In recent years, the demand for auditors' issuance of assurance reports (statements) has increased heavily, and it comes primarily from trading companies, production companies, bankers, insurers, public authorities and government agencies. It happens frequently in this respect that assurance report recipients enclose assurance reports they have developed themselves. Concurrently with the increasing demand, it has been necessary to change/add to the regulations governing assurance reports, including the Danish Act on Registered and State-Authorised Public Accountants, the Danish Executive Order on Statements Made by State-Authorised and Registered Public Accountants and the Danish Standards on Auditing. Besides the changed Standards on Auditing, several new professional standards have been issued. The changes in regulations and professional standards have resulted in more rigorous requirements on auditors' work and an extension of their obligation to keep abreast of regulations. In addition, they are to respond critically to the standard assurance reports prepared by the assurance report recipients for the auditor to sign. In this graduate thesis, we have analysed how much knowledge auditors, assurance report recipients and assignors have of the Danish Act on Registered and State-Authorised Public Accountants, the Danish Executive Order on Statements Made by State-Authorised and Registered Public Accountants and the Danish Standards on Auditing. We have also analysed whether the so-called standard assurance reports prepared by assurance report recipients comply with the requirements of existing regulations and professional standards. Our analysis of standard assurance reports showed that many of the reports reviewed by us by no means complied with the existing requirements of regulations and professional standards. Generally, they did not include the basic elements outlined in the individual Standards on Auditing, and typically they did not include details as to whether the assurance report covered audit, review or other types of agreed-upon procedures. Nor were the responsibilities of the assignor and the auditor defined. Our conclusion is therefore that the auditor should not sign this type of standard assurance reports. We believe that, for each assurance engagement, the auditor should himself prepare an assurance report complying Revisorerklæringer – Revisors, hvervgivers og erklæringsmodtagers kendskab hertil with the requirements of regulations and professional standards governing the relevant assurance engagement. At worst, non-conforming assurance reports may result in the auditor being held liable in relation to the assignor and the assurance report recipient. Despite this risk, a number of accountants indicated that at some point during their career they had signed these non-conforming assurance reports. It was also evident from the responses to the questionnaires that the accountants were aware of both deficiencies in the standard assurance reports and of the possible implications of issuing a non-conforming assurance report. Having signed these reports nonetheless might indicate that the consequences for the auditor, having issued a non-confirming assurance report, are not serious enough – or auditors are not at a great risk of being held responsible for issuing a non-confirming assurance report. Our analysis of the degree of knowledge of assurance reporting revealed that there is room for improvement with all three groups. Our analysis is based on anonymous questionnaires sent to these three groups. The responses we received showed that some accountants do not apply the professional standards and that they are not adequately aware of the coherence between the individual Standards on Auditing. There were even some accountants who were not familiar with the substance of the Danish Act on Registered and State-Authorised Public Accountants, which we believe is quite alarming since this Act governs all work by accountants. It also turned out that some assurance report recipients and assignors were not aware of the different levels of assurance provided in assurance reports by auditors, including "reasonable assurance", "limited assurance" and "no assurance". To make serious decisions based on a signed assurance report, these terms should be known by assurance report recipients and assignors. Our analysis also showed that accountants do not always set aside enough time to explain to the assignor the significance of the substance and relevance of an assurance report, including particularly the level of assurance and any modifications in this respect. Overall, our questionnaire survey led to the conclusion that we believe that auditors, assignors and assurance report recipients need to communicate more. In our opinion, more and better communication would help improve both auditors' and particularly assignors' understanding of assurance reporting. Improving these groups' knowledge of this area would reduce the risk of especially assignors and assurance report recipients attaching wrong value to the assurance report and making decisions on an inaccurate basis. The lacking understanding of regulations and the Standards on Auditing governing assurance reports leads to a so-called "gap" between auditors, assurance report recipients and assignors. Revisorerklæringer – Revisors, hvervgivers og erklæringsmodtagers kendskab hertil This gap occurs when the auditor, the assurance report recipient and the assignor do not interpret the substance and relevance of the assurance report in the same way.