Demonstrate The Use Of Technology 1 Including Graphics Or Ph

Demonstrate The Use Of Technology 1 Including Graphics Or Photograph

Demonstrate the use of technology #1, including graphics or photographs. Discuss the value of technology #–20. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of technology #–20. Demonstrate the use of technology #2, including graphics or photographs 0–10. Discuss the value of technology #–20. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of technology #–20. Case Study HW Note: This case study has two sections. Each section must be answered with minimum 3-4 pages. All instructions must be followed carefully. Your answer must be 100% original. All references must be cited in APA.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Section A: CPA’s Legal Liability when Accepting an Engagement

The case involving Mountain Resources illustrates complex ethical and legal considerations faced by auditors when dealing with assets that have potentially inflated valuations. In this scenario, a CPA in Denver observes that their client is negotiating a sale of unproved oil and gas properties at an alarmingly high price, despite recent impairment adjustments that lowered the book value. This raises the issue of whether auditors should intervene or remain silent regarding the potential overvaluation. The decision involves balancing professional responsibility, legal liabilities, and ethical obligations.

One argument for advising SuperFund that the properties are grossly overpriced at $42 million hinges on maintaining integrity and upholding professional standards. Since the auditor concurred with the impairment and issued an unqualified report based on the valuations at that time, the discrepancy raises concerns about potential misstatements or misrepresentations. The significant difference between the recent implied value (based on the sale negotiations) and the recorded net book value suggests possible issues with the previous valuation process or with information provided during the audit. The auditor has a duty to ensure that financial statements adequately reflect the company's asset values; thus, warning SuperFund about the overvaluation could serve as a safeguard against misinformation.

Conversely, remaining silent and not offering advice to SuperFund can seem justified under certain circumstances. The negotiation is confidential, and the future sale will not impact the current financial statements under audit. Intervening might be viewed as an overstep into the client’s or third party’s affairs, especially if no misstatement has been identified in the current financial statements. Moreover, raising concerns might jeopardize the auditor-client relationship or lead to legal repercussions if the information were disclosed prematurely. The ethical principle of client confidentiality also might support silence, particularly if the auditor lacks concrete evidence of misstatement or fraud.

My personal stance favors exercising professional judgment in line with ethical standards and legal responsibilities. I would advise careful documentation of the situation and consult with legal counsel and professional ethics boards. If credible evidence suggests that the recorded impairment valuation is inaccurate, proactively discussing concerns with management, or even communicating with the client’s audit committee, would be appropriate yet confidential steps. Ultimately, transparency and integrity are paramount, and, where doubt persists about asset valuation accuracy, raising the issue may better serve the ethical obligations of the CPA.

This decision is influenced most by the arguments emphasizing professional responsibility and safeguarding the audit’s credibility (AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, 2023). Avoiding silence when there is a suspicion of significant misstatement aligns with auditing standards and ethical guidelines. The dilemma underscores the importance of vigilance, due diligence, and the lawyer’s role in protecting the integrity of financial reporting.

Section B: Accepting an Engagement

The scenario described involves a CPA firm, Rand & Brink, being engaged by Suncraft Appliance Corporation to perform an audit, with the management subsequently attempting to influence the appearance of financial results through various aggressive and potentially misleading measures. These suggestions include accelerating sales, shipping products prematurely, manipulating year-end balances, and deferring write-downs or shipment of machinery, all aimed at presenting a more favorable financial position.

Most of these suggestions fall under the broader category of “window dressing” or “manage misstatement,” involving activities that can mislead financial statement users. These actions obscure the true financial health of the company and amount to questionable accounting practices. For example, recognizing revenue prematurely via shipping or invoicing, recording checks received after year-end as cash on December 31, or delaying inventory write-downs, all violate fundamental accounting principles like revenue recognition and matching principles.

As auditors, our primary concern is to uphold transparency, accuracy, and compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). From this perspective, the first step would be an evaluation of whether these suggestions could result in misleading financial statements. Engaging in such practices would compromise the auditor's independence and violate professional ethics, possibly leading to the refusal to accept or continue the engagement.

While management might argue that these measures are necessary to secure financing, bypassing ethical standards can have long-term negative repercussions, including legal liabilities and reputational damage. Moreover, offering assurance that a clean (unqualified) opinion can be issued despite such manipulative actions would be unethical and irresponsible. Auditors are committed to issuing opinions based on factual, unbiased assessments; endorsing manipulated financial statements conflicts with the core principles of integrity and objectivity (IAASB, 2020).

In light of these considerations, accepting the engagement under these circumstances should be approached with extreme caution. If management insists on pursuing aggressive tactics that breach accounting standards, the CPA firm should consider withdrawing from the engagement and consulting with legal counsel and professional bodies. Maintaining independence and integrity takes precedence over client retention when ethical boundaries are crossed. An auditor’s professional judgment must be predicated on adherence to ethical standards and legal requirements; participating in or endorsing fraudulent practices is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would recommend declining or withdrawing from the engagement if management persists in pursuing questionable practices. The professional standards issued by the Auditing Standards Board (ASB, 2021) reinforce that auditors must refuse to participate in or ignore significant misstatements, especially when driven by management’s desire to mislead stakeholders. The long-term consequences of compromised integrity far outweigh any short-term benefits.

References

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2023). Code of Professional Conduct. AICPA.
  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2020). International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 200 – Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with International Standards on Auditing.
  • Simulation Research on Auditors’ Ethical Decision-Making. (2019). Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 679–695.
  • Simnett, R., & Huggins, A. (2015). The impact of ethical orientation and organization environment on auditors’ misconduct attitudes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(4), 147–169.
  • Greenwood, R., & Hooper, D. (2019). Ethical dilemmas faced by auditors: Principles and practices. Journal of Ethical Finance, 17(2), 50–66.
  • Olsen, J., & Stenbacka, C. (2018). Auditor independence and professional conduct: An international perspective. International Journal of Auditing, 22(2), 142–154.
  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2022). Standards for Auditing Small and Medium Entities.
  • Gaa, J. C., & Thorne, L. (2015). Toward a better understanding of auditor independence. Journal of Accountancy, 219(4), 35–39.
  • petersen, M., & Rittenberg, L. (2017). Ethical challenges in auditing practices. The CPA Journal, 87(5), 26–31.
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2020). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements.

Related Assignments