What is one reason the main procedures of statutory audits differ from other assurance engagements?

The main procedures of statutory audits differ from other assurance engagements primarily because statutory audits have a legally defined scope. This legal requirement means that the audit must adhere to specific regulations and standards set forth by governing bodies, which typically outline the objectives, procedures, and reporting requirements that auditors must follow.

Statutory audits are mandated by law for certain organizations, such as public companies, to ensure transparency and accountability in financial reporting. This differs from other assurance engagements, which may be more flexible and do not necessarily have a legal framework guiding their execution. The strict guidelines surrounding statutory audits necessitate a comprehensive approach to risk assessment, materiality, and evidence gathering, which distinguishes them from other assurance activities that can vary more widely in scope and methodology.

In contrast, while the duration of statutory audits may be longer due to their complexity and regulatory requirements, the length itself is not a fundamental reason for the difference in procedures. Similarly, the size of the auditing firm or the level of client involvement may vary but do not directly impact the core procedural differences inherent in the statutory nature of the audit. Overall, it is the legally defined scope that fundamentally sets statutory audits apart in terms of the procedures they follow.