Determining Materiality and Performance Materiality when Planning
the Audit (Ref: Para. 10) Use of Benchmarks in Determining Materiality for the Financial Statements as a Whole
A2. Determining materiality involves the exercise of professional judgment. A percentage is often applied to a chosen benchmark as a starting point in determining materiality for the financial statements as a whole. Factors that may affect the identification of an appropriate benchmark include the following: The elements of the financial statements (for example, assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, expenses); Whether there are items on which the attention of the users of the particular entity’s financial statements tends to be focused (for example, for the purpose of evaluating financial performance users may tend to focus on profit, revenue or net assets); The nature of the entity, where the entity is at in its life cycle, and the industry and economic environment in which the entity operates; The entity’s ownership structure and the way it is financed (for example, if an entity is financed solely by debt rather than equity, users may put more emphasis on assets, and claims on them, than on the entity’s earnings); and The relative volatility of the benchmark.
A3. Examples of benchmarks that may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the entity, include categories of reported income such as profit before tax, total revenue, gross profit and total expenses, total equity or net asset value. Profit before tax from continuing operations is often used for profit-oriented entities. When profit before tax from continuing operations is volatile, other benchmarks may be more appropriate, such as gross profit or total revenues.
A4. In relation to the chosen benchmark, relevant financial data ordinarily includes prior periods’ financial results and financial positions, the period-to-date financial results and financial position, and budgets or forecasts for the current period, adjusted for significant changes in the circumstances of the entity (for example, a significant business acquisition) and relevant changes of conditions in the industry or economic environment in which the entity operates. For example, when, as a starting point, the materiality for the financial statements as a whole is determined for a particular entity based on a percentage of profit before tax from continuing operations, circumstances that give rise to an exceptional decrease or increase in such profit may lead the auditor to conclude that the materiality for the financial statements as a whole is more appropriately determined using a normalized profit before tax from continuing operations figure based on past results.
A5. Materiality relates to the financial statements on which the auditor is reporting. Where the financial statements are prepared for a financial reporting period of more or less than twelve months, such as may be the case for a new entity or a change in the financial reporting period, materiality relates to the financial statements prepared for that financial reporting period.
A6. Determining a percentage to be applied to a chosen benchmark involves the exercise of professional judgment. There is a relationship between the percentage and the chosen benchmark, such that a percentage applied to profit before tax from continuing operations will normally be higher than a percentage applied to total revenue. For example, the auditor may consider five percent of profit before tax from continuing operations to be appropriate for a profit oriented entity in a manufacturing industry, while the auditor may consider one percent of total revenue or total expenses to be appropriate for a not-for-profit entity. Higher or lower percentages, however, may be deemed appropriate in different circumstances.
Considerations Specific to Small Entities
A7. When an entity’s profit before tax from continuing operations is consistently nominal, as might be the case for an owner-managed business where the owner takes much of the profit before tax in the form of remuneration, a benchmark such as profit before remuneration and tax may be more relevant.
A8. In the case of certain entities, such as, Central/State governments and related government entities (for example, agencies, boards, commissions), legislators and regulators are often the primary users of its financial statements. Furthermore, the financial statements may be used to make decisions other than economic decisions. The determination of materiality for the financial statements as a whole (and, if applicable, materiality level or levels for particular classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures) in an audit of the financial statements of those entities may therefore be influenced by legislative and regulatory requirements, and by the financial information needs of legislators and the public in relation to public utility programs/projects, such as, Accelerated
Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP), Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
(PMGSY)undertaken by the Central/State governments or related government entities .
A9. In an audit of the entities doing public utility programs/projects, total cost or net cost (expenses less revenues or expenditure less receipts) may be appropriate benchmarks for that particular program/project activity. Where an entity has custody of the assets, assets may be an appropriate benchmark. Materiality Level or Levels for Particular Classes of Transactions, Account
Balances or Disclosures (Ref: Para. 10)
A10. Factors that may indicate the existence of one or more particular classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures for which misstatements of lesser amounts than materiality for the financial statements as a whole could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements include the following: Whether law, regulations or the applicable financial reporting framework affect users’ expectations regarding the measurement or disclosure of certain items (for example, related party transactions, and the remuneration of management and those charged with governance). The key disclosures in relation to the industry in which the entity operates (for example, research and development costs for a pharmaceutical company). Whether attention is focused on a particular aspect of the entity’s business that is separately disclosed in the financial statements (for example, a newly acquired business).
A11. In considering whether, in the specific circumstances of the entity, such classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures exist, the auditor may find it useful to obtain an understanding of the views and expectations of those charged with governance and management.
Performance Materiality (Ref: Para. 11)
A12. Planning the audit solely to detect individually material misstatements overlooks the fact that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial statements to be materially misstated, and leaves no margin for possible undetected misstatements. Performance materiality (which, as defined, is one or more amounts) is set to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements in the financial statements exceeds materiality for the financial statements as a whole. Similarly, performance materiality relating to a materiality level determined for a particular class of transactions, account balance or disclosure is set to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements in that particular class of transactions, account balance or disclosure exceeds the materiality level for that particular class of transactions, account balance or disclosure. The determination of performance materiality is not a simple mechanical calculation and involves the exercise of professional judgment. It is affected by the auditor’s understanding of the entity, updated during the performance of the risk assessment procedures; and the nature and extent of misstatements identified in previous audits and thereby the auditor’s expectations in relation to misstatements in the current period.
