DOCSLIB.ORG

Materiality in Financial Reporting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Materiality in Financial Reporting MATERIALITY IN FINANCIAL REPORTING An Integrative Perspective This page intentionally left blank MATERIALITY IN FINANCIAL REPORTING An Integrative Perspective BY FRANCESCO BELLANDI United Kingdom À North America À Japan India À Malaysia À China Emerald Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2018 Copyright r 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78743-737-1 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-78743-736-4 (Online) ISBN: 978-1-78743-843-9 (Epub) ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001 To Anna, constant presence and support This page intentionally left blank Contents List of Figures xix About the Author xxv Preface xxvii Part I. Introduction and Background 1 Main Focus of Part I 2 1. Why Does Materiality Matter in Financial Statements? 2 2. Powerful and Dangerous 3 3. The Disclosure Framework 4 4. The Disclosure Initiative 5 5. The Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative 6 6. Objectives of the Book 7 Part II. Conceptual Bases of Materiality 9 Main Focus of Part II 10 1. Materiality in the Conceptual Frameworks 10 1.a. The Objective of Materiality 10 1.b. Level of Interaction in the Conceptual Frameworks 10 1.c. A Pervasive Concept or a Qualitative Characteristic? 11 1.d. Is Materiality a Constraint? 15 1.e. Interaction with Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information 16 1.f. Materiality versus Relevance 16 1.g. Entity Specificity 20 1.h. Materiality versus Reliability and Faithful Representation 22 1.i. Completing the Picture: Materiality versus Completeness 24 1.j. Materiality versus Understandability 25 vii 1.k. Does Prudence or Neutrality Affect Materiality? 27 1.l. The Link to Recognition in the Conceptual Frameworks 28 1.m. Cost/Benefit Constraint versus Materiality 30 1.n. Impracticability versus Materiality 30 1.o. Significance 31 2. Definitions of Materiality 33 2.a. Can a Definition of Materiality Be Given? 33 2.b. Summary of Definitions 39 2.c. US Supreme Court’s Definition 39 2.d. FASB (1985), CON 2 40 2.e. SEC Rules and Regulations 41 2.f. Common Law 43 2.g. IASB Framework 43 2.h. Common Conceptual Framework 43 2.i. The International Financial Reporting Standards 44 2.j. Auditing Standards 45 2.k. COSO Framework 45 2.l. AccountAbility 46 2.m. Integrated Reporting 46 2.n. WRI and WBCSD 46 3. Attributes of Materiality 47 3.a. Subject Matter 47 3.b. What Is an Item? 47 3.c. An Item versus Its Content 48 3.d. Omissions or Misstatements 49 3.e. Material Disclosures of An Item versus Its Required Disclosures 50 3.f. Materiality Test from Users’ Perspective 50 3.g. Materiality Test Contrasted with the Objective of General-Purpose Financial Statements 51 3.h. Materiality Test from the Standpoint of Objective Metrics 52 3.i. Addressees of Test 52 3.j. Reasonable Investor and Reasonable Person 52 3.k. Clusters versus Individuals 53 3.l. Primary versus Intended versus Other Users 53 3.m. Stakeholders versus Users 54 3.n. Assessor 55 3.o. Degree of Likelihood 55 3.p. Understanding Influence versus Influencing 57 3.q. Degree of Magnitude 59 3.r. Context 59 viii Contents 3.s. Degree of Specificity 60 3.t. Time Horizon 60 Solutions and Recommendations 61 Conclusion 67 Part III. Actors and Models of Materiality 69 Main Focus of Part III 70 1. Uses and Effects of Materiality 70 1.a. Is Materiality Exclusively a Legal Concept? 70 1.b. Are Legal and Accounting Definitions of Materiality Incompatible? 71 1.c. Practical Interactions of Legal and Accounting Concepts of Materiality 73 1.d. The Different Nature of an Accounting Concept of Materiality 74 1.e. The Quest for an Accounting Definition of Materiality 75 1.f. Materiality in Audit versus in Financial Statements 76 1.g. Other Uses of Materiality by Auditors 77 1.h. Materiality as a Managerial Concept 79 2. Who Decides about Materiality? 79 2.a. Who Allows Materiality? 79 2.b. Who Uses Materiality? 80 2.c. Who Decides Materiality? 80 2.d. Who Assesses Materiality? 81 3. Models of Materiality 82 3.a. Do We Need a Framework of Materiality? 82 3.b. A Positive versus a Negative Concept 82 3.c. A Discrete versus a Continuous Notion 83 3.d. Different Disclosure Regimes 85 3.e. Simulating User Decision Model 86 3.f. Probability/Magnitude Mapping 86 3.g. Severity of Deviancies 90 3.h. Range of Fluctuation 91 3.i. Opportunity Loss 91 3.j. Statistical Use of Information 91 3.k. Doctrine of Differential Disclosure 92 3.l. Expanded Dimensions of Materiality 95 3.m. The Flexibility Zone 97 3.n. Eyes of Management versus Eyes of Investors 98 3.o. The Ownership Triangle 100 3.p. Active versus Passive Role 101 3.q. The SenderÀReceiver Distortion 102 Contents ix 3.r. U-Materiality 103 3.s. Objective versus Subjective Determination 103 3.t. Materiality as a Planning Tool 104 3.u. Consensus Materiality 104 3.v. Adjustment Method 105 3.w. From Materiality to Materiality Determination Process 106 3.x. Qualitative Factors 106 3.y. Zero Materiality 107 Solutions and Recommendations 107 Conclusion 112 Part IV. Application of Materiality 113 Main Focus of Part IV 114 1. Materiality Applied to Recognition and Measurement 114 1.a. Does Materiality Apply to Recognition and Measurement? 114 1.b. Inapplicability by Analogy 115 1.c. De Minimis 115 1.d. Significant Accounting Policies 115 1.e. Accounting Policies with Immaterial Effects 117 1.f. Scope of a Change in Accounting Policies 117 1.g. Materiality in Disclosing Voluntary Changes in Accounting Policies 117 1.h. Materiality in Disclosing Involuntary Changes in Accounting Policies 118 1.i. The Case of Accounting Errors 119 2. Materiality Applied to Presentation and Disclosure 120 2.a. Does Materiality Apply to Presentation and Disclosure? 120 2.b. An Item versus Information of An Item 122 2.c. Required Disclosure of Immaterial Information 122 2.d. Allowed Disclosure of Immaterial Information 123 2.e. The Disclosure Overload Debate 124 2.f. Obscuring Material Information 125 2.g. Minimum Set of Required Disclosures 126 2.h. Classification 127 2.i. Interaction of Aggregation and Disaggregation of Information 128 2.j. Top-down Model of Disaggregation in the Financial Statements 129 2.k. Bottom-up Model of Aggregation in the Financial Statements 130 x Contents 2.l. Classes of Aggregation 132 2.m. Alternative Model of Aggregation in the Financial Statements 133 2.n. General Models of Disaggregation for Disclosure Purpose 134 2.o. Review Assessment 137 2.p. Quality of Disclosure 138 2.q. Material Items 138 2.r. Disclosure Objectives 139 2.s. Gains and Losses 140 2.t. Effect of Measurement Bases 140 2.u. Third Statement of Financial Position 141 2.v. Rounding 141 2.w. When Required Disclosure Is Not Enough 142 3. Materiality Applied to Management Commentary 143 3.a. Management Commentary versus the Notes 143 3.b. Views of Materiality in Management Commentary 144 3.c. Material Known Trends or Uncertainties in SEC’s MD&A 145 3.d. Material Changes 149 3.e. Critical Accounting Estimates in MD&A 149 3.f. Immaterial Information in MD&A 150 3.g. Segment Analysis 150 3.h. Layered Disclosure 151 4. Does Materiality Apply to Bookkeeping? 151 4.a. Bookkeeping versus Financial Statements: A Separate Perspective 151 4.b. Bookkeeping versus Financial Statements: An Integrated Perspective 152 4.c. The Direct Impact on Financial Statements of Bookkeeping Errors 153 4.d. The Indirect Impact on Financial Statements of Bookkeeping Errors 153 4.e. The Delicate Link to Intentional Immaterial Errors 154 4.f. Immaterial Misstatements versus Bookkeeping Errors 155 4.g. Can Immaterial Bookkeeping Errors Be Left Uncorrected? 155 4.h. Does Materiality Apply to Bookkeeping? 156 4.i. Reasonableness versus Materiality 156 4.j. Legal Implications 157 4.k. Should Accountants Care of Materiality at All? 158 5. Materiality in Auditing 159 5.a. Audit Definition of Materiality 159 Contents xi 5.b. Definition of Material Misstatement 160 5.c. The Risk of Material Misstatements and Assertions 161 5.d. Relationship between Audit Risk and Materiality 162 5.e. Iteration of Materiality and Inherent Risk 165 5.f. Second-Guessing Management’s Determination of Users’ Needs 166 5.g. Timing of Auditor’s Consideration of Materiality 166 5.h. Undetected, Identified, Uncorrected, and Corrected Misstatements 168 5.i. How Materiality Affects Auditors’ Responses to Misstatements 168 5.j. How Materiality Affects Auditors’ Responses to Fraud 169 5.k. How Materiality Affects Auditors’ Responses to Illegal Acts 170 5.l. Communications with the Management, Internal Auditors, and Audit Committee 171 6. Materiality Applied to Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 172 6.a. Internal Control over Financial Reporting versus Audit 172 6.b.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Materiality in Audit Planning
    ence the judgment of a reasonable person. Although the determination of what is materi- USING al to financial statements is necessarily an ac- counting concept, materiality also is a basic consideration in the audit process. An objec- tive of an audit is to search for errors that, MATERIALITY either individually or in the aggregate, would be material to the financial statements. Be- cause Smith will have to decide if he is satis- IN AUDIT fied that the financial statements aren't mate- rially misstated, it is essential that he plan his audit to obtain sufficient evidential matter to PUNNING make that evaluation. This article will describe how Smith, and other auditors, can use a preliminary estimate A practicai way to of materiality in planning an effective—and relate the auditor's efficient—audit. What Is a Preliminary materiality estimate Estimate of Materiality? According to Statement on Auditing Stan- to the design of dards no. 22. Planning and Supervision.^ the auditor considers, among other things, pre- audit procedures. liminary estimates of materiality levels when he plans an audit of financial statements. SAS hy George R. Zuher. Robert K. Elliott, no. 22 doesn't explicitly require an auditor to William R. Kitmey, Jr., and James J. Leisenring quantify, either as a specific or an approxi- mate amount, his preliminary estimate of ma- John Smith. CPA, is the auditor ofAjax. Inc. teriality. However, quantification is the most Recetitly. Smith had listened to another CPA practical way to consider such an estimate in describe how a careful consideration of mate- audit planning. Because financial statement*^ riality during the planning phase improved the are used to assess an entity's current position coordination and efficiency of an audit.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretive Guidance on Statement of Cash Flows (March 2018)
    Life Sciences Accounting and Financial Reporting Update — Interpretive Guidance on Statement of Cash Flows March 2018 Statement of Cash Flows Introduction While the accounting principles underlying the statement of cash flows have been in place for many years, challenges in interpretation and preparation have consistently made the statement of cash flows one of the leading causes of restatements and comments from the SEC staff for life sciences entities. In the Industry Issues section below, we highlight issues commonly encountered by life sciences entities that are associated with the classification of cash flows as operating, investing, or financing. For more information as well as insights into topics not addressed below, see Deloitte’s A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows. Industry Issues Foreign Currency Cash Flows The global nature of life sciences entities often gives rise to transactions that are denominated in a foreign currency and to businesses that operate in foreign functional currency environments. For example, the product supply chain structures for many life sciences entities typically involve the movement of materials and products across international borders throughout the manufacturing life cycle, giving rise to many transactions that are exposed to changes in the exchange rate. An entity should report the cash flow effect of transactions denominated in a foreign currency by using the exchange rates in effect on the date of such cash flows. Instead of using the actual exchange rate on the date of a foreign currency transaction, an entity may use an average exchange rate for translation if the exchange rates are relatively consistent throughout the reporting period.
    [Show full text]
  • Materiality Definition – Tab J1
    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board January 29, 2018 MEMBER ACTIONS REQUESTED: Please provide responses to the Memorandum questions starting on page 7 before February 15 To: Members of the Board From: Grace Wu, Assistant Director Through: Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director Subject: Proposed New Materiality Definition – Tab J1 MEMO OBJECTIVE The objective of this memorandum is to seek the Board’s input on a proposed new materiality definition and get approval to develop an exposure draft proposing amendments consistent with the new definition. BRIEFING MATERIAL This memorandum includes the results of research on the materiality definition. Questions for the Board are included to solicit feedback from members and identify next steps. In addition, Attachment A provides the current FASAB Handbook materiality discussion. Attachment B is an example of how the proposed materiality discussion flows into SFFAC 1, Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting. BACKGROUND In the September 2017 online note disclosure (NODI) survey, the respondents agreed that judgment can assist in eliminating redundancy and unnecessary disclosure by publishing only essential information. The main cause of the disclosure problem appears to be the difficulty in applying judgment. Whether information is material is a matter of judgment and depends on the facts involved and the circumstances of a specific entity. The IFRS feedback indicated that 1 The Staff prepares Board meeting materials to facilitate discussion of issues at the Board meeting. This material is presented for discussion purposes only; it is not intended to reflect authoritative views of the FASAB or its staff. Official positions of the FASAB are determined only after extensive due process and deliberations.
    [Show full text]
  • Materiality (2006 Professionalism Discussion Paper)
    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES Council on Professionalism MATERIALITY Concepts on Professionalism Discussion Paper Prepared by Task Force on Materiality PROFESSIONALISM SERIES 2006 • NO. 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface............................................................................................................ ii Background ................................................................................................... iii Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................... v Defining Materiality....................................................................................... 1 Reflecting Upon Materiality: User is Key .................................................... 3 Applying Judgment About Materiality ......................................................... 5 Accounting Vs. Actuarial Materiality ........................................................... 7 Communication and Disclosure..................................................................... 8 Appendix: Helpful Sources for Use in Selecting Materiality Standards ....... 9 MATERIALITY • JUNE 2006 i PREFACE This discussion paper was developed by the Task Force on Materiality of the Council on Professionalism of the American Academy of Actuaries for discretionary use by actuaries. Its purpose is to assist actuaries in considering various aspects of materiality as they provide professional services to their principals. This paper was not promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board and is not binding
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Standards for Materiality(?) William Holmes Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co
    5 Toward Standards for Materiality(?) William Holmes Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. The term "materiality" in accounting and auditing literature is variously used in relation to misrepresentation, disclosure, segregation of extraordinary items, and audit requirements. The original use in accounting was in relation to misrepresentation and disclosure. If we can concentrate on these aspects of materiality, I believe the findings will apply equally well to the remaining aspects. This is the approach that has been adopted throughout this paper. Some History of Materiality In an artictle I recently wrote for the February, 1972 Journal of Accountancy, entitled "Materiality Through the Looking Glass," I traced the history of the use of the term materiality in American accounting and quoted examples to show that the concept was already well established in the early 1900's. I pointed out that the English Chartered Accountants who arrived in the 1880's and 1890's had brought the concept with them, and I showed that the concept was inherent in the provisions of the early British Companies Acts. I quoted the definition of Lord Davey's committee relative to an 1895 updating of these acts that— Every contract or fact is material which would influence the judgment of a prudent investor in determining whether he would subscribe for the shares or debentures offered by the prospectus.1 The article pointed out that this type of definition was merely the old com• mon law doctrine governing cases of misrepresentation and deceit applied to the sale of securities, and Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoted to show that the American Common Law paralleled the English Common Law in this respect.
    [Show full text]
  • VALUE IFRS Plc Illustrative IFRS Consolidated Financial Statements December 2019
    VALUE IFRS Plc Illustrative IFRS consolidated financial statements December 2019 This publication presents the sample annual financial reports of a fictional listed company, VALUE IFRS Plc. It illustrates the financial reporting requirements that would apply to such a company under International Financial Reporting Standards as issued at 31 May 2019. Supporting commentary is also provided. For the purposes of this publication, VALUE IFRS Plc is listed on a fictive Stock Exchange and is the parent entity in a consolidated entity. VALUE IFRS Plc 2019 is for illustrative purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the relevant financial reporting standards and any other reporting pronouncements and legislation applicable in specific jurisdictions. Global Accounting Consulting Services PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. About PwC At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We're a network of firms in 158 countries with more than 250,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com © 2019 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. VALUE IFRS Plc Illustrative IFRS consolidated financial statements December
    [Show full text]
  • “Materiality” Is Defined in the International Accounting Standards
    Edgley, C. , Jones, M., & Atkins, J. (2015). The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach. British Accounting Review, 47(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.11.001 Peer reviewed version License (if available): CC BY-NC-ND Link to published version (if available): 10.1016/j.bar.2014.11.001 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Elsevier at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.11.001. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ The Adoption of the Materiality Concept in Social and Environmental Reporting Assurance: A Field Study Approach This study investigates the logics or values that shape the social and environmental assurance (SERA) process. The influence of logics is observed through a study of the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the materiality concept by accounting and non-accounting assurors. We gathered qualitative data from interviews with both accounting and non-accounting assurors. We analysed the interplay between old and new logics that are shaping materiality as a reporting concept in SER. SER is a rich field in which to study the dynamics of change because it is a voluntary, unregulated, qualitative reporting arena.
    [Show full text]
  • Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit
    International ISA 320 Auditing and April 2009 Assurance Standards Board International Standard on Auditing Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board International Federation of Accountants 545 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10017 USA This International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 320, “Materiality in Planning and Peforming an Audit” was prepared by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), an independent standard-setting body within the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). The objective of the IAASB is to serve the public interest by setting high quality auditing and assurance standards and by facilitating the convergence of international and national standards, thereby enhancing the quality and uniformity of practice throughout the world and strengthening public confidence in the global auditing and assurance profession. This publication may be downloaded free of charge from the IFAC website: http://www.ifac.org. The approved text is published in the English language. The mission of IFAC is to serve the public interest, strengthen the worldwide accountancy profession and contribute to the development of strong international economies by establishing and promoting adherence to high quality professional standards, furthering the international convergence of such standards and speaking out on public interest issues where the profession’s expertise is most relevant. Copyright © April 2009 by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). All rights reserved. Permission is granted to make copies of this work provided that such copies are for use in academic classrooms or for personal use and are not sold or disseminated and provided that each copy bears the following credit line: “Copyright © April 2009 by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
    [Show full text]
  • A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows
    A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows May 2020 The FASB Accounting Standards Codification® material is copyrighted by the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, PO Box 5116, Norwalk, CT 06856-5116, and is reproduced with permission. This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. The services described herein are illustrative in nature and are intended to demonstrate our experience and capabilities in these areas; however, due to independence restrictions that may apply to audit clients (including affiliates) of Deloitte & Touche LLP, we may be unable to provide certain services based on individual facts and circumstances. As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, which are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure. Copyright © 2020 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Publications in Deloitte’s Roadmap Series Business Combinations Business Combinations — SEC Reporting Considerations Carve-Out Transactions Comparing IFRS Standards and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit 399
    Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit 399 AU-C Section 450 Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit Source: SAS No. 122; SAS No. 134; SAS No. 135; SAS No. 136; SAS No. 137; SAS No. 138. Effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after December 15, 2012, unless otherwise indicated. Introduction Scope of This Section .01 This section addresses the auditor's responsibility to evaluate the ef- fect of identified misstatements on the audit and the effect of uncorrected mis- statements, if any, on the financial statements. Section 700, Forming an Opin- ion and Reporting on Financial Statements, and section 703, Forming an Opin- ion and Reporting on Financial Statements of Employee Benefit Plans Subject to ERISA, address the auditor's responsibility in forming an opinion on the fi- nancial statements based on the evaluation of the audit evidence obtained. The auditor's conclusion, required by section 700 or section 703, takes into account the auditor's evaluation of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements, in accordance with this section. Section 320, Materiality in Plan- ning and Performing an Audit, addresses the auditor's responsibility to appro- priately apply the concept of materiality in planning and performing an audit of financial statements. [As amended, effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after December 15, 2021, by SAS No. 136.] Effective Date .02 This section is effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after December 15, 2012. Objective .03 The objective of the auditor is to evaluate the effect of a.
    [Show full text]
  • Materiality in the Identification and Evaluation of Misstatements
    IAASB Main Agenda (September 2004) Page 2004·1719 Agenda Item 5-A MATERIALITY IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF MISSTATEMENTS CONTENTS Paragraphs Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 Nature and Causes of Misstatements..................................................................................... 4-5 Materiality in the Context of an Audit .................................................................................. 6-9 Users................................................................................................................................ 8-9 Determining Materiality for the Financial Statements.......................................................... 10-16 Use of Percentages of Benchmarks................................................................................. 12-16 Materiality for Particular Items of Lesser Amounts Than the Materiality Level Determined for the Financial Statements ................................................................ 17-19 Tolerable Error ...................................................................................................................... 20-21 Considerations as the Audit Progresses................................................................................. 22-24 Evaluation of Identified Misstatements................................................................................. 25-28 Communication of Misstatements to Management..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Materiality of Accounting Errors: Evidence from SEC Comment Letters*
    The Materiality of Accounting Errors: Evidence from SEC Comment Letters* ANDREW A. ACITO, Michigan State University JEFFREY J. BURKS, University of Notre Dame† W. BRUCE JOHNSON, University of Iowa ABSTRACT We gain unique insights into materiality judgments about accounting errors by examining SEC comment letter correspondence. We document that managers typically use multiple quantitative benchmarks in their materiality analyses, with earnings being the most common benchmark. In most of the cases we review, managers deem the error immaterial despite its exceeding the tra- ditional “5 percent of earnings” rule of thumb, often in multiple periods and by a large degree. Instead of attempting to conceal these overages, managers tend to forthrightly acknowledge them, often asserting that the benchmark is abnormally low during the violation period. We find that 17–26 percent of these “low benchmark” assertions are suspect (although none of these “low benchmark” assertions are challenged by the SEC). We also document substantial varia- tion in the extent to which qualitative factors are mentioned as considerations. The SEC gener- ally is deferential toward managers’ arguments and judgments but is more likely to challenge immateriality claims when managers admit there are qualitative factors that indicate errors are material. L’importance relative des erreurs comptables : données provenant des lettres de commentaires de la SEC RÉSUMÉ Les auteurs recueillent de précieux renseignements au sujet des jugements portés sur l’impor- tance relative des erreurs comptables en analysant les lettres de commentaires de la SEC. Les gestionnaires, constatent-ils, utilisent habituellement de multiples indices de référence quantita- tifs dans leurs analyses de l’importance relative, l’indice des résultats étant le plus fréquemment employé.
    [Show full text]