1. A) First and foremost, Sue is correct in determining that Simon is attempting to perform employment discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has made it clear that sex and age are not to be the basis for termination; Simon has made it clear that he has no problems with Betty’s performance – only the fact that Betty is not young and pretty.
However, Sue must keep in mind her priorities – she is a CPA first, not an EEO official. In this case study, the company is nearing the Q3 SEC filings deadline, and management certainly do not want “a distraction without strong supporting data.” Ultimately, Simon’s confessions are done in private – a case of “he said she said” clearly would be a distraction that would go nowhere. Although …show more content…
Sue is obligated to be loyal to her company, so even if she were to put in an honest effort, it is likely that she will not be able to perform an audit to a professional standard. The auditor must remain objective – judgments cannot be clouded because the auditor wants to please a client.
3.a) As an external auditor, TK&R is meant to be an outside, objective inspector. When such a tipoff of inventory not being done for a long time turns out to be solid, then of course the guilty party (CWO) would be unhappy. Denial is, after all, one of the first responses people have.
Chris needs to understand that despite Mark’s comments, she is ultimately obligated to the principle of objectivity. A truth, no matter how inconvenient, remains as a truth. Yes, the a report comes at a very inconvenient time, but it is precisely at this moment that any cover-ups be exposed. Ann’s goal for CWO is to be professional, and to uphold its great services selling good camping gear. Trying to hide any wrongdoings is the opposite of CWO’s mission statement, and ultimately undermines the company’s …show more content…
Chris should bring these findings to Ann, as a CEO should definitely know about any breaches of financial integrity in the company.
4.a) The question the TK&R is struggling with is a conflict between putting a client in a situation that violates the rules (AICPA Section 2.04) and to discharge professional services to the best of their ability (AICPA Section .300.060). Morris is indeed breaking a law, although marijuana use is legalized, it is still classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law. Unless Morris happens to have a license, he is forbidden from growing marijuana is large quantities.
That being said, Morris is indeed trying to pay his due taxes. TK&R, with the knowledge that Morris is moonlighting as a weed producer, are obligated as professionals to document his earnings through his side business. Unfortunately, the law does indicate that Morris is performing illegal actions.
All that TK&R can do is indicate that Morris needs to get his license, or he must discard his entire marijuana business. TK&R cannot knowingly aid Morris in breaking the rules, but with the license, then Morris will be adhering to all
However, Sue must keep in mind her priorities – she is a CPA first, not an EEO official. In this case study, the company is nearing the Q3 SEC filings deadline, and management certainly do not want “a distraction without strong supporting data.” Ultimately, Simon’s confessions are done in private – a case of “he said she said” clearly would be a distraction that would go nowhere. Although …show more content…
Sue is obligated to be loyal to her company, so even if she were to put in an honest effort, it is likely that she will not be able to perform an audit to a professional standard. The auditor must remain objective – judgments cannot be clouded because the auditor wants to please a client.
3.a) As an external auditor, TK&R is meant to be an outside, objective inspector. When such a tipoff of inventory not being done for a long time turns out to be solid, then of course the guilty party (CWO) would be unhappy. Denial is, after all, one of the first responses people have.
Chris needs to understand that despite Mark’s comments, she is ultimately obligated to the principle of objectivity. A truth, no matter how inconvenient, remains as a truth. Yes, the a report comes at a very inconvenient time, but it is precisely at this moment that any cover-ups be exposed. Ann’s goal for CWO is to be professional, and to uphold its great services selling good camping gear. Trying to hide any wrongdoings is the opposite of CWO’s mission statement, and ultimately undermines the company’s …show more content…
Chris should bring these findings to Ann, as a CEO should definitely know about any breaches of financial integrity in the company.
4.a) The question the TK&R is struggling with is a conflict between putting a client in a situation that violates the rules (AICPA Section 2.04) and to discharge professional services to the best of their ability (AICPA Section .300.060). Morris is indeed breaking a law, although marijuana use is legalized, it is still classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law. Unless Morris happens to have a license, he is forbidden from growing marijuana is large quantities.
That being said, Morris is indeed trying to pay his due taxes. TK&R, with the knowledge that Morris is moonlighting as a weed producer, are obligated as professionals to document his earnings through his side business. Unfortunately, the law does indicate that Morris is performing illegal actions.
All that TK&R can do is indicate that Morris needs to get his license, or he must discard his entire marijuana business. TK&R cannot knowingly aid Morris in breaking the rules, but with the license, then Morris will be adhering to all