Skip to main content

Auditing Related Parties

Related party transactions present unique audit risks because they may not occur at arm's length and may be structured to achieve particular financial reporting outcomes. The auditor must identify related parties, evaluate whether transactions with them are properly recorded and disclosed, and consider implications for the entity's ability to continue as a going concern.

Related parties include entities or individuals that can significantly influence or be influenced by the reporting entity—such as parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, principal owners, management, and their immediate family members.

ProcedureDescription
Evaluate client's own proceduresReview management's process for identifying, authorizing, and disclosing related party transactions
Inquire of managementAsk management to identify all related parties and the nature of relationships and transactions
Review SEC filingsExamine proxy statements, Forms 10-K and 10-Q, and beneficial ownership filings for disclosed related parties and transactions
Review unusual transactionsScrutinize transactions that appear unusual in nature, timing, or amount—these may involve undisclosed related parties
Review prior year documentationExamine the predecessor auditor's workpapers and the prior year audit file for previously identified related parties
Inquire of predecessor auditorAsk the predecessor auditor about known related parties and any issues encountered
Review conflict of interest statementsExamine questionnaires or declarations completed by management and board members
Examine board minutes and contractsReview meeting minutes and significant contracts for references to related parties
tip

Related parties can be difficult to identify because management may not always be forthcoming. The auditor should maintain professional skepticism and be alert for indicators of undisclosed relationships, such as transactions with no apparent business purpose or at terms that differ significantly from market conditions.

While auditing Kingfisher Industries, the auditor:

  • Inquires of management and learns that the CEO's brother owns MSA Records, a vendor that supplies promotional materials
  • Reviews SEC proxy filings and identifies that a board member has a 15% ownership interest in Illini Entertainment, a customer
  • Examines the prior year audit file, which documented transactions with BIF Partners, an entity co-owned by Kingfisher's CFO
  • Reviews all transactions with these parties for proper arm's-length pricing and adequate disclosure
  • Transactions with no clear business purpose
  • Transactions at prices or terms significantly different from market
  • Complex transactions involving special-purpose entities with no clear economic substance
  • Loans to management or board members on favorable terms
  • Sales to entities with common ownership or management
  • Purchases from vendors with connections to management
warning

If the auditor identifies a significant related party transaction that management failed to disclose, the auditor must evaluate:

  1. Whether the omission is a material misstatement
  2. Whether it indicates a broader control deficiency
  3. Whether it raises concerns about management integrity

Going Concern Considerations

When auditing any entity, the auditor must evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern.

Indicators of Going Concern Issues

CategoryExamples
FinancialRecurring operating losses, negative cash flows, working capital deficiency, inability to meet debt obligations
OperationalLoss of key management, loss of a major customer or supplier, labor difficulties, uninsured catastrophes
Legal/RegulatoryPending litigation with potentially devastating outcomes, loss of a key license or patent
ExternalEconomic downturns affecting the industry, loss of a principal customer (e.g., Illini Security loses its largest contract)

Going Concern Period

The time horizon for evaluating going concern depends on the applicable reporting framework:

FrameworkGoing Concern Period
FASB (U.S. GAAP for nongovernmental entities)One year from the date the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued)
GASB (governmental entities)One year from the date of the auditor's report (the going concern evaluation period under government auditing standards aligns with one year beyond the financial statement date through to the auditor's report date)
Important Distinction

Under FASB ASC 205-40, management is required to evaluate going concern for a period of one year after the date the financial statements are issued. The auditor evaluates management's assessment for reasonableness.

For GASB entities, the auditor's evaluation considers conditions and events known as of the auditor's report date, looking forward approximately one year from the financial statement date.

Auditor's Response to Going Concern Doubt

When the auditor concludes there is substantial doubt about going concern:

  1. Evaluate management's plans to mitigate the conditions (e.g., plans to sell assets, restructure debt, obtain additional financing, reduce costs)
  2. Assess the feasibility of management's plans
  3. Determine the adequacy of disclosure in the financial statements
  4. Include an emphasis-of-matter paragraph (or explanatory paragraph) in the auditor's report if substantial doubt remains after considering management's plans

Required Phrases in the Going Concern Paragraph

Exam Must-Know

When substantial doubt about going concern exists and is not alleviated by management's plans, the auditor's report must include specific language. The following phrases are required in the going concern emphasis-of-matter/explanatory paragraph:

  • "substantial doubt" – The auditor must use this exact phrase
  • "going concern" – The auditor must reference the entity's ability to continue as a going concern

The paragraph is added after the opinion paragraph (for AICPA standards) and does not modify the opinion—it remains an unmodified opinion with an emphasis-of-matter paragraph.

Example: Going Concern at Illini Entertainment

Illini Entertainment has experienced three consecutive years of operating losses totaling $4.2 million, has a working capital deficit of $1.8 million, and its primary credit facility expires in six months. The auditor evaluates management's plan to raise $3 million through a new equity offering and renegotiate the credit facility.

After evaluating the feasibility of these plans (reviewing term sheets from potential investors and preliminary discussions with the bank), the auditor concludes that substantial doubt remains because the equity offering is not yet committed and the bank has not agreed to extend the facility.

The auditor includes an emphasis-of-matter paragraph in the audit report:

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that Illini Entertainment will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a working capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 12. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Summary

TopicKey Points
Identifying related partiesInquiry, SEC filings, unusual transactions, prior year files, predecessor auditor
Related party risksNon-arm's-length transactions, undisclosed relationships, management integrity concerns
Going concern – FASBOne year from date financial statements are issued
Going concern – GASBOne year from auditor's report date
Going concern report languageMust include "substantial doubt" and "going concern"
Opinion typeGoing concern does not change the opinion to qualified—it is an emphasis-of-matter paragraph with an unmodified opinion