SOX
Re-Engineering: Establishing and Testing
Entity-Level Controls
By: Mitchell H. Levine, CISA
-
Audit Serve, Inc.
SOX
Restructuring
Consulting Services
Based
on AS 5 Guidance
2008 has been the year in which organizations have initiated projects
using the guidance provided from AS5 to reduce the scope of their SOX
testing based replacing activity-level controls with linked entity-level
controls.
Organizations which have never established entity-level controls are
hesitant to replace activity-level controls because entity-level
controls have not been tested in prior years. Since the entity-level
controls need be proven effective to replace linked activity-level
controls, consideration should be made to run the entity and
activity-level controls in parallel the first year.
Prior to an organization proceeding down the path to eliminate the
testing of activity-level controls based on establishing and testing
linked entity-level controls, a negotiation needs to occur with the
external auditors to ensure that they agree with the established link
between the entity and activity level controls and the method in which
the entity-level controls will be tested. Although AS5 removed the
requirement for external auditors to express an opinion on management’s
SOX control design and testing, the two projects are linked because the
external auditors in almost all cases rely partially on management’s
testing to reduce the scope of their testing.
When establishing test plans for entity-level controls, strong
consideration should be made to design the tests in which the
administration processes for carrying out the control are tested instead
of designing a test to identify isolated instances in which a
control/event did not occur which is tied to an entity-level control.
For instance, the entity-level control to ensure that Data Owners are
defined for all sensitive resources should have a test which ensures
that (1) a data classification standard exists which identifies
sensitive resources (2) a corporate-wide tracking list is maintained
which identifies sensitive resources and their respective data owners.
The entity-level testing approach which should not be taken would be to
randomly select a sensitive resource and determining whether it is
included on the tracking list.
Although AS5 provided a basis for eliminating the need to test
activity-level controls, if the absence of these controls would not
cause a material misstatement that would not be prevented or detected,
organizations have been reluctant to use this guidance from PCAOB as the
basis for eliminating these activity-level controls.
The Re-engineering project to reduce the testing of activity-level
controls based on AS5 requires a document to be established which
provides the rationale to support all scope reductions measures which
are taken. In addition, the activity-level controls which are
eliminated from testing should be retained in a control inventory and
reviewed in subsequent years to ensure the link to entity-level controls
remains the same. Refer to Audit Serve’s partial list of
recommended entity-level controls.
It
is also important to test the entity-level controls as early in the
fiscal year as possible to allow for re-testing and possible control
design remediation if the test should fail. As an alternative, if the
entity-level test fails, testing would need to be scheduled for linked
activity-level controls which originally were not slated to be tested.
_________________________________________________________
Mitchell Levine is the founder of Audit
Serve, Inc. whose primary mission in 2008 has been to provide SOX scope
reduction consulting services. Audit Serve conducts Integrated & IT
Audits, SOX Control Design & Testing. Email Mr. Levine at
Levinemh@auditserve.com if you would
like to discuss your organization's specific project requirements in
order to establish a proposal of services.
Copyright 2008, Audit Serve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction, which includes links from other Web sites, is prohibited except by
permission in writing.
This article appeared in a past issue of the Audit Vision
E-Mail Newsletter.
|