Which of the following is NOT a reason for skipping confirmation as an audit procedure?

The chosen answer indicates that inherent and control risks being high is not a reason for skipping confirmation as an audit procedure. In fact, high inherent and control risks typically suggest an increased need for substantive testing like confirmations, as these risks may lead to greater likelihood of misstatements in the financial statements. This makes confirmation an essential procedure to obtain reliable, corroborative evidence regarding the balances being audited.

The other reasons for skipping confirmation have valid justifications within the context of an audit. For instance, if the receivables are deemed immaterial, the auditor may conclude that the effort and resources needed for confirmation are not justified given the minimal potential impact on the financial statements. In situations where confirmation would be ineffective, such as when the entity operates in a jurisdiction with communication barriers or the nature of the account does not lend itself to confirmation, this too serves as a legitimate reason to bypass the procedure. Lastly, if evidence from other audit procedures is already deemed sufficient to support the auditor's conclusions, the need for confirmation can be adequately replaced by this other evidence.

Thus, the dynamics of inherent and control risks lead to a reevaluation of the necessity for confirmations, reinforcing that they are critical tools rather than procedural options that can be disregarded without consideration.