Auditori a Desist Em As

8/2/2019 Auditori a Desist Em As

1/8

OurnaData Mners

Featured afiicles:Every Silver Cloud Has a Dark LiningAutomated Audit Testing for SAP DataMath on MalwareAnd more... lsncA'rust n, and value from, nf1rnat1n systens


2/8

mffiiln C. Brown, CISA,iil. E an assistant professoroi [knesota State University,rmdo. College of Businessl]lffii.,. fle has taught bothu:eJriing and managementntt" mfr:mation systems.lrihs nwe fian 25 years offfimFEce include varousuoms i responsibility inrmmliirns including chiefimmma officer (CFO) in three]lffi ;ilcuities and Exchangeimrnrrrmion (SEC) regisf ants.)Unnuq rS career, BrOwnlNM eE ssreral projectMltlrs E irnplementfff[Mr]]irse accountin g andlmilwr StStemS.

hJL Pike, CPA, ismr mewrt professor atlfrirmmm Shte University,lfwnm. idlege of Business.1tr. iM argirt auditing andItmi]umm acounting at therlfi{Mry,ilie level. Pike has

rrff rrmlad:$ an auditor for,uflq iuLr accounting firm.

Questions That Must Be Addressed for aSuccessful IFRS lmplementationThe US Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) is planning what could be among the largestchanges in the history of American accounting-aconversion from Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples (GAAP) to Intemational FinancialReporting Standards (IFRS). This article integrateslessons leamed from previous implementationsofyear 2000 (Y2I() enterprise resoutce planning(ERP) systems and the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, and lessons leamed from countries that havealready adopted IFRS to prode an assessmentthat audit committees (ACs), chief financialofficers (CFOs) and IT auditors can use to identifycritical questions for a successfulIFRS implementation.

CONVERSION TO IFRSApproximately 29 miliion private businessesand 44,000 certified public accountant (CPA)firms in the US will be required to switch toIFRS-based standards.l The most likely effectivedate for an IFRS implementation will not comeuntil 2016. A recent 2010 survey by FinancialExecutives International (FEI) and I(PMG foundthat responders could attain an implementationdeadline of 2016, if the IFRS decision is madein 201 1.2Canadian public companies must be IFRS-

compliant starting in 2011. Of 146 seniorexecutives responding to a 2010 FinancialExecutives Research Foundation (FERF) survey,most respondents lrom Canadian companiesindicated that they were converting because theircompanies were publicly accountable-meaning,therefore, that conversion was mandatory.The survey also reported that the maiority ofcompanies were planning on running IFRS andCanadian GAAP in parallel.s Canadian IFRSimplementation in small enterprises, whichis similar to what is expected in the US, isoften the responsibility of CFOs, who are alsocharged with most other financial managementissues in their firms. Conversely, CFOs of large

companies are more likely to be supported withadequate resources and staff devoted to theconversion. Dedicated IFRS teams for publiccompanies in the Canadian IFRS implementationinclude accounting, IT, internal audit, treasury,risk management, human resources (HR) andinvestor relations.For companies in the UK, Ireland and Italythat have already converted to IFRS, the biggestproblem was the unexpected time commitment inunderstanding IFRS, in training, in assimilatingrequirements, and, for some, in major changesin lT.a The mosr difficuh IFRS srandards are

those that require fair values, external data orkey assumptions to be made to implement thestandards. While most companies relied heavily ontheir auditors to advise them, complications arosewhen the Big Four audit firms did not agree onthe treatment of certain items. The feedback fromthese countries suggests that the IFRS conversionshould be viewed as a significant project.While the timeline for the US adoption/convergence to IFRS is still unclear, there areseveral critical questions that corporate officersshould be addressing now to achieve a successfulIFRS implementation. These questions include:. What are the requirements for IFRS?r What has been leamed from ERP and

Sarbanes-Oxley implementation projects?. What are the roles of COBIT and theCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations of theTreadway Commission (COSO) ?o Do accounting and IT have the necessaryproject management (PM) skills?Planning and appropriate resource allocationsare necessary IFRS implementation requirements.Moreover, the implementation should beintegrated with IT and internal controls in orderto meet or exceed regulatory requirements.IFRS REQUIREMENTSThe impact of IFRS on IT and financial systemscan vary depending on the firm's IT and financial

tsAcA JIURNAL VoLUfvE 3, 201 1 17


3/8

product costs and gross margins, is also affected. Whilefigure 1 identifies the data and applications affected by anIFRS implementation, the consequences must be understoodin a business context, which involves a broad training effortinside the organization and corresponding lead times.

systems' capability/integration, industry complexity, size.relevance of business process/transaction, intemal controlstructure, mergers and acquisitions process, and othetattributes.5 Integrating both accounting and IT requirementsfor a multinational company exposes an array of variablesthat, in combination, can escalate the overall risk of an IFRSimplementation.6 Variables include:r The intricacies of IFRS technical accountirg standards. An overlap of local and international regulatory

consiclerations Conversion across business units and countries. Separate lT systems within man orgarrizations. A liryited numbef of IT professionals with IFRS technicalknowledge who haye the abiliiies to interpret and translateIFRS into lT changesThe ellect of IFRS on lT varies from company to company.

as edenced by the rgsults of a sulvey of Canadian publiccompanies in which 61 percent said that the IFRS conversionwould have a medium or high impact on IT systems, whereasonly 27 percent of private companies expected a mediumor high iiirpact.l Some of the differences in perceiyed.IFRS impact are attributable to the data collection aidmainlenance lequirements.

N4any authors describe the implementation ol IFRS asa major syslem eonversion.o Moreover. conversion to IFRScan be more pervasive to the enterprise than man perceive.will impact business operations and lT. and will requit'esubstantive system changes. modiiications to businessprocesses and new accounling policies.'The scope ol the lTchangesincluds tha qllire fod chain from data generationandbusinessproceSseStofinalreporting(seefigure:1-).While figure ! seems straightforward. United TechnologiesCorporation G"fC), anarly adoptei of IFRS, noted t.hata move to IFRS affects every aspgqt.of-buSings6r:1ry1t6'.ramifications for everything from compenq4lion to bonusesand budgeting.l0 The business model, i'nciuding pricing,r :,, , .TSACA J\URNAL V0' ulV 1, 20'

Thre international experts from corripnies in the midsl ofadoptirrg IFRS warn against underestimating the IT challengesahail, including the potential for mjllions of lines of newdata for a large muftinational organization.rr One expertwamed against using Excel spreadsheets as a solution {o

New data requirements may result in:. More detailed presentation of informatlon. New data elements or fields to be recorded lnformation to be calculated on a different basisThere will almost always be a change to the chadof accounts due to reclassifications and additionalreporting criteria.

Reconfigurationof existing- ,"-,-.sYstems t'i':":"Existing systems may already have capablitiesbuilt in to deal with the specific IFRS requirements.New reporls and calculations may be required toaccommodate IFRS. Spreadsheets and modelsintegral to the financial reporting process shouldbe included when considering the requiredsystems modifications.Where previous financial repoding standards didnot require the use of a system, or if the existingsystem is inadequate for IFRS repofting, it may benecessary t0 implement new software.With the introduction 0f new source systems andthe decommissioning of old systems, interJacesmay need to be changed or developed, andchanges to existing mapping tables to the financialsystem may be required.Under IFRS, there will potentially be changesto the number and type of entities that need t0be included in the group consolidated financialstatements.Reporling tools may need t0 be modified to:. Gather additional disclosure information frombranches or subsidiaries operating on a standardgeneral ledger package. Collect information from subsidiaries that usedifferent financial accounting packages

18


4/8

;- -.- rhe expanded IFRS data requirements. Assuming: : - RS requirements are met, traditional GAAp reporting' ,- .be maintained during the dual reporting period, which,:r ::,are1y, requires a complete reconciliation of GAAp. : TRS for each reporting period. For SEC registrants,- -i -:mpanies must report US GAAP and IFRS in parallel.,' ::,ree years from the initiation of IFRS. In creating a:,.--:r.l accounting environment, the company's internal. -r::!r1 and operational audit staff should evaluate prolongedr - ::llcations of IT support for dual reporting.12 Intemal

- -r::rol and operational audit staff can provide in_depth'.- - *1edge for conversion planning and ensure that overall- -:',3rsion costs are comprehensive and accurate.sP IMPLEMENTATIONS AND SARBANES-OXLEY- --i iew ol ERP implementations lor y2l(. subsequenr lT::,:lspm.r and Sarbanes-Oxley prodes a rich variety ofr.ons learned in IT governance and organizational maturity.ERP . -.-]tloirre Consulring , conductecl in-deprh interviews with.:-1 individuals ar 62 Forlune 500 companies that used ERp-..:icllS. such as SAP. Baan. Oracle and peopleSoft. The:*rrpose of the study was to evaluate ERp development issues.Ite study summarized performance problems and the leading:uses of such problems into three categories (see figure 2):. People-62 percentr Process-lb percent. Technical-12 percenr

Consistent with the repqrts from Deloitte Consulting. in the"ricle "Managing Your ERp project," Marje Beneshil described:r e areas of common management pirfalls rhat involve:. Shorrcomings in or a lack oi integrared projecr ream plaruring. \lanaged communicarions across many peopler Formal decision-making processeso ln{egrared rest plans and managed resr processes. Failure to inregr.ale lessons Iearned jnto currenr pracricesIn a survey of critical success lactors ( CSFs) throughoutall stages of ERP implementations in g6 companies, factors-imlar ro those reported by Benesh and Deloitre Consulringri'ere ranlced high in importance.r' In-depth interviews withmore thair 50 chief information,officers (CIes) prd.duceda similar rheme: P\4 and process .ngin..ring rLlls werefrequently inentioned as shortcomings in the course ofenrerprise developmenr.,o ln their study ol 54 I large lT

projects following Y2K, Weidong Xia and Gwanhoo LeerTdemonstrated the influence ol organization and personnel inlarge lT projects across several industries: Organizationalaspects. incluclirrg the use ol qualilied personnel. were theleading lactors rhat conlribuled to projecr success.Sarbanes-OxleyThe Public Company Accounring Oversighr Board(PCAOB) assumed Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory oversightoi approximatel I 5.000 comparries and I .423 accountinglirms in the US.rs. " Three retgarch reporrs on enlerprisesthat reported at least on. -u,)ql *.uk r.r, ttltWl from2002 to 2005 lound rhar rhese e\erprises were more Iikelyto be smaller. younger. riskier. mpre complex and linanciallyweaker, with poorer acciual eaylings qualtry.!o.zt,ztBonnie Klamm and t\4arcilWeidenmier Warson2;examined 490 iirms rhat reported lVWs in rhe lirsr year oiSarbanes-O..ley en lorcemen t to eva I uate rhe in terrela teclnessoi weak COSO cornponents and lT conrrols. Their researchidenLiiied relarionships between rhe reporred MWs andthe fiie componnts of COSO (control environmenr,risk assessment, control activities, information and : .

communication, and monitoring ). including: A weak control environmet has a positive association withthe remaining four weak COSO componenrs. i.e.. COSOcomponents are likel5 ro allect each other.

Barrier CategoryLack of discipline PeopleLack of change managemenl Peoplelnadequate training PeoplePoor reporting procedures: technical Peoplelnadequate process engineering PeopleMisplaced benefit ownership Peoplelnadequate internal staff PeoplePoor prioritization of resources PeoplePoor software f unctionality Technicallnadequate ongoing supporl PeoplePoor business pedormance ProcessUnderperformin g project team PeoplePo!ryn O I i cation'.F.?lggement Technical

I.SACAJAURNAL VOLUI\4E 3 201] 19


5/8

Firms with weak COSO components related to IT frequentlyspiil over to create more MWs and misstatements notrelated to IT.. Weak COSO components related to IT negatively affectreporting reliability and add to the number of non-ITMWs reported.Moreover, the conclusion from Klamm and Watson'sresearch is that the IT domain appears to affect overallcont rol effecti veness.Cumrilative edence from Y2K ERP and subsequent ITproject and Sarbanes-Oxley implementations suggest severalrisk drivers for IFRS:. The scpe of IT changes required to support IFRS. The complexity of the enterprise, including the number ofsubsidiaries and the nature of assets and liabilities. Smaller, younger, riskier, more complex and financiallyweaker organizations that lack either adequate resouices orthe leadership ro execute change managemenrC0S0/00B|TI, - ''The authors believe thar the CSF lies in the organizatiorr'scapbility tq gxeeure an IFRS implementation whil sustainingor- improving internal'liontrols as the accounting enuironmentgrows in:compl-eity. A. robust implementation of the COSOI n t e r n al Con t rol-l n t e gra t ed Fra m ework.2o an implementat ionof the COBIT25 framework and a critical examination of theaccounting organization lor PM skilis are effective responses1o the risk drivers relerenced earlier.The COSO lramewoik supporrs the establishment olan internal control lramework lor iinancial reporting, andCOBIT supports the establishment of.an lT,frame,fvork forcontrol and secwiry. Togerher. rhey supporr the businesspio.cess and ii.rformaio1 equiiements; policies and slandardsngCe$ Sari.to. slrpport,IFRS implementa tion and opertion.

required to become compliant with Sarbanes-Oxiey, andtherefore, they lack the experience necessary for compleximplementation/conversion.An assessment of the accounting organization isparticularly meaningful because mosl accountants andCPAs are not trained lor PM or sysrems implementations.If accountants have experience in any of these disciplines,it ,was more rhan likel obrained outside rhe roles of financialstatement. auditor or tax preparer; .two major qareer paths thataccountants oiren follow.Young Hoon l(wak and C. William lbbs2o presented aPM model that progresses from an unsophisticaied level toa sophisticared maturity level. Each marurity level consistsof enhancements to major PM characteristiQq, factors andprocesses (see figure 3). Kwak'u demonstrared thar theaverage organizalion across several industries spends6 percent ol project value on toral PM costs. which suggestsan overall low cosr given the polential range of adverse';. r,consequ.hcgs lor inef lective PM. In a study oi 38 largeinternationai companies in four industries. overall P1\.i . i . 'maturity. ranged from a low of 3. 1 for information systemsconrpanlqs to a high of.3.4 for engineering construqtion '. :iompaniesl with an average for all companies of 3: j.11 ... ,In a scale with level 1 at the low end of maturity and level 5at the high end of maturity, how should chief executive

. .,. . -, . NCOOUIiTUET,O IT PM SKILLS AND THE CAPBILITY ..r ':: .: MATURITY M0DEL , ' .,. ' -, ,, )'Accounling organizations thar lack either adequare resourcesI I , : or th.,1e{rdership to execute PM are among th;;ost . : :: : :,. vulnrabteirilipnS i^pl;"fii"i sasci onihe pqeviously' , .' mgftlaned:i9$eaich ot-r Sarbanes-Oxley Act implmentiiticinexperiences.2o 27 28 small to medium-sized enferprises: . (SMEs):rryient,the,higheii'liqkgrijpfor,potentil|FRS ". implementtidirissues. Moreover, many SMEs wre n.ur . , , '..:,.',.,?9: srcnostt!-,vtrg, zoll : ' .:

. No PM processes 0r practices are consistenilyavailable.. No PM data are consistently collected oranalyzed.. lnformal PM processes are defined.o lnformal PM problems are identified.o lnformal PM data are collected.Level 3, Managedat the pro.ect level . Formal project planning and control systemsare managed.. Formal PM data are managed.Level 4, Managedat the corporatelevel

. Multiple PM program management exsts. PM data and processes are integrated.. PM processes data are quantitatively analyzed,measured and stored.. PM processes are continuously improved. PM processes are fully understood. PM data are optimized and sustained.


6/8

-:,: I ,-?)"ad h1c

'',.:s (CEOs) or CFOs evaluate their organizationai.. --,,::,itr to initiate, plan, control and close out one-of-a-kind' :..', ots? At a minimum, any IFRS PM effort should not. :t.ou. the average benchmarks of 3.3 identified by l(wakrr * -:bs.;; At level 3, defined control systems are in place-r: =:equately documented. The Capability Maturity Model,'r,L\I) levels of 1 or 2 for a planned IFRS implementation,,"id not be acceptable by an AC, the CEO or the CFO'' -:i an emphasis on value and risk drjvers, detailed analyses,-,:,. and workshops, full support from business process':::rs, and accountability, a CMM levei 3 for an IFRS:r:.ementation may be acceptable' COBIT integrates a CMM. : rtemal controls, which is particularly important for a, - SO/Sarbanes-Oxley-compliant organization (see figure 4)'

HaturityLevel:,:: 0.,:existent

::eatable: -: intuitive

i,'el 4,',ranaged and-:asurable. An enterprisewide risk and cOntrol proEramprovides continuous and effective resOlLr'Ljci ocontrol and risk issues.o lnternal control and risk management a'e ':::with enterprise Practlces.

The authors believe that ACs and corporate officers shouldevaluate their intemal organization skills as the project is fullydefined and proposed. The evaluation should be based on thepremise that:1. Accountants and CPAs do not acquire PM skills in most

available career paths.2. Successful IT implementations are inextricably linked toqualified staff and effective PM.5. SMEs are more at risk due to a lack o{ resurces orefiective leadershiP.4. A minimum of CMM level i lor intemal controls should beattained ior an IFRS implemenlation.A priority for the AC, corpo{ate officers and the IT auditoris to understand the IFRS impact on lT requiremnts becauseIT domain weaknesses spill over to other IT and non-ITintemal control effectiveness aleas in other-COSO domains'On a larger scale; for an IFRS conversion, the ieadership ofthe SEC, the Financial Accouniing Standards Board (FASB),the I n ternatiorrl'{ccounting Standards Boa rd t I AS B ) andthe American Institirte of Certified Public Accountants(AICPA) should:. Emphasize the organizational capability to impiement

and sustain an lFRS-compliant environment based onCOSO/COBIT vs. a message that suggests a few courses :in IFRS. Develop well-defined requirements- to drive a successfulimplementation and ongoing application of IFRS. Cieate a conversion schedule that accommodates 29 millioncompanies and the audit/consulting resources to supportthose conversions

CONCLUSIONFor lT auditors ancl lT professionals. IFRS should be apriority because the demand will be high for those wittl' .technical knowledge to interpret and translate IFRS into lTrequirements, COSO/COBIT-supporting references and auditprograms. The capability to eiecute an IFRSimplerirentations'hile sustaining or improving intemal controls is a CSF.Lessons ftom Sarbanes-Oxley:irplsmentations indicate'that IT and intemal controls can be materially affectecl. The:nr ersion to IFRS in the US will be a difficult and t:nou: -ii*,-ess for many companies. However, fo-r, those who iearned::;: iaileJ implementations in the pasr. IFRS will present.:: -::.rnit\ io mo\e the organization to a higher CMM,:,.. :: ra:uritr.$hile simultaneously adding capacity and-.:..-:.-::. -. l luiul'.'''ndcavorS'

. lnternal control and risk management aresupported with automated real{ime m0ni:lr':with full accountability for control monitonri -s*management and compliance enforcemen:

Status of the lnternal Control Environment. There is no recognition of the need for internal control.. Control is not part of the organization's culture ormission. There is some recognition of the need for iniernalcontrol.. The approach to risk and control equipment is adfoc. There is n0 communication or monitoring of risks0r controls.. Controls are in place, but are not documented.. Operation is dependent on the knowledge andmotivation of individuals.. Controls are in place and adequately documented.. Operating effectiveness is evaluated on a periodicbasis.. An average number 0f issues are outstanding.. A formal, documented evaluation of controls occursfrequently.. Many controls are automated and regularly revieved'o Management is likely to detect most. bui not allcontrol issues.

ri,-'ce: lT Governance lnstitute (lTGl), CoBIT 4.1, USA, 2007

ISACA JOURNAL Vl]LUI\4 3, 20] 1 21"


7/8

ENDNOTESI AICPA, "Looking to the Future: An Interview WithAICPA President & CEO Barry Melancon, CpA," CpALetter Daily , 1 5 December 201.0, www.smartbrief.com/ serylet/wireles s? i s sueid=FD 7 7 83 FB-FD 5 4- 4206-A7 C6- C9 E7 E3 2 E9 B EE &sid=9 a3 7 5fB1 - 7 0 8 d- 4te 5 -a 5fl -ca5c1 147Bab7'? Goldschmid, Harvey; "IFRS at a Critical Crossroad,,,

speech at the Financial ExecutiveS International (FEI). Current Financial Reporting Issues Conference 2010,held in New York, USA, I 5-l 7 November 20 10,ww w. ifi s. o rg/N ew s/Announc en ent s + an d+ Sp e ec h e s/I F RS+C ri t i ca l+C rossr(a cl. h t mr Canadian Financial Executives Research Foundation(CFER), "IFRS Readiness in-Canada i ZO]O," Cu*au,20 t 0, wtiw. fcanad.a. org/ rt dfs/CIAnioto z 0 IFRS % 2 0Readinesso o20ino o2\Canadao.o2020 t 0.pdfa lnsri(ure ol Charrered Accouurants ol Scorland. "The,GAAP Gap,,, Cl, Magzine,20 March 200 g, ww

, camegonlne.9o.ik/Magaziue/2008-3/64.aspx .. .- American Insrirure of Cerrilied public Ic Acceuntaits(AICPA); iF.ina-_nciaJ,S.ystr. Qd,nsideiations in IFRS

1r Deloitte Consulting, ERp's Second Wuve: Maximizingthe Value of ERP Enabtes processes, 1999. www.ctiforum.com/t e chnolo gy /CR M /wp7 1 / dow nlo ad/erp2w, p dfla Benesh, i\4ariel "Managing your ERp project." SofrwureTesting and Quality Engineering,fulyAugqq! f9g; ip.38-43 Ih Somers. Toni M.: Klara Nelson: "The lmpact oi CriticalSuccess Factors Across the Stages of Enterprise ResourcePlanning Implementations, " proceedings of the .3,1 Hawaiilnternational Conference on System S.ien.es. IEEE. USA.2001 -.. : t, :: ...i.t','6 Reich, Blaize Homer: Kay JV. Nelson: ..ln Their OwnWords: :CIO Visions About the Ftre of:In_house tTOrganizations," Database for Advances in Info;;tion', ,Systems. I Oc(ober 2003. www.allbusiness.com/

Iv;i.:hint,':,t :: i :.:. , ':-::i:,dvic:htnl.:.' :,:' ::. :...

technology/35z274t-i.hmt, ...,

,.' $cl,ll'AcCgulifig Htitiin, Septrber 2005, i,lll.

r7 Xia. Weidongt Cwanhoo Lee: "Crasping the Compler-ity oilS Development." Communications of the ACh4,I May 2004. http://cacm.ar*.org/*gorincs/2001/5/. . A S tJ.,ffi,ry.jyg-the : complixty -a,i i- ai,ietopm e nt -p roj ects/''' "' abstiait::.'i ." '. .'(4r\,rAr; r.ma._np]a!).]stqm.9an!lderat1ong.i4 lFRs : : '8 McDriugh; Mlliam .[.,;..The pcAoB and Its ovgrSigllt.Conversion Projecrs," USA. 20 I O. www.ifrs.com/ Role... public Company Accounting Oversighr Board" i:#:.': :7s-tFRs-tr-whitelaper-wEB-FtNAL.pd[ (pcAoB). ,0...n ,i,i. ;;,;;;;;;;";,' KPMG LrC,: 1'Infounation Techrology Advisory Services: Irrlp.ouement program in Washington, DC, USA, 9 MarchThe Effects olIFRS on Information Systems," usA, 2008, 2004, http://pcaobus.org/llews/speech/pages/03092001https://www.in,kpmg'com/securedata/i'frs-In5titute/Files/.ucoonauehiointFinan]iQtMo,,n.*,,,.o,|*Effects of IFRS on lS'pdf ro PCAOB. "gourd Approves neused2005 Budget." uSA,-_7 Op cit. CFERF l0 December 2004. hrtp://prooAr,r.",g/;;:/il,rrirr,8 Difazio. \ickr D'1. Gannon:-"lFRS Roadmap: Planning ^ *ges/tzlozy,+-i*:,{ritLitil;;;,:r:o:--Sale.Economical Trip," DeloitteReview.20 lanuary20l0. 20 Doyle. leflrey;Weili Ce; SarahMcVay:..Dererminantsolwww'dcloitte'coin/view/en-l'ts/us/lnsights/Browse-by- weaknesses in lntemal conrrol over Financial R";;;s.-Contenr-Tttpe/deloitte-review/article/319 te65Seea2Z tOV lourna! o lrruurting ,;; ;;:r;*;r, il;;;;;,o Arnold. Stevet "IFRS Risk planning and Conrrols laE.pctfExecution:.srrategic Considerations lor Financial 2r Dole. feffrey: Weili Ce: Sarah McVay; ,.Accruals eurij+

2009, www.journalofaciountancy.com/lssues/2009/ Accounting Review.vol. g2, issue l. 20bZr0 AICPA' "Getting to tFfiS: Those who Have-Been There Weaknesses in lniemal Control Airer the SarbanesorrrHave Plenry o[ Advice," USA, 2009. www.ifrs.com/ Act... Accounting Horizons.september 2005. urrrr.advice'ht ml uic.edu/cla sses/acre/tt. . .uii. e du/daS seshii:tg/{tctS95 I Ra iLigs/St ock_Opnori11'Il1id; "':":':i": ::.: .: :...',.:r.. sarbtn4;:oxteyirfup-,1rnsure-ofMqterial-weak.::vt-' . 12 r-t) ^:'. .:^^t s'11..Ibid: i:::::.:;;...;' .,:....,...... _..,.:_...,-,,'',:

Op'cit;Aino!d:,. ,',,22 BACA JIIRNAL vo,uMF 3 2oi l':.


8/8

Documents

Auditori a Desist Em As