Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p89
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 288766–292089

* The practitioner's expert will have access to sensitive or confidential entity information.

           * The respective roles or responsibilities of the practitioner and the practitioner's expert are different from those normally expected.

           * Multi-jurisdictional legal or regulatory requirements apply.

           * The matter to which the practitioner's expert's work relates is highly complex.

           * The practitioner has not previously used work performed by that expert.

           * The greater the extent of the practitioner's expert's work, and its significance in the context of the engagement.

Evaluating the adequacy of the practitioner's expert's work (Ref: Para. 57)

 1.       Procedures to evaluate the adequacy of the practitioner's expert's work for the practitioner's purposes may include:

           * Enquiries of the practitioner's expert.

           * Reviewing the practitioner's expert's working papers and reports.

           * Corroborative procedures, such as:

                   + Observing the practitioner's expert's work;

                   + Examining published data, such as statistical reports from reputable, authoritative sources;

                   + Confirming relevant matters with third parties;

                   + Performing detailed analytical procedures; and

                   + Reperforming calculations.

           * Discussion with another expert with relevant expertise when, for example, the findings or conclusions of the practitioner's expert are not consistent with other evidence obtained by the practitioner.

           * Discussing the practitioner's expert's report with management.

Using the Work of the Internal Audit Function (Ref: Para. 59)

 1.       In determining whether the work of the internal audit function can be used for purposes of the engagement, a first consideration is whether the planned nature and scope of the work of the internal audit function that has been performed, or is planned to be performed, is relevant to the practitioner's approach to the engagement.

 2.       The extent to which the internal audit function's organisational status and relevant policies and procedures support the objectivity of the internal auditors and the level of competence of the function are particularly important in determining whether to use and, if so, the nature and extent of the use of the work of the function that is appropriate in the circumstances.

 3.       Factors that may affect the practitioner's evaluation of whether the internal audit function applies a systematic and disciplined approach include the following:

           * The existence, adequacy and use of documented internal audit procedures or guidance covering such areas as risk assessments, work programs, documentation and reporting, the nature and extent of which is commensurate with the size and circumstances of an entity.

           * Whether the internal audit function has appropriate quality control policies and procedures, for example, policies and procedures that would be applicable to an internal audit function (such as those relating to leadership, human resources and engagement performance) or quality control requirements in standards set by the relevant professional bodies for internal auditors. Such bodies may also