Definition
A test of controls checks operating effectiveness: did the control run, consistently, by the right person, for the whole period under audit? It differs from understanding design and implementation, which is part of risk assessment. Typical techniques are reperformance, inspection of evidence such as approval signatures, and observation. Inquiry alone does not test operating effectiveness.
Why it matters in an audit or review
AU-C 330 calls for tests of controls when the auditor's risk assessment expects controls to be operating effectively, or when substantive procedures alone cannot provide enough evidence (common with highly automated revenue processing). Reliance on controls lets the auditor reduce substantive work, but only if the testing supports it.
Example
A control requires a second approver on vendor payments above $10,000 (illustrative). The auditor selects 60 payments over the threshold using attribute sampling and inspects each for the second approval. Two lack it. The deviation rate of 3.3 percent is compared with the tolerable rate to decide whether reliance holds.
Common mistakes
- Testing only the quarter-end month and extending the conclusion to the full year.
- Ignoring deviations as isolated without understanding why they occurred.
FAQ
Are tests of controls required on every audit?
No. Many small-entity audits go fully substantive after judging controls will not be relied on.
Sources
- AICPA, AU-C Section 330, Performing Audit Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks
- AICPA, AU-C Section 315 (as amended by SAS No. 145)
- AICPA, AU-C Section 530, Audit Sampling
Definitions paraphrase AICPA and FASB guidance; read the standard itself before relying on a requirement. Example figures are illustrative. This page is guidance, not professional advice. Report an error