GOVERNMENT OF THE Russian Federation DECREE dated September 23, 2002 N 696 on APPROVAL OF FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITIES (as amended and supplemented, in accordance with Resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 04.07.2003 N 405, dated 07.10.2004 N 532 , from 16.04 .2005 N 228, dated 08/25/2006 N 523) in accordance with the Federal Law “On Auditing”, the Government of the Russian Federation decides: To approve the attached federal rules (standards) for auditing. Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation M. KASYANOV Approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 23, 2002 N 696 FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) OF AUDITING ACTIVITIES (as amended by Resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 04.07.2003 N 405, dated 07.10.2004 N 532, from 16.04 .2005 N 228, dated 08.25.2006 N 523) Rule (standard) N 1. The purpose and basic principles of the audit of financial (accounting) reporting (as amended by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2004 N 532) Introduction 1. This federal rule ( standard) of auditing activities, 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. 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 enhance confidence in the financial statements, the user should not accept the opinion either as an expression of confidence in the entity's going concern in the future, or as evidence of the effective conduct of the entity's management. The paragraph has been deleted. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 7, 2004 N 532. General principles of auditing 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 behavior. 4. The auditor, during the planning and conduct of the audit, must exercise professional skepticism and understand that circumstances may exist that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements. The exercise of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically evaluates the strength of the audit evidence obtained and carefully considers audit evidence that contradicts any documents or statements of management or calls into question the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit to, among other things, avoid overlooking suspicious circumstances, making unwarranted generalizations in drawing conclusions, or using erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures or 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 completely honest. Oral and written statements by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to form reasonable conclusions on which to base the audit opinion. Scope of the Audit 5. The term “scope of audit” refers to the audit procedures considered necessary to achieve the audit objective in the circumstances. The procedures necessary to conduct an audit must be determined by the auditor taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities, internal rules (standards) of auditing activities 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 regulations and, if necessary, the terms of the audit engagement and the requirements for preparing the report. Reasonable Assurance 6. An audit is intended 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 related to the process of obtaining 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 ability of the auditor to detect significant misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements occur due to the following reasons: during the audit, selective methods and testing are used; any accounting and internal control systems are imperfect (for example, they cannot guarantee the absence of collusion); The preponderance of audit evidence merely provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion and is not exhaustive. 8. An additional factor limiting the reliability of the audit is that the work performed by the auditor in forming his opinion is based on his professional judgment, in particular with respect to: the collection of audit evidence, including in determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures ; preparing conclusions drawn on the basis of audit evidence, for example, when determining the validity of estimates obtained by the management of the audited entity during the preparation of financial (accounting) statements. 9. In addition, there are other limitations that may affect the strength of the evidence used to draw conclusions about certain assertions in the financial statements (for example, in relation to transactions between affiliates). For such cases, some auditing rules (standards) define special procedures that, due to 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 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 audited entity. An audit of financial (accounting) statements does not relieve the management of the audited entity from such responsibility. RULE (STANDARD) N 2. DOCUMENTATION OF AUDIT (as amended) Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532) Introduction 1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, 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 information that is important from the point of view of providing evidence confirming the audit opinion, as well as evidence that the audit was conducted in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) . 3. The term “documentation” means working documents and materials prepared by and for the auditor or received and stored by the auditor in connection with the audit. Working documents can be presented in the form of data recorded on paper, photographic film, electronically or in another form. 4. Working documents are used: when planning and conducting an audit; when carrying out ongoing monitoring and verification of the work performed by the auditor; to record audit evidence obtained to support the auditor's opinion. Form and content of working papers 5. The auditor should prepare working papers in a form sufficiently complete and detailed to provide a general understanding of the audit. 6. The auditor must reflect in the working papers information on the planning of the audit work, the nature, time frame and scope of the audit procedures performed, their results, as well as the conclusions drawn on the basis of the audit evidence obtained. The working papers should contain the auditor's justification for all important 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 considered complex issues of principle or has 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 the conclusions were formulated and the necessary reasoning. 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 every document or issue examined by the auditor during the audit is not necessary. However, the scope of the audit documentation should be such that, if it becomes necessary to transfer the work to another auditor who does not have experience in this engagement, the new auditor could, based solely on this documentation (without resorting to additional conversations or correspondence with the previous auditor, auditor) to understand the work done and the validity of the decisions and conclusions of the previous auditor. 8. The form and content of working documents are determined by such factors as: the nature of the audit assignment; requirements for the auditor's report; the nature and complexity of the audited entity's activities; the nature and condition of the audited entity's accounting and internal control systems; the need to give instructions to the auditor’s employees, exercise ongoing control over them and check the work performed by them; specific methods and techniques used in the audit process. 9. Working papers should be compiled and organized in such a way as to meet the circumstances of each specific audit and the needs of the auditor during its conduct. in order to increase the efficiency of preparation and verification of working documents, it is recommended that the audit organization develop standard forms of documentation (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 for reliable control over the results of the work they perform. 10. To increase the efficiency of the audit, it is allowed to use during the audit graphics, analytical and other documentation prepared by the audited entity. in these cases, the auditor is required to ensure that such materials are prepared appropriately. 11. Working papers usually contain: information relating to the legal form and organizational structure of the audited entity; excerpts 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 to them; evidence of the auditor's understanding of accounting and internal control systems; evidence supporting the assessment of inherent risk, level of control risk and any adjustments to those assessments; (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532) evidence confirming the fact of the auditor’s analysis of the internal audit work of the audited entity and the conclusions drawn by the auditor; analysis of financial and economic transactions and account balances; analysis of the most important economic indicators and trends in their changes; 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, indicating the time they were performed; detailed information on the procedures applied in relation 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 managers of the audited entity or discussed with them, including the terms of the audit agreement or identified significant deficiencies in the internal control system; written statements received from the audited entity; the auditor's conclusions on significant audit matters, including errors and unusual circumstances identified by the auditor during the performance of the audit procedures and information about the actions taken by the auditor in connection therewith; copies of financial (accounting) statements and auditor's report. 12. In the case of audits carried out over a number of years, some working paper files (folders) may be classified as permanent, updated as new information becomes available, but remain significant, in contrast to current audit files (folders), which contain information primarily relevant 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 of working papers and to retain them for a sufficient period of time, based on the nature of the auditor's work and legal and professional requirements, but not less than 5 years. 14. Working papers are the property of the auditor. Although portions of documents or extracts 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 October 7, 2004 N 532) Introduction 1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for planning a financial audit ( accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as audit), applies primarily to checks that the auditor has been conducting for several years in relation to the audited entity. To conduct an audit during the first year, the auditor is required to expand the planning process to include matters beyond those specified in this standard. 2. The audit organization and the 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 developing an overall strategy and a detailed approach to the expected nature, timing and scope of audit procedures. Planning the work 4. The auditor's planning of his work ensures that important areas of the audit receive the necessary attention, that potential problems are identified, and that the work is completed cost-effectively, efficiently, and in a timely manner. Planning allows you to effectively distribute work between members of the team of specialists participating in the audit, as well as coordinate such work. 5. The time spent on work planning depends on the scale of the audited entity’s activities, the complexity of the audit, the auditor’s experience working with this entity, as well as knowledge of the specifics 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 to improve the efficiency of the audit and coordinate audit procedures with the work of the audited entity’s personnel. In this case, the auditor is responsible for the correct and complete development of the overall plan and audit program. General audit plan 8. The auditor should draw up and document a general audit plan, describing the expected scope and procedure for conducting the audit. The overall audit plan should be sufficiently detailed 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 scale and specifics of the audited entity’s activities, the complexity of the audit and the specific techniques used by the auditor. 9. When developing an overall audit plan, the auditor must take into account: a) the activities of the audited entity, including: general economic factors and industry conditions affecting the activities of the audited entity; characteristics 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: accounting policies 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 tests of controls and substantive procedures during the audit; c) risk and materiality, including: expected assessments of inherent risk and control risk, identification of the most important areas for audit; establishing audit materiality levels; the possibility (including based on historical audits) of material misstatements or fraud; (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 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 estimated indicators; d) the nature, timing and extent of procedures, including: the relative importance of 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 influence on external audit procedures; e) coordination and direction of work, ongoing monitoring and verification of work performed, including: involvement of other audit organizations in the inspection of branches, divisions, subsidiaries of the audited entity; attracting experts; the number of territorially separate divisions of one audited entity and their spatial distance from each other; the number and qualifications of specialists required to work with this audited entity; f) other aspects, including: the possibility that the entity's going concern assumption may be called into question; circumstances requiring special attention, for example, the existence of affiliates; features of the contract for the provision of audit services and legal requirements; the length of service of the auditor’s employees and their participation in the provision of related services to the audited entity; the form and timing of preparation and submission to the audited entity of opinions and other reports in accordance with the law, rules (standards) of auditing activities and the conditions of a specific audit assignment. Audit program

FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS) FOR AUDITING ACTIVITIES

(approved by 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 auditing activities, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the system of quality control of services in an audit organization. The requirements of this rule (standard) of auditing activities are accordingly applied to the activities of an individual auditor, unless otherwise follows from the essence of the activities of the individual auditor.

2. The audit organization must establish a system for monitoring the quality of services (assignments), providing reasonable confidence 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, and also 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 principles that ensure the achievement of the goals provided for in paragraph 2 of this federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, and includes the procedures necessary to implement and comply with these principles and monitor their compliance.

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

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

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

b) “engagement quality review” - a process designed to objectively evaluate, before issuing a report on the results of an engagement, the significant judgments made by the audit team and the conclusions it reached in preparing the report;

c) “person conducting quality control of the engagement” - the head or other authorized person of the audit organization, a third-party competent person or a group of such persons who have sufficient appropriate experience and authority to conduct quality control of the engagement;

d) “audit team” - all employees engaged in the performance of the assignment, including any experts engaged by the audit organization in connection with the performance of this assignment;

e) “inspection” - procedures carried out in relation to completed engagements in order to confirm the audit team’s compliance with the principles and quality control procedures established in the audit organization;

f) “socially significant economic entity” - an economic entity in whose commercial activities funds of an unlimited number of persons are directly or indirectly involved - an open joint-stock company and another organization that has publicly placed (placed) and (or) publicly traded securities, a financial organization working with funds of individuals and legal entities, other organizations;

g) “monitoring” is a process involving continuous analysis and evaluation of the audit organization’s quality control system, including periodic inspection on a sample basis of completed engagements, carried out with the aim of achieving reasonable confidence that the quality control system is functioning effectively;

h) “network organization” - an economic entity that has common control, ownership 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 the audit organization” - managers and specialists of the audit organization;

j) “specialists of the audit organization” - persons who have labor and civil relations with the audit organization and participate in the audit and the provision of audit-related services, with the exception of the management of the audit organization;

k) “management of the audit organization” - persons who have the authority to enter into agreements for the provision of audit and audit-related services on behalf of the audit organization;

l) “reasonable confidence” - a high, but not absolute degree of confidence;

m) “third party competent person” - a person who is not an employee of the audit organization, who has sufficient professional competence to be the head of a similar task (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 audit organization's service quality control system should establish principles and procedures for each of the following elements:

a) 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 and continuing cooperation;

d) personnel work;

e) completing the task;

e) monitoring.

7. The principles and procedures for quality control of services must be documented and brought to the attention of employees of the audit organization. The principles and procedures for monitoring the quality 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 bears personal responsibility for the quality of services and is obliged to comply with the established principles and procedures. In addition, the management of the audit organization should recognize the importance of feedback from employees on issues of quality control of services, for which it is necessary to encourage employees to express their point of view regarding issues of quality control of services.

Responsibilities of the management of the audit organization

to ensure the quality of services provided

audit organization

8. The audit organization, through its administrative document, should establish principles and procedures that promote the maintenance of an internal culture based on the recognition that ensuring the quality of services is a primary objective. These principles and procedures should provide for the responsibility of the management of the audit organization for the quality control system of services in the audit organization.

9. The management of the audit organization has a significant influence on the production 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 the audit organization's service quality control system and the need to:

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

issuing an audit report or other report that meets the conditions of a specific engagement.

Such actions and orders of the audit organization's management contribute to maintaining a culture of production in which high-quality work is valued and rewarded. 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 methodological materials, and must 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’s activities to achieve high quality in the performance of all tasks.

For this :

a) the audit firm should establish management's responsibilities so that commercial considerations do not override the quality of the work performed;

b) the principles and procedures applied in the audit organization in relation to the evaluation of work performed, payment and promotion (including the reward system) of employees must demonstrate the audit organization's commitment to quality;

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

11. The person appointed by the management of the audit organization to be responsible for the operation of the quality control system must 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 problems of quality control of services, and to develop appropriate policies and procedures. The necessary authority will help this person implement the principles and procedures for quality control of services.

Ethical requirements

13. The auditing organization should have policies and procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that its employees will comply with required ethical requirements.

14. Ethical requirements applied to audits and reviews of financial (accounting) statements, as well as to other assurance tasks 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 auditing activities N 1.

15. The audit organization should establish policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance that the audit organization, its employees and other persons who are required to maintain independence (including experts engaged under the contract, as well as employees of the network organization) 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) bring independence requirements to the attention of employees of the audit organization and other persons who must comply with such requirements;

b) identify and evaluate circumstances and relationships that pose 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) refusing to perform the assignment.

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

a) the responsibility of engagement managers to provide the audit firm with adequate information about the engagements, including the scope of services provided, so that the audit firm can assess whether it is maintaining its independence when working 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 independence requirements are being met;

the audit organization could document and update information relevant to independence issues;

the audit organization was able to take appropriate action in relation to the identified threats to independence.

17. The audit organization should establish policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that any violations of independence will be identified and appropriate measures will be taken by the audit organization to eliminate them. Such policies and procedures must comply with the following requirements:

a) all those 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 organization must promptly report identified violations of these principles and procedures to the head of the audit or other assignment, who must, at the level of management of the audit organization, eliminate the violation, other employees of the audit organization related to this, and other persons obliged to maintain independence, who must will take appropriate measures;

c) the engagement partner, as well as other persons required to maintain independence, must promptly communicate to the audit firm about the measures taken to correct the violation so that the audit firm can assess the need for additional measures.

18. Information that becomes known about a violation of independence principles and procedures should be promptly brought to the attention of audit managers or other engagement managers, other employees of the audit organization related to it, and, if appropriate, third-party experts and employees of network organizations for taking appropriate action. Appropriate actions taken by the audit firm and the audit or other engagement partner include those actions that ensure that threats to independence are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, up to and including abandonment of the engagement. In addition, the audit organization should include independence issues in training programs for employees required to comply with the independence requirement.

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 can be drawn up on paper or electronic media. By receiving such confirmations 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 independence issues.

21. A threat of familiarity may arise from the assignment of the same individuals at different levels to the same assurance task over a long period of time. Therefore, the audit organization must develop principles and procedures:

a) establishing criteria to enable timely recognition of a risk of familiarity that requires appropriate security measures to be taken to reduce it to an acceptable level in cases where the same employees are assigned over a long period of 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 business entity at different levels.

22. When establishing criteria to identify the need to take security measures in relation to the threat of “familiarity” or other negative impact on the quality of the engagement, the audit organization should consider:

a) the nature of the assignment, including the extent to which it is a matter of public interest;

b) the length of time employees work on a specific task.

Such security measures could be, for example, periodic rotation of employees supervising an audit or other assignment at different levels, or mandatory review of the quality of the assignment.

Accepting a new client

or continuation of cooperation

23. The audit organization must establish principles and procedures governing the procedure for deciding whether to accept a new client or continue cooperation with an existing client, providing reasonable assurance that accepting a new client or continuing cooperation with an existing client will be carried out only in relation to tasks:

a) in which the audit organization has positively assessed the integrity of the management of the proposed auditee or person to whom services related to the audit will be provided, and does not have information that would indicate the opposite;

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

c) when fulfilled, the audit organization will not violate ethical requirements.

24. When deciding whether to accept a new client or continue cooperation with an existing client, the audit organization should obtain information that it considers necessary in the given circumstances. If the audit organization discovered some problems, but nevertheless, the audit organization decided to accept a new client for service or continue cooperation with an existing client, the method for resolving the problems must be documented.

25. When assessing the integrity of a potential client's management, the audit 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 transactions, including its business practices;

c) information about the attitude of the main owners of the 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 establish the amount of monetary remuneration of the audit organization for conducting an audit or providing services related to the audit;

e) manifestations of improper restrictions on the scope of the audit;

f) signs that the client is engaged in 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 organization can obtain information about the integrity of the management of a potential client, for example, from the following sources:

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

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

c) other open sources of information.

27. When assessing the capabilities, professional competence, time frame and resources of the audit organization to decide whether to accept a new client or continue cooperation with an existing client, the audit organization should analyze the specific requirements for the assignment, the head of the audit or other assignment, and specialists at all levels. 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 who have the necessary knowledge and have the appropriate professional competence to complete the task;

d) the ability to attract third-party experts if necessary;

e) the presence of persons in the workforce who meet the criteria and requirements for persons capable of performing review checks on the quality of the assignment, if applicable;

f) the ability of the audit organization to complete the assignment within the established time frame.

28. The audit firm should also evaluate whether accepting a new client or continuing to work with an existing client may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. If a potential conflict of interest is identified, the audit 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 arose during the implementation of the current or previous assignments, as well as their consequences for the possible continuation of cooperation. For example, a client could begin to expand its activities in an industry in which the audit organization lacks knowledge and experience.

30. If the audit firm receives information that would have led to the refusal of the engagement had it been known earlier, the policies and procedures associated with the continuation of the engagement and collaboration with the client should include an assessment of:

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

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

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

a) discussion with authorized persons of the client’s management and representatives of the client’s owner of measures that the audit organization can take in the current circumstances;

b) discussion with authorized persons of the client’s management and representatives of the client’s owner about the possibility of refusing to perform the assignment or simultaneously to perform the task and continue cooperation, as well as the reasons for the refusal, if the audit organization considers the refusal to be appropriate;

c) consideration of the existence of requirements of federal rules (standards) of auditing activities or other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regarding the exclusion or provision of the opportunity for the audit organization to refuse to perform an assignment or simultaneously to perform an assignment and to continue cooperation with reporting the reasons for the refusal to the relevant regulatory authorities;

d) documentation of 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 sufficient personnel with the necessary knowledge, experience, ethical principles, and the ability to perform assignments in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) and requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as that audit opinions 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 organization 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) assessing the needs of employees.

Solving these issues allows the audit organization to establish qualification requirements and quantitative indicators for hiring workers that the audit organization needs to perform tasks. The employee recruitment process includes procedures to select honest employees who are committed to developing the skills and professional competence required to perform tasks.

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 employees of an audit organization largely depends on the appropriate level of continuous professional training, which allows them to maintain and increase the knowledge and skills of employees. To do this, in its activities, the audit organization must attach special importance to the need for continuous professional training of employees at all levels. If in-house training resources are not available, the audit firm may seek the services of appropriately qualified third party competent individuals.

36. Performance appraisals, compensation and promotion procedures should give due consideration to and encourage the development and maintenance of professional competence and ethical principles. In particular, the audit organization must:

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

b) evaluate and advise employees regarding work procedures, 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 performed and compliance with ethical requirements;

d) help employees understand that failure to comply with established policies and procedures may result in disciplinary action.

37. The significance and size of the audit organization and specific circumstances influence the process of assessing the results of the work. Small audit organizations require less formal methods for evaluating their employees.

38. The audit organization must establish the following principles and procedures:

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

b) the responsibilities of the head of the audit or other assignment and the employees of the audit organization performing the audit or other assignment must be clearly defined and brought to their attention.

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 who have the necessary skills, professional competence and time necessary to perform the work in accordance with the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.

41. The audit organization must establish procedures for assessing the skills and professional competence of its employees. When appointing audit teams and determining the required level of supervision, the following issues should be considered:

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

b) knowledge and understanding of the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities, 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) understanding of the principles and procedures of quality control established in the audit organization.

Completing the task

42. The audit organization must establish principles and procedures that provide reasonable assurance that assignments are performed in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) 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, comply with the conditions of a specific assignment.

43. The audit organization, through the establishment of appropriate principles and procedures, should strive to ensure high-quality performance of assignments on an ongoing basis. This is typically achieved through the use of appropriate guidelines in paper or electronic form using software and standardized document forms, as well as industry-specific and problem-specific guidelines covering the following topics:

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

b) compliance with applicable standards;

c) the procedure for supervising the execution of the task, training and instructing workers;

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

e) appropriate documentation of the work performed, as well as the time frame and scope of the quality review of the assignment;

f) the procedure for updating principles and procedures.

44. All members of the engagement team should understand the goals and objectives of the engagement they are performing. Team work and appropriate training are necessary to help less experienced engagement team members clearly understand the objectives of the work assigned to them.

45. Supervision of the assignment includes:

a) monitoring the progress of the task;

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

c) resolving significant issues that arise during the execution of the assignment, assessing their significance and, if necessary, appropriately changing the planned approach;

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

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

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

b) whether significant issues arose that required further consideration;

c) whether consultations took place, 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, time frame and scope of 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 were achieved.

47. The audit firm should have policies and procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that:

a) appropriate consultations can be obtained on complex and controversial issues;

b) there are sufficient resources to obtain appropriate advice;

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

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

48. Consulting involves discussion at an appropriate professional level, both within the audit organization itself and with third-party competent persons with relevant knowledge and experience, of solutions to complex or controversial issues.

49. When consulting, appropriate information sources are used, as well as the collective experience and knowledge of the audit organization’s employees. The audit organization must maintain a culture of production when conducting consultations that contribute to the quality of the assignment and the formation of professional judgment. Consultation is an important aspect of the audit organization’s activities, 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 background information on the basis of which they could make appropriate recommendations on methodological, ethical and other issues. The procedure for obtaining consultations involves contacting persons with appropriate knowledge, authority and experience, both within the audit organization and outside it. The conclusions drawn from such consultations must be properly documented and put into practice.

51. If the audit organization does not have appropriate in-house resources, it may seek advice from third-party 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 should assess whether the professional competence of the 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 seeking the consultation and the person providing the consultation. Documentation must be sufficiently complete and detailed to disclose:

a) subject of consultation;

b) the results of the consultation, including any decisions made, the basis for these decisions and how they will be applied in practice.

53. The audit firm should have policies and procedures in place regarding how disagreements between members of the engagement team and the person providing advice, or between the engagement partner and the person performing the engagement quality review, are resolved. The dispute resolution process must be documented and practiced.

54. These procedures help identify disagreements at an early stage, provide clear guidance for subsequent actions, and require documentation of dispute resolution and implementation. An audit opinion or other report can be issued only after all disagreements have been resolved.

55. An audit firm that uses the services of competent third parties to perform a quality review of an engagement should recognize that differences of opinion may exist and establish appropriate procedures for resolving disagreements, for example, by obtaining advice from the competent third party or another audit firm. professional audit body or regulatory body.

56. The audit firm should develop policies and procedures for conducting quality reviews of certain types of engagements to objectively evaluate the significant judgments and conclusions of the audit team that served as the basis for the audit report or other report issued. Such policies and procedures should:

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

b) formulate criteria in the presence of which review checks of the quality of the assignment should also be carried out in relation to certain audits, reviews of financial information, and other tasks;

c) provide for review checks of the quality of performance of all tasks 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 quality review of the engagement has been completed.

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

a) the nature of the assignment, including the extent to which it is a matter of public interest;

b) the presence of unusual circumstances or risks in a particular task or class of tasks.

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

a) the nature, time frame and scope of the review of the quality of assignments;

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

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

60. A review of the quality of the engagement typically includes a discussion with the principal of the audit or other engagement, a review of the financial statements or other subject matter information, and a review of the auditor's report or other report, particularly its compliance with the terms of the specific engagement. The engagement quality review also includes a selective review of the auditor's working papers related to significant judgments and conclusions made by the audit team. The extent of the 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 specific engagement. A review of the quality of an engagement does not reduce the responsibility of the engagement partner.

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

a) the audit team’s assessment of the independence of the audit firm taking into account the specific assignment;

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

c) judgments regarding audit materiality and significant risks;

d) obtaining appropriate consultations on complex or controversial issues or differences of opinion, as well as conclusions drawn from the results of 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 audited entity;

g) 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 drawn;

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

Reviews of the quality of performance of assignments that are not audits of financial (accounting) statements of socially significant business entities may, depending on the circumstances, cover all of these aspects in full or in part.

62. The person conducting the engagement quality review should conduct the review in a timely manner, at the appropriate stage of the engagement, so that significant issues can be quickly resolved before the audit report or other report is issued.

63. If the engagement partner disagrees with the engagement quality review reviewer's recommendations and the disagreement cannot be resolved, the audit opinion or other report cannot be issued until the matter has been resolved in accordance with the procedures established. in the audit organization to resolve disagreements.

64. The audit firm's policies and procedures should also include the appointment of a person performing a quality review of the engagement and the following criteria and requirements:

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

b) the amount of advice related to the performance of the assignment provided by the person carrying out the review of the quality of the assignment, exceeding which may pose a threat to the objectivity of the judgment of this person.

65. The firm's policies and procedures regarding the qualifications of the person performing the engagement quality review address 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 the specific assignment. In addition, the person conducting the engagement quality review must have the experience and authority to perform the functions of the relevant engagement supervisor.

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

a) should not be selected at the direction of the audit manager or other engagement;

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

c) should not make decisions for the audit team;

d) should not be placed under any other conditions that could create a threat to its objectivity.

67. The engagement partner may, during the performance of the engagement, consult with the engagement quality reviewer to the extent that that individual's objectivity is not compromised. If the nature and extent of such consultations become significant, the engagement team members and the engagement quality reviewer must exercise caution so as not to jeopardize the reviewer's objectivity. If this is not possible, another member of the audit firm's staff or a competent third party should be appointed to serve as the person performing the quality review of the engagement, or as the person advising members of the engagement team on matters related to the engagement. The audit firm should have procedures in place to replace the person performing the engagement quality review when the engagement's objectivity may be questioned.

68. If it is necessary to conduct review checks on the quality of an assignment performed by an individual auditor or a small audit organization, it is possible to involve a third-party competent person. Individual auditors or small audit firms may engage other audit 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 auditing rule (standard) must be observed.

69. Policies and procedures related to documenting engagement quality reviews should include documentation that:

a) the procedures established in the audit organization for reviewing the quality of the assignment were carried out;

b) engagement quality review procedures were performed prior to the issuance of the auditor's report or other report;

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

Monitoring

70. The audit firm should have policies and procedures associated with its quality control system that provide reasonable assurance that they are appropriate, adequate, effective and are being followed in practice. These policies and procedures should include ongoing review and evaluation of the firm's quality control system, as well as periodic spot inspections of completed engagements.

71. The purpose of monitoring compliance with quality control principles and procedures 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) the proper application of quality control principles and procedures, resulting in audit opinions and other reports issued by the audit organization consistent with the conditions of specific engagements.

72. In an audit organization, responsibility for monitoring should be assigned to senior management of the audit organization or other persons with sufficient experience and authority. Monitoring of the quality control system carried out by authorized persons covers issues of its organization and operational efficiency.

73. Ongoing review and assessment of the quality control system covers the following issues:

a) analysis of the audit organization’s accounting of relevant changes in the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation relating to 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 tasks;

b) identifying the need to make changes to the quality control system or improve it;

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

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

74. Random inspection of completed assignments is usually carried out on a cyclic basis by authorized persons specified in paragraph 72 of this federal auditing rule (standard). The assignments selected for inspection include at least one assignment from each engagement leader completed during the 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, for example:

a) the scope of activities of the audit organization;

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

c) the 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 this);

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

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

75. The inspection process involves the selection of individual engagements, some of which may be selected without notice to the audit teams performing them. Persons carrying out inspections should not participate either in the execution of the task itself or in the review of the quality of its implementation. When determining the scope of the inspection, the audit organization may also take into account the conclusions drawn from the results of independent external quality control. However, independent quality control cannot replace an internal monitoring program.

76. Small audit organizations and individual auditors may engage a third-party competent person or another audit organization to conduct inspections and other monitoring procedures. They can also establish ways to share these resources with similar organizations to make monitoring procedures easier to implement.

77. The audit organization should assess the consequences of deficiencies identified as a result of monitoring and determine whether they:

a) cases that do not necessarily indicate that the audit organization’s quality control system is not able to provide reasonable assurance that the audit organization and its employees conduct an audit and provide audit-related services in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, as well as that audit opinions 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 must report deficiencies identified as a result of monitoring, as well as recommendations for their elimination to the heads of audits and other assignments, as well as related employees.

79. The audit organization’s assessment of each deficiency should result in recommendations regarding one or more of the following:

a) taking action in relation to an individual task or a specific employee;

b) communication of findings to persons responsible for continuous professional training;

c) changes to quality control principles and procedures;

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

80. If the results of monitoring indicate that the issued audit report or other report does not comply with the conditions of a specific engagement or that certain procedures were not performed during the execution of the engagement, then the audit organization must decide what further measures should be taken in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) and requirements regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation. In this case, you should also consider obtaining legal advice.

81. At least once a year, the audit organization must report the results of monitoring the quality control system to the heads of audits and other assignments and other senior staff of the audit organization. Such communication will enable the audit firm and those individuals to take timely and appropriate action consistent with their responsibilities and authority. The information reported should include:

a) description of the monitoring procedures performed;

b) conclusions drawn from the results of the monitoring;

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

82. When communicating identified deficiencies to anyone other than heads of audits and other engagements and other management personnel of the audit firm, the titles of the engagements are generally not mentioned unless this is necessary to ensure that those involved in those engagements perform their duties. responsibilities properly.

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

a) the network must, at least once a year, provide all information about the volume, time frame and results of monitoring to the relevant persons of the network organizations;

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

c) network engagement managers may rely on the results of network monitoring until the auditing organization or network advises otherwise.

84. When documenting monitoring:

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

b) assessments of compliance with federal rules (standards) of auditing activities and the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the proper organization and effectiveness of the functioning of the quality control system and the proper application of quality control principles and procedures are recorded, as a result of which the audit organization issues audit reports or other reports that comply with conditions of specific tasks;

c) the identified deficiencies must be described, their consequences assessed and the grounds for taking further measures formulated.

85. The audit organization should have policies and procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that the work is being carried out properly:

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

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

86. Complaints and claims can come from both 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 audit teams or other employees of the audit firm.

87. The audit organization should establish a certain procedure (as part of a system of quality control procedures) according to which employees of the audit organization could submit their complaints or claims without fear of being punished.

88. In an 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 audit firm who has relevant experience and knowledge and is not involved in the engagement. The investigation may require legal advice. Small audit organizations and individual auditors may use the services of third-party qualified persons or another audit organization to conduct an investigation. Complaints and claims, as well as the response actions of the audit organization must be documented.

89. If the results of the investigation reveal deficiencies in the organization and functioning of the audit organization’s service quality control system or cases of non-compliance by individuals with the principles and procedures of the audit organization’s service quality control system, the audit organization must take appropriate measures specified in paragraph 79 of this federal rule (standard ) auditing activities.

Documentation

90. The auditing organization should have established policies and procedures that require adequate documentation to provide confidence that each element of the quality control system is functioning properly.

91. The documentation procedure is determined by the audit organization independently. For example, large audit organizations use electronic databases to document assurance of independence, assessment of engagement performance, and monitoring results. Small audit organizations and individual auditors may use less formal methods - manual records, questionnaires and other forms.

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

a) the scale of activity of the audit organization and the number of its divisions;

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

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

93. The audit organization should retain documents evidencing the functioning of the quality control system for a period of time sufficient to enable persons carrying out monitoring to assess compliance with the principles and procedures for quality control of the audit organization's services, or for a longer period, if this required by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.

GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

RESOLUTION

On amendments to the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities approved

(as amended as of December 22, 2011)

Lost force on January 1, 2018 on the basis
dated October 23, 2017 N 1289
____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
Document with changes made:
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2008 N 863 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 49, 12/08/2008);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 2, 2010 N 586 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 32, 08/09/2010);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 27, 2011 N 30 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 5, 01/31/2011);
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2011 N 1095 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 1, 01/02/2012).
____________________________________________________________________

Government of the Russian Federation

decides:

Approve the attached changes that are being made to the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2002 N 696 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2002, N 39, Art. 3797).

Chairman of the Government
Russian Federation
M. Fradkov

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

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

1. The last paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule (standard) No. 1 should be deleted.

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

3. In paragraph four of subclause “c” of clause 9 of rule (standard) No. 3, replace the word: “fraudulent” with the word: “unscrupulous”.

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

"6. The auditor considers materiality both at the level of 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 lost force - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2011 N 1095..

6. The clause has lost force - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 2, 2010 N 586..

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

Rule (standard) No. 12. Agreement on the terms of the audit

Introduction

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

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

b) to the actions of the audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) in the case when the management of the audited entity requests the auditor to change the terms of the assignment to conditions that imply a lower level of confidence in the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements than reasonable confidence, 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 terms must be documented in the contract for the provision of audit services.

The auditor may use, in reaching an agreement with the management of the audited entity, an audit letter - a document sent by the auditor to the proposed audited entity and signed by the management of the audited entity if they agree with the basic terms of the audit engagement.

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

3. This federal auditing rule (standard) can be applied when providing services for inspections that are not audits, or special audit assignments, as well as services related to auditing. If audit-related services are provided, it may be appropriate to issue separate letters for these services.

4. Despite the fact that the goals and scope of the audit, as well as the responsibilities 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).

Agreement 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 in advance with the proposed audited entity.

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

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 based on the results of the audit;

information that, due to the use of random testing techniques and other limitations inherent in an audit, together with the limitations inherent in the entity's accounting and internal control systems, there is an imminent risk that some, including material, financial misstatements (accounting) statements may remain undetected;

the requirement to ensure free access to all accounting documentation and other information requested during the audit;

the price of the audit (or the method for determining it), as well as the procedure for recognizing the service provided and the payment procedure.

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

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

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

the obligation of the management of the audited entity to assist in sending requests to credit institutions and counterparties of the audited entity in order to obtain 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 audited entity’s property.

8. If necessary, the contract for the provision of audit services (audit letter) or appendices to it may also contain:

an agreement to involve other auditors and experts in 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 restrictions on the auditor’s liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and federal rules (standards) of auditing activities;

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 contract for the provision of audit services with these subsidiaries (whether to send a separate letter about the audit) is influenced by the following factors:

procedure for appointing an auditor of subsidiaries;

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

requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation;

the amount of work performed by other auditors;

ownership share of the parent organization;

the degree of independence of the subsidiary's management from the parent organization.

Recurring audit

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

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

any indication that the auditee has a misunderstanding of 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 audited entity;

changes in the ownership structure of the audited entity;

significant changes in the nature or scope of the entity's activities;

requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Changing the audit engagement

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

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

14. A change in circumstances affecting the auditee's requirements, or a misunderstanding of the nature of the service originally requested, is usually considered a valid reason for requesting a change in engagement. A change in the 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 the audit engagement that may result in the substitution of audit-related services for the audit, the auditor should consider the possible legal consequences of such changes.

16. If the auditor concludes that a change in the terms of the audit engagement is reasonable, and if the auditor's work complies with federal auditing rules (standards) that may 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 may have been carried out in accordance with the original engagement, unless the engagement changes to an engagement on agreed procedures and therefore reference to the procedures carried out forms an element of the relevant report.

17. If the terms of the engagement change, the auditor and the business entity that was previously the audited entity must agree on new terms.

18. The auditor should not agree to change the terms of the engagement without reasonable justification. For example, the auditor should not agree to change the terms of an engagement if the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding a receivable and the audit client requests that the auditor change the audit engagement to a review engagement to avoid obtaining the auditor's qualified opinion or the auditor's disclaimer of opinion.

19. If the auditor cannot agree to change the audit engagement to a different engagement and the auditee objects to continuing to work in accordance with the original engagement, the auditor should refuse to perform the engagement or consider communicating the situation to interested parties (for example, the board of directors). or shareholders).

Application. Example of an audit letter

Application
to the rule (standard)
N 12

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

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

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

Because an audit involves sampling and testing and other inherent limitations of an audit, along with the limitations inherent in any system of accounting and internal control, there is an inherent risk that some misstatements, even material ones, 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 significant deficiencies in accounting and internal control that we have observed.

We remind you that in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the management of your organization bears responsibility 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 presence and proper operation of internal controls, the selection and application of accounting policies, as well as measures for the safety and proper use of the organization's assets. We will require formal written confirmation from the organization's management (as part of the audit process) regarding the most significant explanations and statements made in connection with the audit.

We look forward to working with your staff and providing us with any records, documentation or other information requested in connection with the audit. Audit fees, which are billed as services are performed, are based on the time spent on the assignment and include travel expenses. Hourly wages vary 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 or its validity is not terminated.

We ask that you sign and return the attached copy of this letter to confirm that it is consistent with your understanding of the agreement for us to conduct an audit of your organization's financial statements.

Rule (standard) No. 13. Responsibilities of the auditor to address errors and fraud during the audit

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

Rule (standard) No. 14. Taking into account the requirements of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation during the audit

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

Rule (standard) No. 15. Understanding the activities of the audited entity

(the rule has become invalid due to
resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated November 19, 2008 N 863

Rule (standard) N 16. Audit sampling

Introduction

1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for sample checks in an audit, as well as for methods for selecting elements to be checked for the purpose of collecting audit evidence.

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

Definitions used in this auditing rule (standard)

3. For the purposes of this federal auditing rule (standard), 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 elements selected to form or help form conclusions about the population from which the sample is drawn;

b) "error":

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

distortion 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 control);

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 some cases) and, thus, is not a representative error from the point of view of a given population;

e) “population” - the complete set of elements from which the auditor selects the population and about which he wants to draw conclusions. The population can be divided into strata (subsets), where each stratum is examined separately;

f) “sample elements” - individual elements reflected in accounting and constituting the general population. For example, primary documents of the same type, individual entries in bank statements, sales invoices, turnover on personal accounts of debtors;

g) “statistical approach to sampling (statistical sampling)” - the application of any sampling approach that would have the following characteristics:

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

application of probability theory to evaluate sampling results, including assessing the risk associated with the use of audit sampling.

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

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

i) “acceptable error” - the maximum size of the population error that the auditor considers acceptable.

4. Risk associated with the use of an audit sample arises when the auditor's conclusion drawn from the sample population may differ from the conclusion that would have been reached if identical audit procedures had been 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:

concludes 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 in reality it does exist (when performing substantive audit procedures).

This type of risk affects the reliability of the audit and is likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion;

b) the risk that the auditor:

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

will come to the conclusion that there is a material error when 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 results in additional work to determine that the original 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;

Low risk corresponds to a high level of trust.

5. Non-audit sampling risk results from factors that cause the auditor to reach an erroneous conclusion for reasons other than those related to sample size (that is, the number of items selected for testing). For example, in most cases, audit evidence only provides evidence to support a particular conclusion rather than being comprehensive, and the auditor may use inappropriate procedures or misinterpret the evidence and fail to recognize an error.

Audit evidence

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

7. Audit sampling for tests of internal controls is generally appropriate if there is evidence of the application of internal controls (for example, documentation of management's permission to enter data into a computer system for processing).

8. When performing substantive audit procedures in the form of detailed tests, audit sampling can be used to verify and obtain audit evidence of the correctness of one or more premises for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements for a specific numerical indicator (for example, the existence of accounts receivable) or when assessing any or an indicator (for example, assessing inventory that is obsolete or has lost its original quality).

Considering risk when obtaining audit evidence

9. In obtaining audit evidence, the auditor shall use professional judgment to assess 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 when 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 audit sampling risk and non-audit sampling risk.

For example, when conducting tests of internal controls, the auditor may find no errors in the sample population and conclude that internal control risk is low when the error rate in the population is in fact unacceptably high (control risk). using audit sampling). There may be errors in the sample population that the auditor was unable to detect (a risk not associated with the use of an audit sample).

For substantive procedures, the auditor can 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 select an inappropriate analytical procedure (non-sampling risk) or detect only minor misstatements in detailed testing when the misstatements in the population are larger than an acceptable value (sampling risk).

When conducting tests of controls and substantive tests, risk associated with the use of an audit sample can be reduced by increasing the size of the sample population, and risk not associated with the use of an audit sample can be reduced by proper planning of the engagement, ongoing monitoring of the work of members of the audit team and checking the implementation of procedures.

Selecting items to test to obtain audit evidence

11. In developing audit procedures, the auditor must determine appropriate methods for selecting items to test. The auditor may:

select all elements (full 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 must ensure that the methods he uses are reliable in obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to achieve the testing objectives.

13. The auditor may decide that it would be most appropriate to examine the entire population of elements that make up the turnover in an accounting account or a group of similar transactions (or a stratum within a given population). A full review is generally not used when conducting tests of internal controls; it is more often used in the case of substantive audit procedures.

For example, a full check may be appropriate if:

the population consists of a small number of elements of high value;

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

The repetitive nature of calculations or other processes carried out using a computerized accounting system makes blanket audits cost-effective.

14. The auditor may decide to select specific elements of the population based on the following factors:

understanding of the activities of the audited entity;

preliminary assessment of inherent risk and internal control risk;

characteristics and features of the tested population.

15. Selecting specific items based on the auditor's professional judgment involves risks not associated with the use of sampling. Specific articles selected may include:

a) elements with high value or so-called key elements of the sample. The auditor may decide to select certain elements of the population for review based on their high value or some other characteristic, for example, elements that are suspicious, unusual, particularly susceptible to risk, or that have a history of error;

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

c) elements for obtaining information. The auditor may check certain elements to obtain information on such issues as the characteristics of the audited entity, 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. Checking selected specific elements within the turnover of an accounting account or a group of similar transactions can be an effective means of obtaining audit evidence. However, it is not an audit sample, since conclusions based on the results of procedures applied to elements selected in this way cannot be extended to the entire population. The auditor should consider the need to obtain appropriate audit evidence regarding the remainder of the population if the remainder is significant.

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

Statistical and non-statistical approaches to sampling

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

For example, in testing internal controls, analysis of the nature and cause of errors will generally be more important than statistical analysis of the presence or absence (that is, count) 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 size of the sample population 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 Appendices No. 1 and 2. Under similar circumstances, the influence on the volume of the selected population of the factors given in Appendices 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 correspond to the definition of a statistical sample, individual components of the statistical approach are used (for example, a random selection of elements is used based on random numbers obtained using electronic computer technology). However, statistical measures of the risk associated with the use of a sampling method will be valid when the approach adopted has all the characteristics of a statistical sample.

Sampling

21. When analyzing the population selected for testing, the auditor should consider the objectives of the test and the characteristics of the population.

22. The auditor first analyzes the specific objectives to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that will most contribute to the achievement of such objectives. Analyzing the nature of the audit evidence sought and the possible error conditions or other characteristics relating to such audit evidence will help the auditor determine what exactly 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 predicted error scores include all terms that are relevant for the purposes of the test.

For example, in a substantive test (such as confirmation) regarding the existence of a receivable, payments that the customer made before the confirmation date but which were received shortly after that date by the auditee are not considered an error.

Recording any amount to an incorrect account held for a particular customer does not affect the total amount due in accounts receivable. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to consider this an error when assessing the sample results of this particular procedure, although 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 typically makes a preliminary assessment of the level of error that he expects to detect in relation to the population being audited and the level of risk of the internal controls. This assessment is based on the auditor's prior knowledge or examination of a small number of elements in the population. Similarly, for substantive procedures, the auditor typically makes a preliminary estimate of the level of error in 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 typically not performed. However, in substantive testing procedures, if the expected magnitude of error is large, it may be appropriate to conduct a blanket test or use a larger sample size.

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

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

On the other hand, when checking for an understatement of accounts payable, the population will not be a list of debts owed to creditors, 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 a random audit, it is impossible to come to certain conclusions about all the documents for the relevant period unless the auditor is sure that all the documents were actually filed in the folder.

Similarly, if the auditor intends to use a sample frame to reach conclusions about the operation of the accounting and internal control systems for the reporting period, the frame should include all relevant elements throughout the period. Another approach would 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 a self-selected population for the remaining 2 months.

26. Audit effectiveness 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 proportionately increasing the risk associated with the use of the sampling method. Strata (subsets) must be carefully defined so that each sample element can be included in only one stratum.

27. When performing the substantive verification procedure, turnover on an accounting account or a group of similar transactions are often stratified by value. This allows the audit to focus more attention on the higher value items that may have the greatest potential for overstatement errors.

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

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

For example, 20 percent of the total number of elements in the population may account for 90 percent of the amount of turnover in the accounting account. The auditor may conduct an examination of a selected set of these elements. In this case, the auditor evaluates the results of this selected population and draws conclusions about the properties of the elements representing 90 percent of the cost, in isolation from the remaining 10 percent, for which different selection or other methods of obtaining evidence would 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 elements as individual indicators in monetary terms (for example, rubles) that make up the turnover of an accounting account or a group of similar transactions. Having selected individual specific monetary indicators from the population (for example, the amount of accounts receivable), the auditor then examines the specific elements (for example, individual accounting turnover) that contain such monetary indicators. This approach to defining sample items ensures that the auditor's work is focused on testing items of higher value because they are more likely to be selected and this may result in a smaller sample size. This technique is usually used in conjunction with systematic population selection and is most effective when selecting items from a computerized database.

Sample size

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

31. The sample size can be determined using special formulas obtained on the basis of probability theory and mathematical statistics, or determined on the basis of the professional judgment of the auditor. Appendices No. 1 and 2 to this federal auditing rule (standard) provide examples of factors influencing 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 sample element in the population has a probability of being selected. Statistical sampling requires that elements be selected at random, that is, so that each element has some non-zero probability of being selected. Sample items can be physical items (such as invoices) or monetary items. In non-statistical sampling, the auditor uses professional judgment to select items.

Because the purpose of sampling is to draw conclusions about the entire population, the auditor attempts to form a representative population by selecting sample members that have characteristics that are typical of the population. The set of elements being tested must be formed in such a way that bias is eliminated.

33. The main methods of population selection are random, systematic and unsystematic methods. The characteristics of these methods are given in Appendix No. 3.

Carrying out audit procedures

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

35. If the selected element is not suitable for applying 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 item because, for example, documents relating to that item have been lost. If suitable alternative procedures cannot be performed for such an item, the auditor generally considers that the accounting item contains an error. An example of a suitable alternative procedure would be to examine subsequent cash receipts when a positive response to a request for confirmation of receivables has not been received.

Nature and cause of errors

37. The auditor should review the results of the sample test, the nature and cause of any errors found, 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 errors are identified, the auditor should review:

the 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 of the audited entity's management that bypassed internal controls.

39. When analyzing the detected errors, the auditor can determine that many of them have common characteristics (for example, type of transaction, location of the transaction, production area, period). In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all elements 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 an error is due to a single event that does not occur only in specified cases, and therefore is not representative of similar errors in the population (an anomalous error). In order to recognize an error as anomalous, the auditor must be reasonably confident 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 to provide 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 computer failure that occurs only once over a period of time. In this case, the auditor evaluates the consequences of the specified failure (for example, by examining 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 applying the wrong formula when calculating all the values ​​of the cost of inventories in any particular division of the audited entity. In order to recognize an error as abnormal, 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 (propagate) errors identified in the sample population, estimating their full possible magnitude in the entire population, and should analyze the impact of the predicted (extrapolated) error on the objectives of the specific test and on other areas of the audit . The auditor estimates the total error in the population in order to obtain a generalized representation of the range of errors and compare it with the acceptable error.

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

42. When an error is found to be anomalous, it can be eliminated by extrapolating the errors found in the sample population to the entire population. The consequences of any such error, if not corrected, must still be considered in addition to assessing the full magnitude of errors that are not anomalous. If turnover in an accounting account or a group of similar transactions were divided into strata, then extrapolation of errors is carried out separately for each stratum. The set of typical, predicted and anomalous errors for each stratum is considered from the point of view of their impact on the reliability of the balance of an accounting account or the entire group of similar transactions.

43. Tests of internal controls do not require explicit extrapolation of errors because the proportion of errors in the sample population is also the predicted proportion of errors in the population as a whole.

Evaluation of the results of testing elements in the selected population

44. The auditor should evaluate the results of testing the elements in the sample population to determine whether the preliminary estimate of the relevant characteristic of the population has been confirmed or whether the estimate should be revised.

When testing internal controls, an unexpectedly high error rate in the sample population may increase the assessed level of internal control risk unless additional audit evidence is obtained to support the initial assessment.

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

45. If the aggregate amount of typical, expected, and abnormal errors is less than, but close to, the acceptable error, the auditor evaluates the strength of the sample test results in relation to other audit procedures and may consider obtaining additional audit evidence appropriate. The total value of typical, predicted and anomalous errors is the auditor's best estimate of the error for all elements of the population.

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

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

contact 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 audit of the selected population on the conclusions contained in the auditor's report.

Appendix No. 1. Examples of factors influencing the volume of the selected population for testing internal controls

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

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

1. The extent to which the auditor intends to rely on the accounting and internal control system

The more assurance the auditor expects to obtain from the accounting and internal control system, the lower his assessment of internal control risk and the larger the sample size should be. For example, a preliminary assessment of internal control risk as low indicates that the auditor expects significant reliance on the effective operation of specific internal controls. In this situation, the auditor should obtain more audit evidence to support that assessment than would be necessary if internal control system risk were 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 that the auditor is willing to accept as 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 detect in the population

The higher the degree of deviation expected by the auditor, the larger the sample size must be so that the auditor can adequately estimate the actual degree of deviation. The following factors are relevant in terms of analyzing the expected degree of deviation:

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

changes in personnel or changes in accounting and internal control systems;

results of other audit procedures.

A high expected degree of error usually does not guarantee, or little or no guarantee, that internal control risk will be reduced. In such circumstances, testing of internal controls is not typically performed.

The more confident the auditor must be that the results of the sample population are truly representative of the actual error rate in the population, the larger the sample size should be.

5. Number of elements of the population

When the population is large, its actual size has only a minor effect on the size of the sample. When the population is small, audit sampling is often not as effective as alternative methods of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.

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

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

Factors influencing the size of the substantive population selected must be considered together.

1. The auditor's assessment of inherent risk

The higher the auditor's assessment of inherent risk, the larger the sample population should be. A higher inherent risk suggests that a lower level of detection risk is necessary to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level. A lower risk of non-detection can be achieved by increasing the size of the sample population.

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

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

3. The use of other substantive audit procedures aimed at confirming the same premise for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements

The more the auditor relies on other substantive procedures (detailed tests of business transactions and turnover in accounting accounts or analytical procedures) in order to reduce to an acceptably low level the risk of not detecting misstatements in relation to a particular account balance or a particular group of similar transactions, the more The less confidence the auditor will require from a sample test and, therefore, the smaller the size of the sample population may be.

4. Required degree of auditor confidence

The more confident the auditor must be that the results of testing the elements of the selected population are truly indicative of the actual value of the error made in the population, the larger the size of the selected population should be.

5. The value of the general error that the auditor is willing to accept as acceptable

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

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

The larger the magnitude of error that the auditor expects to detect in the population, the larger the size of the sample must be to provide 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 elements is carried out;

results of testing of internal controls;

the results of audit procedures performed in previous periods;

results of other substantive testing procedures.

7. Stratification of the population

When elements of a population vary widely in value, it is useful to group elements that are similar in value into separate strata. When the population is properly stratified, the total size of the 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 sampling method if one sample were selected for the entire population.

8. Number of elements of the population

With a large population, its actual size has only a minor effect on the size of the sample. When the population is small, audit sampling is often not as effective as alternative methods of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.

When sampling by monetary elements is used, an increase in the value of the population results in an increase in the size of the sample unless it is offset by a corresponding increase in the level of materiality.

Appendix No. 3. Characteristics of population selection methods

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

1. Random selection

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

2. Systematic selection

For systematic sampling, the number of elements in the population is divided by the size of the sampled population to provide a sampling interval (for example, equal to 50), and after determining the starting point within the first 50 elements, then every 50th element in the sample is selected.

The population selected is more random in nature 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 a population should not be structured in such a way that the sampling intervals correspond to any particular feature of the population structure.

3. Unsystematic selection

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

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

Random sampling is not used when using statistical sampling.

4. Selection of elements for block testing

There is a practice of selecting elements for verification in blocks, that is, selecting adjacent elements of the general population (for example, primary documents of a section of accounting relating to one specific month).

Block selection is not a primary method for selecting a population and cannot usually be used when selecting items to review in an audit because most populations are structured in such a way that successive items can be expected to have similar characteristics that are different from those of other members of the population. .

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

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

1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing, 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 obliged to comply.

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 enhance confidence in the financial statements, the user should not accept the opinion either as an expression of confidence in the entity's going concern in the future, or as evidence of the effective conduct of the entity's management.

3. When performing 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, during the planning and conduct of the audit, must exercise professional skepticism and understand that circumstances may exist that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.

The exercise of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically evaluates the strength of the audit evidence obtained and carefully examines audit evidence that contradicts any documents or statements of management or calls into question the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit to, among other things, avoid overlooking suspicious circumstances, making unwarranted generalizations in drawing conclusions, or using erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures or 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 completely honest. Oral and written statements by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to form reasonable conclusions on which to base the audit opinion.

5. The term “audit scope” refers to the audit procedures considered necessary to achieve the audit objective in the circumstances. The procedures necessary to conduct an audit must be determined by the auditor taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities, internal rules (standards) of auditing activities 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 regulations and, if necessary, the terms of the audit engagement and the requirements for preparing the report.

6. The audit is intended to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements taken as a whole do not contain material misstatements. The concept of reasonable assurance is a general approach related to the process of obtaining 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 significant misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements occur due to the following reasons:

The preponderance of audit evidence merely provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion and is not exhaustive.

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

Drawing conclusions based on audit evidence, for example, when determining the validity of estimates obtained by the management of the audited entity during the preparation of financial (accounting) statements.

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

DECREE OF THE RF GOVERNMENT OF 09.23.2002 N 696 (as amended on 10.07.2004) ON APPROVAL OF 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 Resolutions 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 Activities”, the Government of the Russian Federation decides:
Approve the attached federal rules (standards) for auditing activities.
Chairman of the Government
Russian Federation
M. KASYANOV

Approved
Government Decree
Russian Federation
dated September 23, 2002 N 696
FEDERAL RULES (STANDARDS)
AUDITING ACTIVITIES
(as amended by Resolutions 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 AUDIT
FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) REPORTING

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing, 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 obliged 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 enhance confidence in the financial statements, the user should not accept the opinion either as an expression of confidence in the entity's going concern in the future, or as evidence of the effective conduct of the entity's management.
General audit principles
3. When performing 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 behavior.
4. The auditor, during the planning and conduct of the audit, must exercise professional skepticism and understand that circumstances may exist that entail a material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.
The exercise of professional skepticism means that the auditor critically evaluates the strength of the audit evidence obtained and carefully examines audit evidence that contradicts any documents or statements of management or calls into question the reliability of such documents or statements. Professional skepticism should be exercised during the audit to, among other things, avoid overlooking suspicious circumstances, making unwarranted generalizations in drawing conclusions, or using erroneous assumptions in determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures or 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 completely honest. Oral and written statements by management are not a substitute for the auditor's need to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to form reasonable conclusions on which to base the audit opinion.
Scope of audit
5. The term “audit scope” refers to the audit procedures considered necessary to achieve the audit objective in the circumstances. The procedures necessary to conduct an audit must be determined by the auditor taking into account the federal rules (standards) of auditing activities, internal rules (standards) of auditing activities 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 regulations and, if necessary, the terms of the audit engagement and the requirements for preparing the report.
Reasonable Confidence
6. The audit is intended to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements taken as a whole do not contain material misstatements. The concept of reasonable assurance is a general approach related to the process of obtaining 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 significant misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements occur due to the following reasons:
During the audit, sampling methods and testing are used;
any accounting and internal control systems are imperfect (for example, they cannot guarantee the absence of collusion);
The preponderance of audit evidence merely provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion and is not exhaustive.
8. An additional factor limiting the reliability of the audit is that the work performed by the auditor to form his opinion is based on his professional judgment, in particular with respect to:
collecting audit evidence, including when determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures;
preparing conclusions drawn on the basis of audit evidence, for example, when determining the validity of estimates obtained by the management of the audited entity during the preparation of financial (accounting) statements.
9. In addition, there are other limitations that may affect the strength of the evidence used to draw conclusions about certain assertions in the financial statements (for example, in relation to transactions between affiliates). For such cases, some auditing rules (standards) define special procedures that, due to 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 conditions;
a sign indicating the presence of any material misstatement of the financial (accounting) statements.
Responsibility for financial
(accounting) statements
10. While the auditor is responsible for formulating and expressing an opinion on the reliability of the financial (accounting) statements, the management of the audited entity is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the financial (accounting) statements. An audit of financial (accounting) statements does not relieve the management of the audited entity from such responsibility.

RULE (STANDARD) N 2.
DOCUMENTING THE AUDIT

Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, 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 information that is important from the point of view of providing evidence confirming the audit opinion, as well as evidence that the audit was conducted in accordance with federal auditing rules (standards) .
3. The term “documentation” means working documents and materials prepared by and for the auditor or received and stored by the auditor in connection with the audit. Working documents can be presented in the form of data recorded on paper, photographic film, electronically or in another form.
4. Working documents are used:
when planning and conducting an audit;
when carrying out ongoing monitoring and verification of the work performed by the auditor;
to record audit evidence obtained to support the auditor's opinion.
Form and content of working documents
5. The auditor should prepare working papers in a form sufficiently complete and detailed to provide a general understanding of the audit.
6. The auditor must reflect in the working papers information on the planning of the audit work, the nature, time frame and scope of the audit procedures performed, their results, as well as the conclusions drawn on the basis of the audit evidence obtained. The working papers should contain the auditor's rationale for all important matters on which professional judgment is required, together with the auditor's conclusions thereon. In cases where the auditor has considered complex issues of principle or has 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 the conclusions were formulated and the necessary reasoning.
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 every document or issue examined by the auditor during the audit is not necessary. However, the scope of the audit documentation should be such that, if it becomes necessary to transfer the work to another auditor who does not have experience in this engagement, the new auditor could, based solely on this documentation (without resorting to additional conversations or correspondence with the previous auditor, auditor) to understand the work done and the validity of the decisions and conclusions of the previous auditor.
8. The form and content of working documents are determined by such factors as:
the nature of the audit engagement;
requirements for the auditor's report;
the nature and complexity of the audited entity's activities;
the nature and condition of the audited entity's accounting and internal control systems;
the need to give instructions to the auditor’s employees, exercise ongoing control over them and check the work performed by them;
specific methods and techniques used in the audit process.
9. Working papers should be compiled and organized in such a way as to meet the circumstances of each specific audit and the needs of the auditor during its conduct. In order to increase the efficiency of preparation and verification of working documents, it is recommended that the audit organization develop standard forms of documentation (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 for reliable control over the results of the work they perform.
10. To increase the efficiency of the audit, it is allowed to use during the audit graphics, analytical and other documentation prepared by the audited entity. In these cases, the auditor is required to ensure that such materials are prepared appropriately.
11. Working documents usually contain:
information regarding the legal form and organizational structure of the audited entity;
excerpts 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 to them;
evidence of the auditor's understanding of accounting and internal control systems;
evidence supporting the assessment of inherent risk, level of control risk and any adjustments to those assessments;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
evidence confirming the fact of the auditor’s analysis of the audited entity’s internal audit work and the auditor’s conclusions;
analysis of financial and economic transactions and account balances;
analysis of the most important economic indicators and trends in their changes;
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, indicating the time they were performed;
detailed information on the procedures applied in relation 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 managers of the audited entity or discussed with them, including the terms of the audit agreement or identified significant deficiencies in the internal control system;
written statements received from the audited entity;
the auditor's conclusions on significant audit matters, including errors and unusual circumstances identified by the auditor during the performance of the audit procedures and information about the actions taken by the auditor in connection therewith;
copies of financial (accounting) statements and auditor's report.
12. When audits are conducted over a period of years, some working paper files (folders) may be classified as permanent, updated as new information becomes available, but remain significant, in contrast to current audit files (folders), which contain information primarily relevant to the audit of a particular period.
Confidentiality, ensuring the safety of workers
documents and ownership of them
13. The auditor must establish appropriate procedures to ensure confidentiality, security of working documents, and for their storage for a sufficient period of time, based on the nature 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 portions of documents or extracts 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 dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for planning an audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as audit), applies primarily to audits that the auditor has been conducting for more than a year in in relation to the audited entity. To conduct an audit during the first year, the auditor is required to expand the planning process to include matters beyond those specified in this standard.
2. The audit organization and the 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 developing an overall strategy and a detailed approach to the expected nature, timing and scope of audit procedures.
Work planning
4. The auditor's planning of his work ensures that important areas of the audit receive the necessary attention, that potential problems are identified, and that the work is completed cost-effectively, efficiently, and in a timely manner. Planning allows you to effectively distribute work between members of the team of specialists participating in the audit, as well as coordinate such work.
5. The time spent on work planning depends on the scale of the audited entity’s activities, the complexity of the audit, the auditor’s experience working with this entity, as well as knowledge of the specifics 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 to improve the efficiency of the audit and coordinate audit procedures with the work of the audited entity’s personnel. In this case, the auditor is responsible for the correct and complete development of the overall plan and audit program.
General audit plan
8. The auditor must draw up and document a general audit plan, describing the expected scope and procedure for conducting the audit. The overall audit plan should be sufficiently detailed 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 scale and specifics of the audited entity’s activities, the complexity of the audit and the specific techniques used by the auditor.
9. When developing the overall audit plan, the auditor should take into account:
a) the activities of the audited entity, including:
general economic factors and industry conditions affecting the activities of the audited entity;
characteristics 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:
accounting policies adopted by the audited entity and changes thereto;
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 tests of controls and substantive procedures during the audit;
c) risk and materiality, including:
expected assessments of inherent and control risk, identifying the most important areas for audit;
establishing audit materiality levels;
the possibility (including based on historical audits) of material misstatements or fraud;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 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, time frame and scope of procedures, including:
the relative importance of 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 influence on external audit procedures;
e) coordination and direction of work, ongoing monitoring and verification of work performed, including:
involvement of other audit organizations in the inspection of branches, divisions, subsidiaries of the audited entity;
attracting experts;
the number of territorially separate divisions of one audited entity and their spatial distance from each other;
the number and qualifications of specialists required to work with this audited entity;
f) other aspects, including:
the possibility that the entity's going concern assumption may be called into question;
circumstances requiring special attention, for example, the existence of affiliates;
features of the contract for the provision of audit services and legal requirements;
the length of service of the auditor’s employees and their participation in the provision of related services to the audited entity;
the form and timing of preparation and submission to the audited entity of opinions and other reports in accordance with the law, rules (standards) of auditing activities and the conditions of a specific audit assignment.
Audit program
10. The auditor must establish and document an audit program that defines the nature, timing and scope of planned audit procedures necessary to implement the overall audit plan. An audit program is a set of instructions for the auditor performing the audit and a means of monitoring and verifying that the work is being carried out properly. The audit program may also include verifiable prerequisites for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements for each of the audit areas and the time planned for the various audit areas or procedures.
11. In preparing the audit program, the auditor is required to take into account his assessment of inherent and control risk, as well as the required level of assurance to be provided in substantive procedures, the timing of tests of controls and substantive procedures, and coordination any assistance expected to be received from the audited entity, as well as the involvement of other auditors or experts. In the process of developing the audit program, the issues specified in paragraph 9 of this rule (standard) should be taken into account.
Changes to the overall audit plan and program
12. The overall audit plan and audit program should be refined and revised as necessary during the audit. The auditor plans his work continuously throughout the duration of the audit engagement in connection with changing circumstances or unexpected results obtained during the performance of audit procedures. The reasons for significant changes to the overall audit plan and program should be documented.

RULE (STANDARD) N 4.
MATERIALITY IN AUDIT

Introduction
1. This federal auditing rule (standard), developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements regarding the concept of materiality and its relationship with audit risk.
2. The audit organization and the individual auditor (hereinafter referred to as the auditor) during the audit process 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 made on the basis of financial (accounting) statements. Materiality depends on the size of the financial (accounting) reporting indicator and/or error, assessed in the event of their absence or distortion.
Materiality
4. The auditor evaluates what is material using his professional judgment.
When developing the audit plan, the auditor establishes an acceptable level of materiality in order to identify material (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 of the accounting policy, when there is a likelihood that the user of the financial (accounting) statements will be misled by such a description;
failure to disclose information about a violation of regulatory requirements when there is a likelihood that the subsequent application of sanctions could have a significant impact on the audited entity's results of operations.
5. The auditor needs to consider the possibility of misstatements in relation to relatively small amounts, which in the aggregate may have a significant impact on the financial (accounting) statements. For example, an error in a month-end procedure may indicate a possible material misstatement that would arise if the error were repeated each month.
6. The auditor considers materiality both at the level of 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. Materiality may be influenced by 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 aspect of the financial (accounting) statements being considered, different levels of materiality are possible.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
7. The auditor should consider materiality when:
determining the nature, timing and scope of audit procedures;
assessing the consequences 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 related to individual accounting accounts and groups of similar transactions helps the auditor to decide such issues as, for example, what financial statements to audit, as well as the use of sampling 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 of 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 scope 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 increases. The auditor compensates for this either by reducing the previously assessed level of control risk where possible and maintaining the reduced level by performing enhanced or additional tests of controls, or by reducing the risk of undetected misstatements by changing the nature, timing and extent of planned substantive procedures.
Materiality and audit risk in assessment
audit evidence
10. The assessment of materiality and audit risk at the initial planning stage may differ from such an assessment after summing up the audit procedures. This may be caused by a change in circumstances or a change in the auditor's awareness of the audit results. For example, if the audit is planned before the end of the reporting period, the auditor can only forecast the results of business activities and the financial position of the audited entity. If actual results of operations and financial position differ materially from those projected, the assessment of materiality and audit risk may change. In addition, the auditor, when planning his work, may deliberately set the acceptable level of materiality at a level lower than that intended to be used to evaluate the audit results. This may be done to reduce the likelihood of misstatements not being detected and also 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 assessing the reliability of financial (accounting) statements, the auditor should determine whether the totality of uncorrected misstatements identified during the audit is material.
12. The totality of uncorrected misstatements includes:
specific misstatements identified by the auditor, including the results of uncorrected misstatements identified during the previous audit;
the auditor's best estimate of other misstatements that cannot be specifically identified (that is, predictable errors).
13. If the auditor concludes that misstatements may be material, he needs to reduce audit risk by performing additional audit procedures or require management of the audited entity to make amendments to the financial (accounting) statements. Management has the right to amend the financial (accounting) statements taking into account identified misstatements.
14. If the management of the audited entity refuses to amend the financial (accounting) statements, and the results of 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 auditing activities "Audit's report on financial (accounting) statements."
15. If the aggregate of undetected misstatements identified by the auditor approaches the materiality level, the auditor needs to determine whether it is probable that the undetected misstatements, when considered together with the aggregate of detected but uncorrected misstatements, may exceed the materiality level determined by the auditor. Consequently, as the aggregate uncorrected misstatements approach the materiality level, the auditor considers mitigating the risk by performing additional audit procedures or requiring management to amend the financial statements to reflect the identified misstatements.

RULE (STANDARD) N 5.
AUDIT EVIDENCE

Introduction
1. This federal auditing rule (standard), developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the quantity and quality of evidence that must be obtained in an audit of financial (accounting) statements, as well as for the 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 dated October 7, 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, primary documents and accounting records that are the basis of financial (accounting) statements, as well as written explanations from authorized employees of the audited entity and information obtained from various sources (from third parties).
5. Tests of internal controls mean activities performed to obtain audit evidence regarding the proper design and effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
6. Substantive testing procedures are carried out to obtain audit evidence of material misstatements in the financial (accounting) statements. These verification procedures are carried out in the following forms:
detailed tests assessing the correctness of recording transactions and balances in accounting accounts;
analytical procedures.
Sufficient appropriate audit evidence
7. The concepts of sufficiency and appropriateness are interrelated and apply to audit evidence obtained from tests of internal controls and substantive audit procedures. Sufficiency is a quantitative measure of audit evidence. Proper character is the qualitative side of audit evidence, which determines its consistency with a specific premise for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements and its reliability. Typically, the auditor considers it necessary to rely on audit evidence that only provides evidence in support of a particular conclusion, rather than being 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 dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
8. When forming an audit opinion, the auditor usually does not examine all of the business transactions of the audited entity, since conclusions regarding the correctness of the reflection of the balance of funds in the accounts, a group of similar business transactions, or internal controls may be based on judgments or procedures carried out in a selective manner.
9. The following factors influence the auditor's judgment about what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence:
audit assessment of the nature and magnitude of audit risk both at the level of financial (accounting) statements and at the level of balances in accounting accounts or similar business transactions;
the nature of accounting and internal control systems, as well as the risk assessment of internal controls;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
the materiality of the audited item in the financial (accounting) statements;
experience gained during previous audits;
the results of audit procedures, including possible detections of fraud or error;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 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 the assessment of the level of risk of internal controls.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
11. The objects of assessment of accounting and internal control systems, regarding which the auditor collects audit evidence, include:
organization - arrangement of accounting and internal control systems that ensure prevention and (or) detection, as well as correction of material misstatements;
functioning - the effectiveness of the accounting and internal control systems over the relevant period of time.
12. When obtaining audit evidence using substantive audit procedures, the auditor should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of that evidence along with evidence obtained from tests of internal controls to confirm the assertions in the preparation of the financial statements.

13. Prerequisites for the preparation of financial (accounting) statements - statements made by the management of the audited entity in explicit or implicit form, reflected in the financial (accounting) statements. These prerequisites include the following elements:
existence - the existence as of a certain date of an asset or liability reflected in the financial (accounting) statements;
rights and obligations - ownership by 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 activities of the audited entity that took place during the relevant period;
completeness - the absence of assets, liabilities, business transactions or events not reflected in the accounting records, or undisclosed accounting items;
valuation - reflection in the financial (accounting) statements of the appropriate book 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 appropriate 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 is generally collected by taking into account each aspect of the preparation of the financial (accounting) statements. Audit evidence regarding one assertion, such as the existence of inventory, cannot compensate for the lack of audit evidence regarding another assertion, such as a valuation. The nature, timing and extent of verification procedures essentially depend on the premises being verified. During tests, the auditor may obtain evidence relating to more than one assertion, for example, when testing the collection of a receivable, he may obtain audit evidence regarding both its existence and its value (valuation).
15. The reliability of audit evidence depends on its source (internal or external) and the form in which it is presented (visual, documentary or oral). When assessing the reliability of audit evidence, depending on the specific situation, we 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 audited entity;
Audit evidence in the form of documents and written statements is more reliable than statements presented orally.
16. Audit evidence is more convincing if it is obtained from different sources, has different content and does not contradict each other. In such cases, the auditor may be able to provide a higher degree of assurance than would be obtained by considering the audit evidence in isolation. Conversely, if audit evidence obtained from one source is inconsistent with that obtained from another, the auditor must determine what additional procedures need to be performed to determine the reasons for the 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 expense 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 an opinion qualified 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 arithmetic calculations of the audited entity) and analytical procedures. The duration of these procedures depends, in particular, on the period allotted for obtaining audit evidence.
20. An inspection is an examination of records, documents or physical assets. During the inspection of records and documents, the auditor obtains audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability depending on its nature and source, as well as the effectiveness of internal controls over the processing of it.
Documentary audit evidence of varying degrees of reliability includes:
documentary audit evidence created 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 and held by the auditee (internal information).
An inspection of an entity's tangible assets provides reliable audit evidence regarding its existence, but not necessarily regarding its ownership or valuation.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
21. Observation is the auditor's monitoring of a process or procedure performed by others (for example, the auditor observing inventory counts performed by employees of the entity being audited, or monitoring the performance of internal control procedures for which there is no documentary evidence available for audit).
22. An inquiry is a search for information from knowledgeable persons within or outside the entity being audited. A request on the form can be either a formal written request addressed to third parties or an informal oral question addressed to employees of the audited entity. Answers to inquiries (questions) may provide the auditor with information that he did not previously have or that supports audit evidence.
23. A confirmation is a response to a request for information contained in accounting records (for example, the auditor typically requests confirmation of accounts receivable directly from the debtors).
24. Recalculation is a check of the accuracy of arithmetic calculations in primary documents and accounting records or the auditor performing independent calculations.
25. Analytical procedures represent an analysis and assessment of the information received by the auditor, a 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 the accounting records, and identify the causes of such errors and distortions.

RULE (STANDARD) N 6.
AUDIT REPORT
ON FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) REPORTING
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
Introduction
1. This federal rule (standard) of auditing activities, developed taking into account international auditing standards, establishes uniform requirements for the form and content of the audit report, which is drawn up based on the results of the audit of financial (accounting) statements (hereinafter referred to as the audit). Most of these requirements can be used to prepare audit opinions on accounting information that is not financial statements.
2. The audit 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 compliance of the procedure for maintaining accounting records with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 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 activities, financial and property status of the 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 permissible deviations by determining, for the purposes of the audit, the materiality of accounting indicators and financial (accounting) statements in accordance with the federal auditing rule (standard) “Materiality in an audit” .
Essential Elements of the Auditor's Report
4. The auditor's report includes:
a) name;
b) addressee;
c) the following information about the auditor:
organizational and legal form and name, for an individual auditor - last name, first name, patronymic and an indication of his activities without forming a legal entity;
location;
number and date of the state registration certificate;
number, date of granting the license to carry out audit 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:
organizational and legal form and name;
location;
number and date of the state registration certificate;
paragraph excluded. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 7, 2004 N 532;
e) introductory part;
f) part describing the scope of the audit;
g) part containing the auditor’s opinion;
h) date of the auditor's report;
i) signature of the auditor.
Consistency in the form and content of the auditor's report should be maintained to facilitate the user's understanding of it and to help detect unusual circumstances should they arise.
5. The auditor's report must have the title "Audit's report on financial (accounting) statements" in order to distinguish the auditor's report from opinions drawn up by other persons, for example, officials of the audited entity, the board of directors.
6. The audit report must be addressed to the person provided for 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), board of directors, etc.
7. The audit 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 must include a statement that responsibility for maintaining accounting records, preparing and presenting financial (accounting) statements rests with the audited entity, and a statement that the auditor’s responsibility is only to express, based on the audit, 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 conducted an audit of 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" consist of:
balance sheet;
profit and loss statement;
appendices to the balance sheet and profit and loss account;
explanatory note.
Responsibility for the preparation and presentation of these financial (accounting) statements lies with the executive body of the YYY organization. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the reliability in all material respects of these statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation on the basis of the audit performed."
10. The audit report must 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, operating in professional audit associations of which the auditor is a member, or in in accordance with other documents. Audit scope refers to the auditor's ability to perform audit procedures considered necessary in the circumstances based on an acceptable level of materiality. This is necessary to provide the user with confidence that the audit was carried out 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 to provide reasonable assurance that the financial (accounting) statements do not contain material misstatements.
12. The audit report must indicate that the audit was conducted on a sample basis and included:
study, based on testing, of evidence confirming numerical indicators and disclosure in financial (accounting) statements of information about 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 assessment indicators obtained by the management of the audited entity in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements;
assessment of the presentation of financial (accounting) statements.
(Clause 12 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 07.10.2004 N 532)
13. The audit report must contain a statement by the auditor 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 dated October 7, 2004 N 532)


The audit was planned and performed to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The audit was conducted on a sample basis and included a testing-based examination of evidence confirming the figures in the financial (accounting) statements and the disclosure of information about financial and economic activities therein, assessment of compliance with the accounting principles and rules applied in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements. reporting, consideration of the main assessment 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 audit provided provides sufficient grounds to express 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” reflect 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 audited entity.
17. The basic 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 regarding other documents and transactions related to the financial and economic activities of the audited entity, 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" reflect reliably 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. inclusive in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the preparation of financial (accounting) statements (and/or indicate documents defining the requirements for the procedure for preparing financial (accounting) statements)."
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
20. The auditor should date the auditor's report to the date on which the audit was completed, since this circumstance provides the user with reason to believe that the auditor took into account the impact that events and transactions known to the auditor that arose before that date had on the financial (accounting) statements and the auditor's report .
(Clause 20 as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 07.10.2004 N 532)
21. Because the auditor is required to issue an audit report on the financial statements prepared and presented by management of the entity being audited, the auditor should not indicate in the report a date prior to the date on which the financial statements were signed or approved by management of the entity being audited.
22. The audit report must be signed by the head of the auditor or the person authorized by the head and the person who conducted the audit (the person who led the audit), indicating the number and validity period 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 only be signed by this auditor.
23. Attached to the auditor's report are financial (accounting) statements in respect of which an opinion is expressed and which are 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 favorable opinion should be expressed when the auditor comes to the conclusion that the financial (accounting) statements give a fair view of the financial position and results of financial and economic activities of the audited entity in accordance with established principles and methods of accounting and preparation financial (accounting) reporting in the Russian Federation.
25. An example of an audit report expressing an unconditionally positive opinion:
"AUDIT REPORT ON 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 (specify the name of the accredited professional audit association).
Audited entity
Name: open joint stock company "YYY".
Location: zip code, city, street, house number, etc.
State registration: number and date of registration certificate.
The paragraph has been deleted. - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532.
We audited the attached financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" for the period from January 1 to December 31, 20(XX) inclusive. Financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" consist of:
balance sheet;
profit and loss statement;
explanatory note.

We conducted an audit in accordance with:
Federal Law “On Auditing Activities”;
federal rules (standards) of auditing activities;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
internal rules (standards) of auditing activities (specify the accredited professional association);
rules (standards) of the auditor's audit activities;
regulatory acts of the body that regulates the activities of the audited entity.
The audit was planned and performed to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The audit was conducted on a sample basis and included a testing-based examination of evidence confirming the figures in the financial (accounting) statements and the disclosure of information about financial and economic activities therein, assessment of compliance with the accounting principles and rules applied in the preparation of financial (accounting) statements. reporting, consideration of the main assessment 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 audit provided provides sufficient grounds to express 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 dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
In our opinion, the financial (accounting) statements of the organization "YYY" reflect reliably 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) . inclusively in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the preparation of financial (accounting) statements (and/or indicate documents defining the requirements for the procedure for preparing financial (accounting) statements).
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
"XX" month 20 (XX)
The head (or other authorized person) of the audit organization or an individual auditor (full name, signature, position).
Head of the audit (full name, signature, number, type of qualification certificate and its validity period).
Auditor's seal."
Modified auditor's report
26. The auditor’s report is considered modified if:
factors that do not influence the auditor's opinion, but are described in the auditor's report in order to attract the attention of users to any situation that has arisen in the audited entity and disclosed in the financial (accounting) statements;
Factors affecting the auditor's opinion that could lead to a qualified opinion, disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion.
27. In certain circumstances, the auditor's report may be modified by including a portion that draws attention to a matter affecting the financial statements that is discussed in the notes to the financial statements.
28. The auditor, if necessary, should modify the auditor's report by including a part indicating an aspect related to compliance with the principle of going concern of the audited entity.
29. The auditor should also consider modifying the auditor's report to include a portion that identifies a significant uncertainty (other than going concern) that depends on future events to resolve and that could affect the financial statements.
30. The non-opinion portion is usually included after the opinion portion and indicates that the 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 conducted an audit of 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" consist of:
balance sheet;
profit and loss statement;
appendices to the balance sheet and profit and loss account;
explanatory note.
Responsibility for the preparation and presentation of these financial (accounting) statements lies with the executive body of the YYY organization. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the reliability in all material respects of these statements and the compliance of the accounting procedure with the legislation of the Russian Federation based on the audit performed.
We conducted an audit in accordance with:
Federal Law “On Auditing Activities”;
federal rules (standards) of auditing activities;
(as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 7, 2004 N 532)
internal rules (standards) of auditing activities (specify the accredited professional association);
rules (standards) of the auditor's audit activities;
regulatory acts of the body that regulates the activities of the audited entity.
The audit was planned and performed to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The audit was conducted on a sample basis and included an examination, through testing, of evidence supporting the numerical