Types of Assurance Engagement

ACCA F8考試：Types of Assurance Engagement

Practitioners are permitted to perform two types of assurance

engagements:

1. reasonable assurance engagements; and

2. limited assurance engagements.

For assurance engagements involving historical financial statements:

reasonable assurance engagements are called "audits"1473 and

limited assurance engagements are called "reviews".

1 Reasonable Assurance Engagement

A reasonable assurance engagement provides a high level of assurance through the expression of a conclusion in the positive form. For example, "In our opinion the financial statements give

a true and fair view".

The practitioner should obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in order to express a conclusion in this positive form.

The assurance engagement risk (i.e. the risk that an inappropriate opinion will be given) should be reduced to an acceptably low level given the circumstances of the engagement.

The easier it is to objectively measure the subject matter (e.g. information that is qualitative, quantitative, historical), the more formal the measurement criteria (e.g. IFRS, corporate governance codes), the more independent, reliable and persuasive the evidence that can be obtained, and the greater the assurance that can be given on the subject matter.

In audit engagements the auditor provides reasonable assurance through obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw conclusions on which to base an opinion.

2 Limited Assurance Engagement

A limited assurance engagement provides a low level of assurance through the expression of a conclusion in the negative form. For example, "Based on our review, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the accompanying financial statements do not give a true and fair view".

The level of work carried out is limited and can only allow the practitioner to provide a negative form of expression.

The assurance engagement risk is greater (but still acceptable) than that for a reasonable assurance engagement (i.e. if the same level of work were carried out to provide reasonable assurance, there would be an unacceptably high risk of giving an inappropriate opinion).

Where the subject matter, criteria and measurement are subjective and informal, the evidence obtained may not be sufficiently independent, reliable and/or persuasive, and the practitioner may conclude that reasonable assurance cannot be given and that only limited assurance is appropriate.

In a review engagement, the evidence obtained is through enquiry and analytical review. This is sufficient to enable only limited assurance to be given.