Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Audit Bab 5 Evidence
Audit Bab 5 Evidence
Audit Bab 5 Evidence
Different field of knowledge use different methods of research, have different type of propositions
to resolve, and rely upon different types of evidence. To explore the nature of audit evidence
further, it will be help to compare and contrast it with evidence in some other field.
The nature of anything may be defined as (1) its essential character,(2) its distinguishing of qualities,
or (3) its constitution. The character and constitution of evidence are effected considerably by the
nature of the field in which it is use, that is, the purpose which the evidence is to serve. Among
the characteristics which vary from field to field are the following:
The table on page 92 and 93 contracts the evidence required in five important area of research
including auditing. It present some interesting facts to the careful reader, both with respect to
differences in the type of evidence required in different field and the nature of judgment formation
problem in those fields.
The rules of formal logic or of mathematical manipulation of term govern the deductive process of
creating evidence. Time is not an important factor in judging the evidence thus made available. The
extent that the deductive evidence is valid, it is absolutely compelling on the judgment maker.
Turning finally to auditing, we find additional different in the nature of its problem and in the
evidence on which it relies. Auditing is concerned with the protection of those who read financial
statement; its purpose is to assure them that certain standard of accuracy, clarity, and completeness
have been met.
Time is controlling factor in most audit work; the auditor’s judgment is normally required within a
relatively short time after the occurrance of the transactions and other events reflected in the
financial statement.
Audit evidence will influence the auditor the auditor in degrees which very all the way from being
compelling to being little more than persuasive.
Because audit evidence is our principal interest in the chapters, we will examine it more intensively
in the following section. At this point we are interested in establishing certain general nations about
evidence in any field and in dispelling mistaken impression.
Another erroneous impressions may be that all evidence is alike in usefulness and applicability. As
problems and pressures differ, evidence will differ. Thus, if auditing is to have a theory of evidence,
it will have to look to itself for the development of that concept. What is the legitimately accepted as
truth in one field may not meet either the standard or the need of another field. This suggests that a
first step toward the development of a theory of evidence for auditing is to examine the nature of
the propositions to be judged and for which evidence is required.
Bab 6
The important role which judgment plays in professional practice, and the exercise of judgment is
never free from unfortunate consequences, contributes to this. The difficulty which laymen and for
this purpose all non practitioners must be considered laymen, have in understanding and
appreciating not only the potentialities but the limitations of the profession, also play a part in
making the establishment of definite responsibilities a trying and continuing problem.
In this some general respect, auditors have much the same problems and tendencies as the
members of other professions.
Although there is not complete unanimity on all this points in the literature of the profession,
textbook and other references generally support them strongly. Among the most important source
are the following:
The importance of the generally accepted auditing standards in establishing the extent of
responsibility here can scarcely be overestimated.
Characteristics Of Irregularities
Perhaps irregularities are so well understood that any attempt to define them is superfluous. With
this working definition as a base, irregularities have one or more af a variety of characteristics or
attributes. These include:
1. Materiality
2. Intent
3. Relationship to internal control
4. Influence on financial statement
5. Extent of concealment
6. Responsibility