Performance Support 9- Test of Details ExampleCash substantive testing

The Audit Experience AS/2

© 2000-2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited—Partners in Learning

AUDIT DOCUMENTATION FOR TESTS OF DETAILS Preparer PT [3/14/2013] WP 5100Reviewer [JO 3/14/2013]

- For all bank reconciliations, select a sample of reconciling items using audit sampling.- Perform tests of details on the selection of reconciling items and determine if they are appropriate.

Sample size:$

Population 2,689,000 {a}Total Items > Performance Materiality 1,308,668 {e} ARemaining Population 1,380,332 Rx

Performance Materiality 642,000 {b}Risk Not Significant {b}Controls Not Relying {b}

Population Size Multiple of Performance Materiality 2.15 {b}Sample Size 5 {c}Items greater than Performance Materiality 2 Total Sample Size 7 Rx

Testing:

# Check # T/m

Items > Performance Materiality1 81227 665,382 5-Jan-13 31-Dec-12 Yes {d}2 81229 643,286 8-Jan-13 3-Jan-13 Yes {d}

1,308,668 ARemaining Selections

3 81223 8,639 9-Jan-13 5-Jan-13 Yes {d}4 81219 58,765 17-Jan-13 13-Jan-13 Yes {d}5 81221 20,901 4-Jan-13 30-Dec-12 Yes {d}6 81223 44,609 8-Jan-13 29-Dec-12 Yes {d}7 81230 18,732 15-Jan-13 5-Jan-13 Yes {d}

Audit Purpose: The purpose of this working paper is to test the subtractive reconciling items per the Community Bank reconciliation located at wp 5120(M) to address the risk of material misstatement identified below:

Cash risk Cash 001-There is a risk that the bank account as per the general ledger may be misstated due to incorrect reconciling items.

Audit Procedures: The following procedure has been performed in this working paper to address the risk documented above:

In accordance with substantive procedure Cash-SP-001 related to cash risk Cash-001 in working paper 5130 Cash MAP:

Results: Based on testing performed, subtractive items appear properly included as reconciling items in the bank rec. as of Dec. 31 2012

Amount$

Date per Bank

Date per Check

Correctly Included / excluded in OS Checks

Rx = Mathematical calculation verified.

Note that this performance support does not replace the AAM. It should be read in conjunction with the applicable AAM topics, as the manual states the requirements of our audit approach and provides further guidance.

Was the source of the population documented? Depending on the selection method and objective of the test were items greater than performance materiality separately selected?

It is clear what audit procedures are being performed by referring to the audit procedures in the Model Audit program; are the audit procedures clearly documented and have the results of the procedures been included?

Have the audit procedures performed been documented for each selection?

Is there documentation or a reference where performance materiality, classification of risk, and control reliance were obtained from and how the sample size is calculated?

Was the sample size calculated properly?

Have the working papers been signed off?

Where there is a calculation, has documentation been provided to show that it calculates accurately?

Have all the tickmarks been properly attached?

Was the appropriate audit evidence reviewed for each selection, properly documented, and concluded upon?

Was the sampling method and where the selections were obtained from clearly documented?

Performance Support 9- Test of Details Example: Tickmarks Tab The Audit Experience AS/2

© 2000-2012 Deloitte Global Services Limited—Partners in Learning

Tickmarks

{a}

{b}

{c}

{d}

{e}

{f}

The population was obtained from Jan 1 - Jan 31, 2013 Community Bank bank statement. Represents total amount of debits during the period per the bank statement.

DTTL obtained performance materiality from the planning working paper 1710.

The population being tested is 2.15 x's Performance Materiality. This testing is addressing a risk (not significant and not relying on controls). Based on professional judgment and per the Audit Sampling Size Table in the Audit Approach Manual (Figure 5410.1), we have determined the sample size to be 5. We have understood the multiples of performance materiality referred to in the Audit Sampling Size Table to be up to and including the specific multiple. Therefore the sample size of 5 appears reasonable.

DTTL made a nonstatistical representative sample. Selections were made from the January 2013 bank statement.

Agreed amount, date, and payee to copy of cancelled check (check honored by the bank and stamped as having been processed to ensure it cannot be presented again), noting propriety of date (i.e. prior/subsequent to year-end). Noted proper inclusion/exclusion of item within detail of subtractive reconciling items as of 31-Dec-2012.

This amount represents the total of all the items greater than performance materiality in the population (Note: Based on our understanding of the transactions flowing through the bank account that we obtained as part of our risk assessment procedures, we determined that payments over the amount of performance materiality are to be selected during the testing of the reconciling items on the bank reconciliation). These have been selected for testing based on the risk identified and were removed from the original population in order to determine how many more selections must be made for this representative sample.

Have all the tickmarks been properly attached?

There are no other tickmarks that contain text that have not been attached (i.e., unattached tickmarks)