Going Concern, a Post-Year-End Fire, and an Unsupported Depreciation Change
Your firm audits Kalayaan Power Corp. (KPC), a listed entity with a 31 December 2025 year-end. The board approved the financial statements on 20 March 2026 and they are to be issued on 5 April 2026. On 15 February 2026 KPC's lender recalled a ₱2.4 billion loan after KPC breached a debt-service covenant at year-end. KPC holds a signed refinancing commitment, but it is conditional on completing an equity offering by 30 June 2026; the offering has not been launched and no underwriter is committed. Management prepared the statements on a going concern basis and disclosed the recall, the commitment, and the condition, but concluded that no material uncertainty exists. On 10 March 2026 a fire destroyed KPC's second-largest plant; the plant was uninsured and generated 22% of 2025 revenue. In December 2025 KPC extended the estimated useful lives of its turbines from 20 to 30 years, reducing 2025 depreciation by ₱450,000,000. Your engineers support 25 years, and management refuses to adjust. Profit before tax per the draft statements is ₱1.1 billion.
1. Evaluate management's conclusion that no material uncertainty exists. Assuming the disclosures are adequate, what report does the auditor issue and where does the matter appear?
Read the worked answer
The test is whether events and conditions, considered together, cast significant doubt on the entity's ability to continue. The covenant breach at year-end and the lender's subsequent recall - a liability now payable on demand - together with a refinancing that is conditional on an equity offering that has not been launched, no committed underwriter, and a 30 June 2026 deadline, create exactly that doubt. Management's conclusion is not supportable on these facts: the mitigating factor is unexecuted and outside management's control.
If management keeps the going concern basis and the disclosures are adequate (the recall, the commitment, its condition, and the uncertainty), the auditor issues an unmodified opinion with a separate section headed 'Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern', placed immediately after the Basis for Opinion and cross-referring to the note. The section is not a modification and is not a substitute for a key audit matter.
If management refuses to describe the uncertainty as material, the disclosure is inadequate and PAS 570 requires a qualified or adverse opinion, depending on pervasiveness; given the loan is ₱2.4 billion, adverse is the realistic outcome. If the going concern basis itself were inappropriate, the opinion would be adverse regardless of disclosure.
2. How should the 10 March 2026 fire be treated, and what is the auditor's responsibility given that the financial statements have not yet been issued?
Read the worked answer
The fire is a non-adjusting event under PAS 10: the condition - a fire - arose after the reporting date, so no receivable, impairment or provision is recognised at 31 December 2025. It does not tell us anything new about conditions existing at year-end.
It is, however, likely to be material and requires disclosure of the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that an estimate cannot be made. Materiality is assessed against the loss of an uninsured plant generating 22% of revenue.
Because the event falls between the reporting date and the date of the auditor's report, PAS 560 requires the auditor to consider whether the statements need amendment. Two further steps are required: (1) reassess going concern - an uninsured loss of this size, layered on the recalled loan, may deepen the material uncertainty already identified, or push the entity over the edge; and (2) consider whether the statements as drafted are misleading and discuss with those charged with governance.
The auditor's responsibility for events after the date of the report but before issuance is different: there is no obligation to perform procedures, but if the auditor becomes aware of a fact that, had it been known, would have caused a modification, the auditor must discuss it with management and act, including extending the report date and performing procedures on the amended statements.
3. Quantify the effect of the turbine depreciation change, classify the matter, and state the effect on the opinion and on how the report is laid out.
Read the worked answer
A change in estimated useful life is a change in accounting estimate, applied prospectively under PAS 8 - provided it results from new information or a reassessment of the consumption pattern. Supported by the engineers' report, a change would be legitimate. Here it is not supported: 30 years exceeds what the evidence supports, so the residual effect is best viewed as a correction of an unsupported estimate.
Quantification: a reduction of ₱450,000,000 is the difference between a 20-year and a 30-year life, that is, cost × (1/20 − 1/30) = cost/60. So cost = ₱27,000,000,000. Under the supported 25-year life the reduction would be 27,000,000,000 × (1/20 − 1/25) = ₱270,000,000. Profit before tax is therefore overstated by ₱450,000,000 − ₱270,000,000 = ₱180,000,000, or about 16% of reported profit before tax (and 16.4% of the corrected ₱920,000,000). That is material.
It is material but not pervasive: it affects the depreciation line, property, plant and equipment, and profit, not the financial statements as a whole. The auditor issues a qualified ('except for') opinion, describing and quantifying the misstatement in the Basis for Qualified Opinion, and places that basis immediately after the opinion paragraph. The matter is not a key audit matter - key audit matters are reported only in an unmodified opinion - and it is not an emphasis of matter, which is for properly presented matters.