Charity materiality and restricted fund misstatements
You are the audit senior on Hope Learning Trust, a UK charity with gross income of £12.4m, expenditure of £12.1m and net assets of £8.2m. Of the net assets, £6.5m is restricted: £7.1m of income is a government grant for after-school programmes, and the grant agreement requires unused grant to be repaid. The finance director proposes overall materiality of £620,000, being 5% of income, and performance materiality at 75% of that figure. The draft surplus is £310,000, and trustees are keen to show the funder a surplus after two years of deficits. During fieldwork you find: £180,000 of grant-funded project costs posted to unrestricted funds; £90,000 of a project manager's salary charged to a restricted programme although timesheets show 40% of her time on fundraising; and £45,000 of donation income with no donor correspondence or bank receipt. The grant funder has not yet received the annual return.
1. Critically evaluate the proposed materiality and performance materiality. Recommend figures you would use and explain the qualitative factors that a purely quantitative benchmark would miss.
Read the worked answer
Benchmark and level. ISA (UK) 320 requires judgement, not a formula. Income of £12.4m is a possible benchmark, but for a charity the users' focus is often total expenditure, restricted fund compliance and the funder's grant return. 5% of income (£620,000) is at the top of, or above, common charity ranges (often 1–2% of income or around 5% of expenditure). Expenditure of £12.1m at 2.5% gives about £303,000. A defensible overall materiality is therefore £250,000–£300,000, not £620,000, because a £620,000 threshold could allow a breach of the £7.1m grant to go unreported.
Performance materiality. 75% is high given the control environment, prior deficits and the restricted-fund errors already found. A lower percentage, say 60%, gives £150,000–£180,000 and provides a buffer for undetected misstatement and aggregation risk.
Qualitative materiality. Even a £30,000 misclassification between restricted and unrestricted funds can be qualitatively material if it causes the charity to report a surplus, affects a repayment due to the funder, or breaches a grant condition. I would set a separate, lower threshold for restricted-fund compliance and document the rationale. The key is to link materiality to users' decisions, not just to the income figure.
2. Analyse the three findings. For each, state the likely misstatement, whether it is material individually or in aggregate, and the effect on the financial statements and the funder return.
Read the worked answer
£180,000 grant costs in unrestricted funds. This is a classification error. Total expenditure and total net assets are unchanged, but restricted expenditure is understated and unrestricted expenditure overstated. The effect on the draft surplus depends on the fund: unrestricted deficit increases by £180,000 and restricted surplus increases by the same amount. It is material to the funder return and to users assessing compliance with the grant, even though total net assets do not move.
£90,000 salary. Timesheets indicate 40% (£36,000) relates to fundraising, which is not restricted activity. The misstatement is £36,000: restricted costs are overstated and unrestricted costs understated. Individually it is below a £250,000 materiality, but it is not trivial because it affects the repayment calculation and the reported surplus.
£45,000 unsupported donations. This is an existence/occurrence issue, not just classification. If the income cannot be substantiated, it may be a known misstatement of £45,000 and may indicate fraud or weak controls. On its own it is below materiality, but aggregated with the classification errors the known misstatements exceed £250,000. Classification errors do not affect total surplus, so I would evaluate fund-level materiality separately. If management does not correct the aggregate, a modified opinion may be needed; at a minimum, report to those charged with governance under ISA (UK) 260.
3. Design the additional audit procedures you would perform before concluding on grant expenditure and donation income, including fraud considerations.
Read the worked answer
Grant expenditure. Obtain the grant agreement and map each restricted programme to its permitted costs. Vouch a sample of grant costs to invoices, payroll records, timesheets and project reports. Recalculate the restricted/unrestricted split and the unspent grant repayment. Review journal entries around the fund allocation for unusual postings. Confirm whether the funder has imposed any matching or reporting deadlines.
Donations. Agree £45,000 to bank statements, donor correspondence, grant letters and subsequent receipts. Send confirmations to significant donors. Review the donations ledger for round-sum or unusual entries and test the journal authorisation.
Fraud and communication. Treat the unsupported donations and the salary allocation as fraud risk indicators under ISA (UK) 240. Discuss with those charged with governance, obtain written representations, and consider whether any matter is of material significance to the Charity Commission. Document the conclusions and the effect on the audit report.