A practitioner cannot accept an engagement unless he believes the subject matter to be capable of reasonably consistent evaluation against suitable, available criteria. An examination may be performed if, in addition to the general conditions, sufficient evidence exists or can be developed to support the responsible party's evaluation. To express an opinion, the practitioner must gather sufficient evidence to reduce attestation risk to an acceptably low level. Attestation risk is similar to the audit risk concept used in Statements on Auditing Standards.
Question: What levels of assurance should be given in attestation engagement reports?
What levels of assurance should be given in attestation engagement reports?
First the service that expresses assurance for attestation should be given in accordance to the AICPA professional standards. If there are any other standards used these should be clearly mentioned. There should not be any confusion with attestation reports. If there is an accounting firm, the firm should establish quality control policies and procedures so that its employees comply with the attestation standards. The level of assurance is "reasonable'. There is reasonable assurance that the firm and its personnel comply with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
Next, the application of the procedure in a particular assignment determines the level of assurance that is expressed in the attestation report. For instance, evidence from independent sources outside the company provides greater assurance about the issues than information merely from internal sources. Further, information from the attester's direct observation, examination, and tests is more persuasive.. This when using independent ...
This answer offers cogent arguments relating to attestation engagement reports