagement leaders may rely on network monitoring results until the audit firm or network advises otherwise.

84. When documenting monitoring:

a) monitoring procedures should be described, including the procedure for selecting tasks for inspection;

b) assessments of compliance with the federal rules (standards) of audit activity and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the proper organization and effectiveness of the quality control system and the proper application of the principles and procedures of quality control are recorded, as a result of which the audit organization issues audit opinions or other reports corresponding to conditions of specific assignments;

c) identified deficiencies should be described, their consequences assessed, and grounds for further action formulated.

85. The audit firm should establish principles and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the work is being carried out properly:

a) with complaints and claims regarding the fact that the work performed by the audit organization does not comply with federal rules (standards) of audit activity and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

b) with claims regarding non-compliance with the quality control procedures of the audit organization.

86. Complaints and claims can be received both from persons working in the audit organization, and from other persons. They may come from employees of the audit firm, clients or third parties and may be presented to members of the audit team or other employees of the audit firm.

87. The audit organization should establish a certain procedure (as part of the system of quality control procedures) in accordance with which employees of the audit organization can transmit their complaints or claims without fear of being punished.

88. In the audit organization, such complaints and claims should be investigated in accordance with established procedures. The investigation should be conducted by an experienced senior member of the firm who has relevant experience and knowledge and is not involved in the engagement. The investigation may require legal advice. Small audit firms and individual auditors may use the services of third-party competent persons or another audit organization to conduct an investigation. Complaints and claims, as well as the response of the audit organization must be documented.

89. If, as a result of the investigation, shortcomings in the organization and functioning of the quality control system for the services of an audit organization or cases of non-compliance with individuals principles and procedures of the quality control system for the services of an audit organization, the audit organization must take the appropriate measures specified in paragraph 79 of this federal rule (standard) of audit activity.

Documentation

90. The audit firm should establish policies and procedures that require proper documentation to ensure that each element of the quality control system is functioning properly.

91. The order of documentation is determined by the audit organization independently. For example, large audit firms use electronic databases to document independence assurance, engagement evaluations, and monitoring results. Small audit firms and individual auditors may use less formal methods such as manual entries, questionnaires, and other forms.

92. When determining the form and content of documents that testify to the functioning of the quality control system, the following factors should be considered:

a) the scope of the audit organization and the number of its divisions;

b) the levels of authority delegated to employees and departments of the audit organization;

c) the nature and complexity of the audit practice and its organization.

93. The audit firm should retain records of the functioning of the quality control system for a period of time sufficient to enable monitors to assess adherence to the firm's quality control principles and procedures, or for a longer period if necessary. require regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.