Question Tag: Financial Statement Amendments

Big Build is a listed construction company with an annual revenue of GHS350m. Big Build’s draft statement of profit or loss shows a profit before tax for the year ended December 31, 2008, of GHS40m.

Big Build’s audit firm is conducting an audit. This is the first audit of Big Build that this audit firm has conducted. An enquiry to the previous audit firm revealed no reasons for concern. On completing audit work at the company’s premises, the audit senior drafts a memo, extracts from which are reproduced below:

(a) Inventory valuation:
Inventories include GHS7m, at cost, for scrap rubber from used car tyres. This material is widely used as a road surface in other countries. Contracts for road building with this country’s Highways Agency, the state authority for road construction, do not currently permit the use of this material. However, the matter was known to be under review, and Big Build speculated on a favourable outcome of this review and purchased the material. In February 2009, shortly before the financial statements were approved by the directors, the Highways Agency reported that it would not, currently, accept the use of this material. If used on non-Highways Agency contracts, the material’s net realisable value would not exceed GHS2m.

The finance director maintains that the issue of the Highways Agency report was a non-adjusting event after the reporting period. The write-down of the inventory should, therefore, be reflected in the next period’s financial statements.

(b) Depreciation:
During the year ended December 31, 2005, the company purchased two computer-controlled earth movers at a cost of GHS2,500,000 each and a further two at the same price during the year ended December 31, 2006. Depreciation has been provided at 10% straight line, the same basis as it previously depreciated conventional earth movers. This year, 2008, the company has decided that improvements in technology made it worthwhile scrapping their first two computer-controlled earth movers and replacing them with the latest model at a cost of GHS6,000,000 each. The company provides a full year’s depreciation charge in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal.

The company’s chief engineer tells you that technology is developing so rapidly it appears likely they will continue to replace these machines every five years. In spite of this, the finance director claims that the depreciation rate of 10% is in line with the industry standard and reflects the physical life of the machines. He urges that continued improvements in technology cannot be foreseen, and that there is no justification for increasing depreciation to 20% because of the possibility of technological obsolescence.

(c) Contingent liability:
The company is being sued for GHS50m by the Highways Agency for defective work on a recently completed road. The company maintains that it met the Highways Agency’s specification and it is the Agency’s engineers who are at fault in drawing up the specification. Big Build maintains that it has no case to answer, that the possibility of loss is remote, and that the claim need not be disclosed as a contingent liability. An investigative journalist has recently published an article suggesting that other roads constructed by the company exhibit similar faults. The managing director has admitted that the company’s road building techniques are under investigation by the Highways Agency. If the company were to lose the case, its future going concern would be threatened. No disclosure has been made in the financial statements.

Required:
For each of the following three issues, discuss whether the financial statements require amendment and describe the impact on the auditor’s report if the issue remains unresolved.
a) Inventory valuation.
(6 marks)
b) Depreciation.
(7 marks)
c) Contingent liability.
(7 marks)

Total: 20 marks