practisingaccountantThe basis on which I assume the China...

practisingaccountant

The basis on which I assume the China invoice was issued close to year end is quite simple....

The auditors would have likely to have disclosed it as a post balance sheet event due to the related risk (surely they would have had to gain additional assurances etc supported by more than just a management representation).
The audit report was signed 30 Sept, 90 days in itself after year end date.


Even if it was at 90 days on 30 Sept I am surprised that it was not highlighted by auditors, but to not be specifically disclosed it could only (responsibly for auditors sake) have been issued close to 30 June year end and was hence not too far overdue.


The management rep note included in the accounts was dated 2 Sept. If the China debtor was a lot more than 90 days old at the date of the audit report (30/9), I'd imagine the auditors would have insisted on an updated letter from Dykes for inclusion in the accounts.

All my opinion, but nonetheless why I would conclude that the invoice was issued close to year end in an attempt to shovel the income through as a last minute entry to achieve forecasted revenue. Does not take away the joke that management forecast of revenue, while close to being met, was from a completely different source (ie China not Malaysia) that was originally forecast...