Generally Accepted Auditing Standards Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Generally Accepted Auditing Standards - Essay Examplethe accumulation and evaluation of point regarding information to help determine and report on the degree of correspondence between information and constituted criteria (p. 4).Auditing requires that there must be verifiable information and certain standards by which the auditor can respect the information. The standards can vary depending on the nature of information. For instance, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principle) is considered to be the criteria for auditing historical fiscal statements. Auditing requires evidence like written communication and oral testimony and auditors need to obtain sufficient step of evidences. The final step in auditing is preparing the audit report (Arens, Elder and Beasley, 2006, p. 4).GAAS argon auditing standards that suggest necessary qualifications and characteristics of auditors. The guidelines are 10 GAAP standards that have experienced minimal changes since these were first develop ed in 1947 (Arens, Elder and Beasley, 2006, p. 4).These GAAS standards wait the same through time and for all audits, even though auditing procedures may vary depending on the complexness of accounting systems. The 10 GAAS standards relate to the competence of auditor, his independence in both financial and managerial dealing and the attitudes about professionalism (Louwers, Ramsay and Sinason, 2008. p. 39- 42).The GAAS elements also affect the standards at field that include detailed planning of the audit, risk sound judgment through internal control and collecting audit evidences. One of the major concerns of GAAS is regarding the standards in financial coverage and its contents.The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by George W Bush on July 2002, was intended to establish investor confidence by improving the smell of financial disclosures and audit reporting, to strengthen the independence of accounting firms and to increase the responsibilities of corporate officers (Hayes, Dassen and Schilder, 2005, p. 49).The