On Administration of Reduced Rates of Value Added Tax
Report ID: 96

The objective of the audit is to gain assurance that the State Revenue Service provides administration of reduced VAT rates: a) to verify if control over justified application of reduced VAT rates is provided and organized; b) to verify if revenue from reduced VAT rates is accounted and if forgone tax revenue, resulting from application of reduced rate, which could possibly be received if full VAT rate had been applied, is calculated.

To clarify if the Ministry of Finance provides development and implementation of tax policy regarding reduced VAT rates and if reduced tax rate’s efficiency and benefit to the public is assessed.

A number of discrepancies were disclosed in the activity of the Ministry of Finance, providing development and implementation and of tax policy, and in the activity of the State Revenue Service, providing administration of reduced VAT rate.

Discrepancies were detected in the internal control system of the State Revenue Service, providing administration of reduced VAT rates and VAT 12% compensations paid to agricultural produce manufacturers.

Implementation of Tasks Related to Environmental Projects and Measures in the Thaya River Basin
Report ID: 144

Cooperation between Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in conducting environmental audits has become more and more common in recent years for good reason: There are many benefits, for both the institutions and the environment. For the institutions, cooperative audits facilitate mutual sharing and learning, capacity building, networking, and identification of best practices. For the environment, many environmental problems transcend political boundaries. Thus, combining forces through cooperative environmental audits allows SAIs to take a broader view of the situation, to consider the various upstream and downstream impacts of domestic actions, and to benchmark best practices.

There are many models of and approaches to cooperative audits. They are applicable to a variety of situations, including the audit of international and regional environmental agreements, of shared physical resources (for example, watersheds), and of shared environmental problems (for example, domestic waste management). SAIs now have gained considerable experience in what works, what doesn’t work, and how best to ensure success.

The paper entitled Cooperation between Supreme Audit Institutions: Tips and Examples for Cooperative Audits responds to the ongoing demand for information and ideas on how to make cooperation work effectively. Reflecting the real-world experience of practitioners from some 29 SAIs, the paper provides practical advice and tips through each phase of the audit cycle.

While the examples in this paper are drawn from cooperative environmental audits, the tips have been generalized to make them broadly applicable to cooperative audits of any topic and perhaps also to cooperation with local or regional audit institutions. Tip 1 Communicate! is essential advice that readers will find reiterated throughout the paper.

This paper was co-led by the Supreme Chamber of Control of the Republic of Poland and The Netherlands Court of Audit. In particular, I would like to thank Rob de Bakker and Arien Blees-Booij from the Netherlands and Ewa Borkowska-Domanska and Monika Skrzypiec from Poland for all of their hard work and efforts in preparing this document. My thanks also goes to the many other organizations and individuals who contributed to this paper (see Acknowledgments).

I believe this paper will facilitate future cooperation between SAIs and enhance the effectiveness of their initiatives.

Cooperation between Supreme Audit Institutions: Tips and Examples for Cooperative Audits is one of four guidance papers developed by the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA) in the Work Plan period 2005–2007. The other three papers are:

• Evolution and Trends in Environmental Auditing,

• Auditing Biodiversity: Guidance for Supreme Audit Institutions, and

• The World Summit on Sustainable Development: An Audit Guide for Supreme Audit Institutions.

Readers are encouraged to consult these papers as well as Appendix 4 of this paper for information on other WGEA products and services.  

Summary of the parallel audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation
Report ID: 284

Unregistered fishing and the illegal harvesting of fish in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea, and the challenges these have set for the fishing authorities’ control work, have been central topics in the discussions of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission in recent years.

The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation conducted a parallel audit of the management of fish resources in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea from 2006 to 2007. The investigation was formally launched after an agreement of intent between the OAG and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation was signed in January 2006.

The objective of the investigation has been to assess goal achievement and the efficiency and effectiveness of national follow-up and implementation of bilateral agreements between Russia and Norway and decisions taken by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries

The audit was performed in parallel in the sense that common general audit questions and audit criteria were defined and the same outline used for the reports. The two audit reports were written separately and on the basis of independent information. A major element in the parallel audit has been reciprocal learning, and emphasis has therefore been placed on detailed descriptions of the organisation and working methods of Norwegian fisheries management.

In the period January – April 2006, common goals, audit questions and general audit criteria were drawn up by means of a written dialogue between the parties. At the meeting in Moscow in May 2006, the parties arrived at common audit questions, and an agreement was signed in June 2006. The working parties met again in September in Norway to go through methodological approach and preliminary findings and to implement joint audit procedures.

In October 2006, the parties reached agreement on a common outline for the two reports. This chapter briefly presents the methods and analytical concepts that have been used to study the various audit questions (topics). The analysis rests largely on three types of source: official documents, statistical material and records of qualitative interviews. The contents of all interview records have been verified by the informants.

A joint memorandum was signed by the Auditors General of the two countries on 18 June 2007.

Joint Report on the Results of the Parallel Audit of Implementation of the Agreement on Transboundary Water Issues Signed by the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of Ukraine
Report ID: 272

The SAIs of the Slovak Republic and Ukraine carried out the Parallel Audit of Implementation of the Agreement on Transboundary Water Issues signed by the Government of the Slovak Republic and the
Government of Ukraine.

The purpose of the audit was to verify and assess:

- implementation of the Agreement on Transboundary Water Issues signed by the Governments of the Slovak Republic and Ukraine;
- adherence to the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes.

The Joint Report includes the summary of the findings made on the Slovak and Ukrainian sides, as well as joint conclusions and recommendations concerning the issues of the water management development in the area of Slovak-Ukrainian transboundary waters.

Source: https://rp.gov.ua/upload-files/IntCooperation/IntAudits/31-12-2007%2009-00-00/Zvit_water.pdf