What would get even more amusing is seeing some of the terms that CPAs actaully use. For instance, an unqualified opinion is actually the best opinion in an audit. And every audit report has those weasel words such as "reasonable assurance" (note: it does not include the words "absolute assurance").JohnPCapitalist wrote:Most amusingly: GAAP has nothing to do with forensic auditing. A regular financial statement audit attempts to determine, to a reasonable level of likelihood, that a company conducts its accounting operations under GAAP. The disclaimer is that they don't test every transaction, just a sample, and they don't warrant that a financial statement audit will detect fraud (though it might). The audit itself is not properly said to be "under GAAP." And it is most certainly the case that a forensic audit is not about GAAP, it's about figuring out bad behavior, and there is a whole set of rules to determine just how detailed you have to go to look for fraud (mostly so forensic auditors can protect themselves if they look for fraud and miss it for whatever reason). Jimmie sounds like a fool because he's not demanding a forensic audit to identify a particular issue; he's just asking for a "forensic audit." I'd love to know where he got this phrase from, because it is absolutely meaningless, though I'm sure he thinks that "forensic" means he might be accusing them of a crime. Of course, the financial people who could enjoy a chuckle over this letter won't actually be getting copied on it; it'll just be filed by the customer service team.
But anyways, no audit is conducted in accordance with GAAP. They have GAAS (Generally accepted auditing standards) that they conduct their audits in accordance with.