HLB Vneshaudit: Uralkhimmash Fails To Identify Capital Surplus
23 June 2011 (09:31)
HLB Vneshaudit produced a report on the results of Uralkhimmash’s audit procedure. The news was carried by Oblastnaya Gazeta.
We have not received sufficient proof and therefore cannot present a certain opinion as far as the following indicators are concerned: firstly, the additional capital within the statement of assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2010. The reason is that numerous instances of incongruence were found among the data provided, namely: the indices of the wear and tear recalculation are different from the indices applied to the recalculation of the main assets’ balance sheet value. We are willing to allow that this discrepancy has to do with the use of lowering coefficients for the wear and tear amortization, which is actually legal. Still, there is no way this assumption can possibly be proven. Then, the amortization sums prior to the reassessment as of the day the reassessment was made are not identical with the amortization sums following the reassessment as of the previous reassessment date. This means that the later assessment amortization sum is over-assessed. Finally, the present value following the reassessment is not the same as the balance value relating to the later reassessment,’ the auditors say.
What is more, Uralkhimmash failed to identify its additional capital (52.93m RUR) either on January 1, 2010 or December 31, 2010.
We have not received sufficient proof and therefore cannot present a certain opinion as far as the following indicators are concerned: firstly, the additional capital within the statement of assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2010. The reason is that numerous instances of incongruence were found among the data provided, namely: the indices of the wear and tear recalculation are different from the indices applied to the recalculation of the main assets’ balance sheet value. We are willing to allow that this discrepancy has to do with the use of lowering coefficients for the wear and tear amortization, which is actually legal. Still, there is no way this assumption can possibly be proven. Then, the amortization sums prior to the reassessment as of the day the reassessment was made are not identical with the amortization sums following the reassessment as of the previous reassessment date. This means that the later assessment amortization sum is over-assessed. Finally, the present value following the reassessment is not the same as the balance value relating to the later reassessment,’ the auditors say.
What is more, Uralkhimmash failed to identify its additional capital (52.93m RUR) either on January 1, 2010 or December 31, 2010.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |