The phrase "audits evidence" is not correct in standard written English.
It seems to be a combination of two separate concepts, "audits" and "evidence," which may need clarification or rephrasing to convey a clear meaning.
Example: "The audits provide evidence of compliance with regulatory standards."
Alternatives: "audit findings" or "evidence from audits."
In the Companies House filing for ASL, Ernst & Young states: "We have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion".
"Auditors are reminded," the board said, "that audit evidence consists of both information that supports and corroborates management's assertions and information that contradicts such assertions, including assertions regarding fair values, estimates and related disclosures".
In the 2010 Gyrus accounts, E&Y concludes: "With respect to the transactions with Axam Investments Limited, the audit evidence available to us was limited because the directors have not provided us with sufficient information to form an opinion as to whether Axam is a related party of the company".
In the UK, audit evidence suggests that the quality of these judgements is often sub optimal.
The result of audit designation is significantly influenced by the audit evidence collected when planning the audit and the amount of audit evidence depends on the degree of detection risk.
This study investigates the use of audit evidence documentation instructions that promote the collection and processing of evidence with high-level construals (broad, abstract interpretations of the evidence).
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Satyams auditor, said that while it will cooperate with the regulators, Satyams audit was conducted "in accordance with applicable auditing standards and were supported by appropriate audit evidence".
In addition, using the fuzzy theory and audit risk model to calculate the degree of detection risk allow the audit staff to further determine the amount of audit evidence collected and set up initial audit strategies and construct the audit detection risk assessment system.
We focus on the condition in which two kinds of management-controlled audit evidence – evidence from the financial statements and evidence from internal data depicting performance of a key business process – is contradicted by external evidence suggesting that a key business objective has not been attained.
Drawing on the triangulation framework of audit evidence (Bell et al., 2005, Peecher et al., 2007), we experimentally test for the conditions, if any, under which financial-statement auditors alter their fraud-risk assessments based on whether external evidence provides positive or negative news about underlying business performance.
