Related services:

1. Review of historical financial statements.

An engagement to review historical financial statements is a limited assurance engagement in accordance with the International Framework for Assurance Engagements. (MSZO 2400)

By reviewing the financial statements, the practitioner forms a conclusion aimed at increasing the level of user confidence in the preparation of the financial statements of the business entity in accordance with the applicable conceptual framework of financial reporting.

The auditor’s report includes a description of the nature of the review engagement as context to enable users of the report to understand the conclusion.

A review of financial statements can be performed for a wide range of economic entities of different types, sizes or the level of complexity of their financial statements

The review can be performed under different circumstances. For example, a review may be required for entities that are not subject to statutory or regulatory requirements for a mandatory audit. The review may be ordered voluntarily, for example in connection with the preparation of financial statements as a result of arrangements under the terms of a separate contract or to support financing arrangements.

2. Review of interim financial information.

Interim financial information is financial information that is compiled and presented in accordance with the applicable conceptual framework of financial reporting and contains a full or abbreviated set of financial statements for a period less than the financial year of an entity (IAS 2410).

The purpose of an engagement to review interim financial information is to enable the auditor to conclude, based on the review, whether any matter has come to his attention that causes him to believe that the interim financial information is not prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. The auditor makes inquiries and performs analytical and other review procedures in order to reduce to a moderate level the risk of issuing an inappropriate opinion if the interim financial information is materially misstated.

The purpose of an engagement to review interim financial information is significantly different from the purpose of an audit performed in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA). A review of the interim financial information does not provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the financial information is presented fairly and fairly or fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.

Unlike an audit, a review is not designed to obtain reasonable assurance that the interim financial information is free from material misstatement. The review involves making inquiries primarily of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters and applying analytical and other review procedures. The review may draw the auditor’s attention to important matters affecting the interim financial information, but it does not provide all the evidence that the audit would require.

3. ASSURANCE ENGAGEMENTS THAT ARE NOT AN AUDIT OR REVIEW OF HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION (IAS 3000)

Assurance engagement – an engagement in which the practitioner’s objective is to obtain sufficient and acceptable evidence to provide an opinion designed to increase the degree of confidence of specified users, other than the responsible party, in the subject matter information (that is, the result of measurement or assessment of the subject of verification for compliance with the criteria). Each assurance task is classified according to two parameters:

(1) Reasonable assurance tasks or limited assurance tasks:

1. a. Reasonable assurance engagement – an assurance engagement in which the practitioner

the specialist reduces the risk of the task to an acceptably low level, taking into account the circumstances of the task as a basic condition for forming the practitioner’s conclusion. The practitioner’s opinion is provided in a form that conveys the practitioner’s opinion about the result of the measurement or assessment of the main subject of verification for compliance with certain criteria;

1. b. Limited assurance engagement – an assurance engagement in which the practitioner reduces engagement risk to a level that is acceptable in the circumstances of the engagement, but in cases where this risk is greater than in a reasonable assurance engagement as a basis for providing a conclusion in a form that reflects whether any issue has attracted the practitioner’s attention, based on the procedures performed and the evidence obtained, which gives him reasons to consider the information about the subject of the inspection to be significantly distorted. The nature, timing and scope of procedures performed in a limited assurance engagement are limited compared to a reasonable assurance engagement, but are designed to obtain a level of assurance that is meaningful in the practitioner’s professional judgment. To be meaningful, the level of assurance obtained by the practitioner is likely to increase to a decidedly more significant degree of confidence of the identified users in the information about the subject of the review

(2) Confirmation task or direct study task

1. c. Attestation engagement is an assurance engagement in which a party other than the practicing consultant evaluates or determines the primary subject of the audit based on appropriate criteria. A party that is not a consulting practitioner also often provides definitive information about the subject matter of the audit in a report or statement. However, in some cases, the practitioner may provide information about the subject of the audit in the assurance report. In the confirmation task, the practitioner’s opinion examines whether the information about the subject of the audit contains a material misstatement. The conclusion of a practicing consultant can be formulated in the context of:
2. main subject of inspection and applicable criteria;
3. information about the subject of the inspection and the applicable criteria or

(3) Statement made by the relevant party(ies).

1. d. Direct engagement is an assurance engagement in which the practitioner assesses or determines the principal subject of the audit against the applicable criteria and provides final information about the subject of the audit as a component or appendix to the assurance report. In the direct task, the conclusion of the practicing consultant examines the result of the assessment or determination of the main subject of the inspection given in the report according to the relevant criteria.

4. VERIFICATION OF PROJECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION (MSZNV 3400)

Prospective financial information (prospective financial information) is financial information based on assumptions about events that may occur in the future and about possible actions of a business entity. This information is subjective in nature and its preparation is largely based on judgment. Forward-looking financial information may take the form of a forecast, forward-looking estimate, or a combination thereof, such as a one-year forecast plus a five-year forward estimate. According to the result of the verification, the Auditor’s Report on the verification of forecast financial information is drawn up.

5. TASKS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED PROCEDURES RELATING TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION (MSSP 4400)

The task of performing the agreed procedures may include the auditor’s performance of certain procedures in relation to individual items of financial data (for example, receivables or payables, acquisitions from related parties and sales volumes and profits of a business entity’s segment), financial statements (as separate forms, for example balance sheet, as well as a complete package of financial statements).

The purpose of an agreed-upon procedures engagement is to perform those audit procedures that have been agreed upon by the auditor, the entity, and any relevant third parties, and to report on the actual results.

Since the auditor only provides a report on the actual results of the agreed procedures, no assurance is expressed. Instead, report users evaluate the auditor’s procedures and findings in the report and draw their own conclusions based on the auditor’s work.

The report is provided only to those parties who have given their consent to the procedures, as other parties who are not familiar with the basis of the procedures may misinterpret their results.