Amendments to ASA 265Amendments to ASA 265

Amendments to ASA 265

1. Existing paragraph A9 is amended to read as follows:

Law or regulation in some jurisdictions may establish a requirement (particularly for audits of listedpublicly traded entities) for the auditor to communicate to those charged with governance or to other relevant parties (such as regulators) one or more specific types of deficiency in internal control that the auditor has identified during the audit. Where law or regulation has established specific terms and definitions for these types of deficiency and requires the auditor to use these terms and definitions for the purpose of the communication, the auditor uses such terms and definitions when communicating in accordance with the legal or regulatory requirement.

1. Existing paragraph A13 is amended to read as follows:

In determining when to issue the written communication, the auditor may consider whether receipt of such communication would be an important factor in enabling those charged with governance to discharge their oversight responsibilities. In addition, for listedpublicly traded entities in certain jurisdictions, those charged with governance may need to receive the auditor’s written communication before the date of approval of the financial report in order to discharge specific responsibilities in relation to internal control for regulatory or other purposes. For other entities, the auditor may issue the written communication at a later date. Nevertheless, in the latter case, as the auditor’s written communication of significant deficiencies forms part of the final audit file, the written communication is subject to the overriding requirement7 for the auditor to complete the assembly of the final audit file on a timely basis. ASA 230 states that an appropriate time limit within which to complete the assembly of the final audit file is ordinarily not more than 60 days after the date of the auditor’s report.8

1. Existing paragraph A15 is amended to read as follows:

The level of detail at which to communicate significant deficiencies is a matter of the auditor’s professional judgement in the circumstances. Factors that the auditor may consider in determining an appropriate level of detail for the communication include, for example:

 The nature of the entity. For exampleinstance, the communication required for a public interest entity may be different from that for an entity other than a non‑public interest entity.

 The size and complexity of the entity. For exampleinstance, the communication required for a complex entity may be different from that for an entity operating a simple business.

 The nature of significant deficiencies that the auditor has identified.

 The entity’s governance composition. For exampleinstance, more detail may be needed if those charged with governance include members who do not have significant experience in the entity’s industry or in the affected areas.