Cutoff Errors, Projected Misstatement, and a Client That Won't Adjust
During the December 31, Year 2 audit of Kestrel Optics, the team set overall materiality at $250,000 (performance materiality $175,000) based on pre-tax income of $2.5 million. Three results are on the summary of uncorrected misstatements. First, three December shipments totaling $180,000 were recorded as revenue although the terms were FOB destination and the goods arrived in January; these invoices were not in the sample. Second, a sample of 60 invoices drawn from 1,200 December invoices disclosed a net overstatement of $4,800, and the team believes the population is homogeneous. Third, management recorded a $200,000 warranty accrual, but the team's specialist places the point estimate at $260,000. Management declines to adjust the cutoff invoices, arguing the aggregate is "close enough" to materiality.
1. Aggregate the identified misstatements and conclude whether the financial statements are materially misstated. Show the computation and address whether items may be netted.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Classify each item.
- Known (factual) misstatement: $180,000 revenue overstated. Because these invoices were not in the sample, they are not projected; they are added at face value.
- Projected misstatement: $4,800 x (1,200 / 60) = $4,800 x 20 = $96,000.
- Judgmental misstatement: $260,000 - $200,000 = $60,000 warranty accrual understated.
Step 2 - Aggregate. $180,000 + $96,000 + $60,000 = $336,000, or 134% of the $250,000 overall materiality.
Step 3 - Netting. Do not offset the revenue overstatement against the warranty understatement. AU-C 450 permits offsetting only when misstatements are within the same account balance or class of transactions and only in narrow circumstances; revenue/accounts receivable and accrued warranty liability are different accounts and different assertions. The gross aggregation is the correct measure.
Step 4 - Conclusion. The aggregate exceeds materiality, so the statements are materially misstated. Even if the total had fallen slightly below $250,000, the qualitative profile would still support a material conclusion: revenue is overstated relative to a $2.5 million income base, the cutoff errors are one-directional and cluster at year-end (a fraud-risk indicator under AU-C 240), and the misstatement affects a key reported metric.
2. Management refuses to record the $180,000 cutoff adjustment. What must the auditor do, and what is the effect on the opinion?
Read the worked answer
Procedures before concluding.
- Request the adjustment in writing and obtain management's stated rationale; if management refuses, obtain a written representation that it believes the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, individually and in aggregate (AU-C 450.14, AU-C 580).
- Communicate the uncorrected misstatements and their effect to those charged with governance, together with the request that they be corrected.
- Evaluate whether the cutoff errors, individually or with the aggregate, indicate fraud or management bias; deliberate year-end cutoff manipulation raises AU-C 240 considerations, including escalation to governance and a documented assessment of whether withdrawal is appropriate.
- Evaluate the related control deficiency and communicate it in writing to management and governance.
Effect on the opinion. The misstatement is confined to revenue, receivables, and the related cost of sales/equity accounts; it does not render the financial statements as a whole misleading. That is material but not pervasive, so the auditor should express a qualified opinion ("except for") and describe the matter in the basis for qualified opinion paragraph, quantifying the effect.
If additional uncorrected misstatements push the aggregate toward a level that affects the statements as a whole (for example, if revenue is the primary measure users rely on and the overstatement distorts the trend in income), pervasiveness must be reconsidered and an adverse opinion could be required. Document the judgment either way.
3. As an alternative, the controller offers to record a $200,000 "sales reserve" in Year 3 instead of adjusting Year 2. Evaluate that proposal.
Read the worked answer
Not acceptable. A reserve recorded in the following period does not correct an error in the period presented. The Year 2 financial statements would still overstate revenue and receivables by $180,000, and the auditor's opinion covers Year 2, not Year 3.
Three further problems:
- It mischaracterizes the item. The $180,000 is a known error in applying the revenue standard (control did not transfer at FOB destination), not an estimate of future returns. Recording it as a reserve in a later period creates a new misstatement rather than eliminating the old one.
- It conceals management bias. Deferring correction into a period the auditor has not yet reported on is itself evidence about management's attitude toward misstatements, which feeds the AU-C 240 fraud risk assessment and the evaluation of uncorrected misstatements.
- It affects comparability. Year 3 would carry an expense with no corresponding revenue, distorting the trend in both periods.
Correct treatment: record the adjustment in Year 2 (reverse revenue and receivables, restore inventory, adjust cost of sales), or, if management refuses, follow the uncorrected-misstatement and modification procedures. If the error is discovered after the report is issued, apply AU-C 560 subsequent-discovery procedures rather than netting it into the next year.