The Audit Work Development Plan of the National Audit Office from 2003 to 2007 proposes to "improve the form and content requirements of the current audit report". The Audit Commission issued the Criteria for the Evaluation of Audit Matters of Audit Institutions by Order No.5, and the Audit Commission also made specific provisions on audit evaluation opinions by Order No.6, which shows that audit evaluation is an important part of audit reports. Audit evaluation of audit institutions is an act of analyzing and judging the authenticity, legality and effectiveness of the audited entity's financial and financial revenues and expenditures according to the determined audit objectives and audit results, and issuing audit opinions. Audit evaluation requires auditors to have strong policy level, good professional quality and high comprehensive level. The level of audit evaluation not only reflects the quality of audit work, but also relates to the image and authority of the audit department and directly relates to the image of the audited object.

First, the main problems in the audit evaluation

Audit evaluation is beyond the scope of audit responsibility and is contradictory. When writing the audit evaluation, due to ignoring the basic work, not fully grasping the situation, detailed materials, or inaccurate target setting, the audit evaluation did nothing. According to the work summary provided by the audited entity, the evaluation is: what work has been done, what requirements have been met and what achievements have been made. Especially in financial audit, unaudited business data will also be taken out for evaluation, which is beyond the scope of audit duties. At the same time, the contents of the audit report contradict the contents of the audit decision made. For example, the evaluation is that a unit has implemented the national financial laws and regulations well and its income and expenditure are legal. However, in the audit decision, it is considered that the unit has serious tax evasion, and there are huge off-balance sheet funds and "small treasury". There are contradictions in audit evaluation.

Audit evaluation is subjective and one-sided. The audit evaluation opinions of some audit projects have not gone through the necessary audit inspection and testing, but are one-sided conclusions based on subjective reasoning after auditing and verifying some situations. If the audit evaluation of some projects is: a unit's internal control system is relatively sound, and a unit has implemented the national financial laws and regulations well. The evaluation opinions are given by subjective inference and there is no corresponding audit working paper as the basis.

Audit evaluation is single and general. No matter what the audit project is, the audit evaluation is the same. Not according to the specific situation of the audited entity, the audit objectives determined by the audit project, the authenticity, legality and effectiveness of the accounting information provided by the audited entity and the relevant internal control system of the audited entity. But a single general evaluation, or no evaluation, or a unified evaluation of the consistency of accounts and accounts.

The words used in audit evaluation are inappropriate and inaccurate. Audit evaluation has a bad grasp of words, and there are problems of improper words. If some units have certain or even serious violations of discipline, they often take into account the image of the audited unit in the audit evaluation, or accommodate the audited unit, or exaggerate the "basically true, basically legal and basically sound" in the audit evaluation as "true, legal and sound" in order to implement the audit decision faster and better. Other audit evaluations express positive opinions on some major issues with poor awareness of risk prevention, without any prefix words, and the language expression is too absolute. If so, the audit evaluation is: through the audit, a unit truly reflects the annual financial revenue and expenditure; Through the audit, a unit has no violation of discipline; Through the audit, someone is honest and has no financial problems. At present, the legal system is not perfect, the audited units and individuals have a weak sense of abiding by the law, the economic and business activities are complex, and the audit is limited by many objective conditions, so the scope, depth and breadth of the audit are not in place, so there is a huge audit risk in this evaluation.

Second, the reasons for the problems

Audit evaluation norms and standards are relatively backward. With the development of the situation, the audit evaluation standard is relatively backward. The management of the audited object and the national financial accounting system have undergone major changes. Judging from the development of audit itself, the field of audit is expanding, and the audit of economic responsibility and the audit of public financial management are strengthening. However, the relevant audit evaluation standards have not yet been established, and the existing audit evaluation standards are too abstract and not practical enough. At the same time, due to the relatively slow construction of new audit evaluation criteria and other laws and regulations, the existing audit evaluation criteria are not concrete and abstract enough. It can only be represented by three concepts: truth, basic truth and untruthfulness. As for what kind of situation, what "quantity" is used to characterize it is not clear, which makes it difficult for auditors to follow the law and grasp the audit evaluation.

Auditors don't quite understand the importance of audit evaluation. Due to some auditors' insufficient understanding of the importance of audit evaluation, many important contents of audit evaluation were ignored in the process of audit verification, and the materials were not processed and sorted out. Screening and classifying these materials can not make the audit evaluation "typical, true, novel and full", and it is inevitable to "cook without rice" in the evaluation, which can only be vague and make the evaluation unfounded.

Constrained by subjective and objective conditions. Due to objective factors such as the lack of comprehensive quality of some auditors, the relatively backward audit technology and methods, and subjective factors such as the cooperation and support provided by the audited units, the audit evaluation involves a lot of content, which is irrelevant, formalistic or vague, which also makes the evaluation unfounded.

Third, countermeasures to solve the problem

In view of the above problems and reasons, combined with the current audit evaluation work of audit institutions, how to overcome the problems existing in audit evaluation work, effectively prevent audit risks and improve audit quality should be achieved by three enhancements and three grasps.

First, strengthen auditors' awareness of audit evaluation and grasp the "understanding barrier". Auditors should fully realize that audit evaluation is related to the overall situation of audit work and cannot be casually. Whether the auditee and the auditee can be objectively evaluated not only reflects the level of the audit department's administration according to law, but also reflects the breadth and depth of specific audit projects and the quality of the audit, thus affecting the quality of the whole audit work and ultimately affecting the image and prestige of the audit department. A good audit evaluation can establish the image and authority of the audit department in administering according to law. On the contrary, it will lead to administrative reconsideration and litigation. If reconsideration and litigation fail, it will inevitably bring a series of negative effects. Only by "understanding" well can we fundamentally solve the problem of false audit evaluation.

The second is to improve the overall professional quality of auditors and do a good job of "investigation and evidence collection". In practical work, it is necessary to improve auditors' ability to master scientific auditing methods and modern auditing means, and enhance their comprehensive analysis and logical thinking ability. It is necessary to strictly follow the audit implementation plan, skillfully use various auxiliary audit methods, test the soundness and compliance of the internal control system of the audited entity, comprehensively and in detail audit the financial accounting data of the audited entity, and judge the authenticity of the financial accounting data of the audited entity. At the same time, determine the audit focus and conduct sampling audit. Using reasonable auditing techniques and methods, we can thoroughly check every specific audited item and specific link, ensure the in-depth excavation of key points, and judge and evaluate the legitimacy and efficiency of specific financial revenue and expenditure activities of audited units. Finally, make good use of the audit evidence and make a reasonable evaluation. Auditors should strive to improve their analytical judgment and logical thinking ability, and make an objective, fair and realistic evaluation of the audited units and matters according to the audit evaluation criteria through comprehensive thinking and analysis of problems.

The third is to strengthen the risk prevention of audit evaluation and do a good job of "double investigation". At present, the review institutions and reviewers of audit institutions often pay more attention to the correctness and adequacy of audit procedures, the characterization and handling of audit investigation issues, and the correctness of cited laws and regulations, while often ignoring the review of audit evaluation. Therefore, as a reviewer of audit institutions, we must attach importance to the review of audit evaluation, put the review of audit evaluation in the same important position as the review of audit procedures, the characterization and handling of audit problems, increase the review of audit evaluation opinions, completely correct the problems existing in audit evaluation, and do a good job of "review" to effectively prevent and reduce risks in audit evaluation.