A finished ACC-491 Topic 7 receivables confirmation working paper example, documenting purpose, selection, responses, exceptions and projection so that a reviewer can reach the same conclusion unaided. Searches like "acc 491 topic 7 assignment example", "acc491 topic 7 sample" and "acc-491 topic 7 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-491 Topic 7 receivables confirmation working paper looks like
The working paper carries the header a reviewer expects: client, year end, reference C-3, preparer and reviewer with dates, and a purpose line naming existence as the assertion tested. Selection comes next, all figures illustrative. Every account over $100,000 is confirmed, 22 accounts totaling $3.9 million, plus 30 accounts drawn at random from the remaining $2.3 million, for coverage of $4.31 million. Of 52 requests, 44 come back. The eight nonresponses are cleared by alternative procedures, January cash receipts matched to specific invoices and shipping documents for the rest. Three replies disagree: two are payments in transit that cleared in early January, and one is a pricing dispute of $18,000 that the client concedes. Projected across the untested remainder, that error becomes about $101,000. Tickmarks tie each figure to the aging schedule.
How an ACC-491 Topic 7 example is structured
The paper follows the order a reviewer would check it in, from why the work was done to what it proves. The header and purpose come first, naming the assertion so every later step can be measured against it. A second block describes the population and the selection method, with the key item threshold and the random selection documented well enough to be repeated. The third block is the confirmation log, one line per request showing the amount, date sent, date received and result. Exceptions follow, each with its investigation and resolution recorded apart from the log. The fifth block documents alternative procedures for nonresponses, invoice by invoice. The projection comes sixth, scaling the sample misstatement to the remainder then setting the result against tolerable misstatement. The conclusion sits last, in two sentences, with a cross-reference to the summary of misstatements where the $101,000 is carried.
Purpose naming a single assertion
The header states that the work tests existence, which tells a reviewer that valuation evidence belongs somewhere else in the file, not on this page.
Selection documented well enough to repeat
The $100,000 threshold and the random selection from the remainder are both recorded, so another auditor could draw the same accounts from the same aging.
Exceptions resolved in their own block
Timing differences and the pricing dispute are each investigated and resolved on separate lines, keeping the log readable and the reasoning behind every exception visible.
Nonresponses cleared with outside evidence
Cash received in January against specific invoices supports existence for the silent customers, and shipping documents cover any balance that remained unpaid.
Error projected, not only reported
The $18,000 misstatement is scaled to the untested remainder, and the projected $101,000 moves to the summary of misstatements for evaluation with the rest.
Where marks go in ACC-491 Topic 7
Working papers are marked as documents another auditor will use, and the common failures are the ones that leave that auditor stranded. A paper describing the confirmation work in paragraphs, with no log of requests and results, makes the reviewer rebuild the work to check it. Missing the purpose line, or naming valuation as the assertion confirmations test, points the whole paper at the wrong target. Nonresponses left unresolved, or cleared with a note that the client considers the balances collectible, rest on management's word where outside evidence was available. Reporting the $18,000 dispute and never projecting it treats a sample result as the whole finding. Conclusions without a cross-reference to where the misstatement was carried, or without a reviewer's sign-off field, break the chain a file review depends on.
Get an ACC-491 Topic 7 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-491 Topic 7 instructions, the rubric and the balance, aging or case your section supplied. We write a custom example to them, with a purpose naming the assertion, a repeatable selection, a confirmation log, resolved exceptions, alternative procedures, a projection against tolerable misstatement and a cross-referenced conclusion, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one costs nothing.
ACC-491 Topic 7 questions, answered
Why confirm large accounts and sample the rest?
Because the large accounts carry most of the balance and most of the risk of a material error, so confirming all of them covers a large share of the balance with certainty. The remainder is made of many small accounts where sampling is efficient. Documenting both parts, and projecting any error found in the sample only to the part it represents, keeps the conclusion accurate for each.
What if a customer never replies?
The request is followed up, and if no reply comes, the auditor performs alternative procedures to obtain evidence of existence another way. Cash received after year end that pays the specific invoices in the balance is strong evidence, since it comes from the customer. For balances still unpaid, shipping documents and signed delivery records show the sale occurred. A nonresponse is never treated as agreement.
Is a timing difference a misstatement?
Usually not. A customer who paid on December 30 may report a zero balance while the company, correctly, shows the amount outstanding until the cash arrives. The working paper confirms the explanation by tracing the payment to its January receipt. A difference the company cannot support that way, such as the pricing dispute, is treated as a misstatement and evaluated with the others.