Violation of APES110 Ethics Principles
The APES110 states the ethical principles that the auditor should follow while discharging his duties for his clients. The ethical principles include integrity, congeniality, professional conduct and maintaining the highest level of professional judgement while conducting their duties (Sithole, et al., 2017). In the given assignment few cases have been discussed that highlights the ethical issues that the auditor might have gone through and same has been highlighted below.
In the given case it be Peter has been offered tickets at 25 percent discount due to his long association with the company, in this case Peter should not accept the tickets due to the competency of him being the auditor of the company from past 6 six years. This is against his professional conduct and is an ethical miss compliance of the principal of Professional behaviour that states that the auditor should not do any such thing that might bring disgrace to the profession. And thus, he should not accept the tickets at discounted price because he is the auditor of the company.
Jana has been hired as an auditor for the audit of Gerona Company and he has been working as the auditor for the past three years in the same industry. This is not a violation of the ethical principles as an auditor can work for the audit of the company who is in the same industry even if he has been working in the same industry for many years(Choy, 2018). The auditor just needs to maintain the confidentiality and integrity that should not hamper the position of the companies that he has audited before (Jefferson, 2017).
In the given case Jack Deck has no prior experience in installation of computerised machinery and he has taken help from an outside computer inventory consultant to do the work of the client and has also not checked his work due to tight deadlines and gives the cue for the installation of the machinery(Erik & Jan, 2017). In this case it can be said that the consultant is not working as per the ethical principles of APES 110 and has caused violation of many grounds. He did not maintain the confidentiality principle for the client and gave in the information that was crucial for him (Goldmann, 2016). He also failed on grounds of integrity in his professional competence and let the inventory be installed without correctly checking him from his own end. In case the company faces any loss because of that, the auditor would be held liable.
Threats to Auditor Independence
In this case four working partners has been indulged in quality assurance reviewing of another firm and then the reviewers are discussing the strength and weakness of the audit with the auditor of another firm(Kim, et al., 2017). This is an unethical approach on part of the auditor as they are not allowed to discuss the audit of one firm with another (Werner, 2017). If they are discussing audit as a general concept and not giving out the confidential information pertaining to the company, then that is not an unethical approach, but in case they are discussing the audit of the company then that would be an ethical violation of the principle of APES 110 (Trieu, 2017).
In this case Johan Goldens is a chartered accountant who also has an insurance business that he does not runs on his own name. The company is running by his manager and not in his own name and John has asked his manager to check the client insurance manager(Sithole, et al., 2017). This is an unethical approach as this is a congeniality issue for the auditor as he is sharing the information of his clients for his own personal motives and that is not a feasible action. This is against the ethical principles of APES110 and the auditor can be held liable for that on all grounds of the company. If the auditor is sharing client’s personal data for his own benefit then he is taking undue advantage of his position as the auditor of the company.
In this case in a town there are only two partners and two accounting firms and these companies are carrying on the audit of the companies in that area among themselves. This is against the ethical principles of APES110 as the auditor is not allowed to discuss the congenital information of the company among themselves and thus they should be held liable on that grounds(Grenier, 2017). They should be held liable and they should be asked to not share the information of the company with others. It is important to maintain the congeniality of the information that they have of the client. The client has shared this information based on lot of trust therefore that should not be broken also the clients if get to know important crucial information about the competitors they can misuse it for their own benefit.
Auditor independence refers to the independence that the internal or the external auditor from all the parties that might be having any kind of financial interest in the company. It is important that auditor should always maintain an independent approach so that the audit report is correct and unbiased. The stakeholders depend on that to take important decision with regards to the company and its official. There is multiple threat to an Auditors independence and we will discuss few such situations below.
Situation One: Keith Barnes and Maitland Coal Company
In this case Keith Barnes who has been working as an auditor for Andrew Capizzi Chartered Accounting firm has been asked by the partner of the company to express an opinion only on the financial statement of the company and report in case there is any misstatement. Indirectly he is saying that it is not Keith responsibility if the company is using the cheapest method of waste disposal that can cause a lot of pollution and has not resorted to more environment friendly methods that can help in reducing the pollution to lower level (Alexander, 2016). This auditing firm working with the stated Maitland Coal company, for last eight years and it is also stated that the auditor has a share of 25% in the total revenue of the company. Thus, this can be considered as a situation to the independence of the auditor which can be categorized as follow:
Self-interest Threat – The auditor is having personal interests involved with the company and the auditor will try to modify the opinion, because they would be afraid of losing the client and the major revenue that the company is providing the auditors of the company.
Relationship Threat – The auditor must work as per the directions of the partner, as he is working in that audit firm and even he wants he cannot state the various issues that he might be facing with the actions of the company and thus here comes the relationship threat that exists because of position and company fears losing on to the client and the auditor fears losing on to the job for that matter (Arnott, et al., 2017).
These threats put the auditor of the company in a very bad position and if the authorities come to know that the coal mining company resorted to such cheap methods and have been polluting the environment, they would be held liable. Also, it is the responsibility of the auditors as per code of ethics to maintain their integrity whenever they are dealing with the company and making an opinion on its financials (Belton, 2017). Both the person auditing and the firm would be held liable for negligence and forming wrong opinion and that can also lead to cancellation of their licenses and they would also be required to pay huge amount of penalty in such cases.
In the given situation the auditor of the company Ken Smith, has been working with Moonies with past six years as their auditor and the company has not paid audit fees 20 percent of the final settlement and has also used the services of one accountant of the company for their own needs and are now thinking about making selection of auditors for the current period. Ken Smith has been joined as auditor for the current period by Dave Dunne who has been the auditor of the company for past 9 years and by Teena Dean who is the daughter of the managing director who has just finished her accounting degree with no prior work experience (Das, 2017). The auditor has also found that the company is using inappropriate methods for inventory valuation and is not following the appropriate accounting standard and has also done wrong treatment of the research that has been carried down by them.
Situation Two: Ken Smith, Moonies and Inappropriate Methods
Self-interest Threat – In case Kirk discusses all these discrepancies with Ken before the board meeting for the selection of auditor of the company, there are high chances that the auditor might be influenced since he has been working with the company past so many years. And, the auditors are getting some amount of revenue from the company (Goldmann, 2016).
Advising Threat – It has been mentioned that the accountant of the audit firm has served as the accountant of the company also. Thus, there are chances of advising threats as there are related parties involved and this can also lead to a situation of multiple threats for the audit firm.
Relationship Threat – The managing director daughter is working with the auditor of the company even though she is having no practical exposure of auditing and hence this can be a case of relationship threat. It is very much possible that when the audit would be conducted the related party who is the daughter will have an upper hand and can influence the opinion of the auditor of the company.
The auditor is aware that the company is not abiding with the relevant accounting standards then he should mention the same in his audit report without getting influence from outside sources. It is the responsibility of the auditors of the company to make sure that the financial statements are free from all kind of misstatements and anything that process a threat to the independence of the auditor should be briefly stated and highlighted. The shareholders depend on the audit report to take important decisions with respect to the company. In case the same is found by the authorities the auditor and the firm would be high liable and their license can also be cancelled. They can be put behind bars and the company must face repressions also. Thus, the auditor should maintain a firm ground (Farmer, 2018). He should falsify the audit report and give a wrong information to the audiences.
Thus, it can be seen from the following situations that there are many things that can affect the independence of the auditor but the auditor should always try to follow the code of ethics while discharging their duty and should also state their correct opinion on the financials of the company. The stakeholders depend on the audit report to take important decisions with regards to the company and its investments. The auditor should always try to protect his position.
References
Alexander, F., 2016. The Changing Face of Accountability. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), pp. 411-431.
Arnott, D., Lizama, F. & Song, Y., 2017. Patterns of business intelligence systems use in organizations. Decision Support Systems, Volume 97, pp. 58-68.
Belton, P., 2017. Competitive Strategy: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. London: Macat International ltd.
Choy, Y. K., 2018. Cost-benefit Analysis, Values, Wellbeing and Ethics: An Indigenous Worldview Analysis. Ecological Economics, p. 145.
Das, P., 2017. Financing Pattern and Utilization of Fixed Assets – A Study. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 2(2), pp. 10-17.
Erik, H. & Jan, B., 2017. Supply chain management and activity-based costing: Current status and directions for the future. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(8), pp. 712-735.
Farmer, Y., 2018. Ethical Decision Making and Reputation Management in Public Relations. Journal of Media Ethics, pp. 1-12.
Goldmann, K., 2016. Financial Liquidity and Profitability Management in Practice of Polish Business. Financial Environment and Business Development, Volume 4, pp. 103-112.
Grenier, J., 2017. Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), pp. 241-256.
Jefferson, M., 2017. Energy, Complexity and Wealth Maximization, R. Ayres. Springer, Switzerland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, pp. 353-354.
Kim, M., Schmidgall, R. & Damitio, J., 2017. Key Managerial Accounting Skills for Lodging Industry Managers: The Third Phase of a Repeated Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, , 18(1), pp. 23-40.
Sithole, S., Chandler, P., Abeysekera, I. & Paas, F., 2017. Benefits of guided self-management of attention on learning accounting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), p. 220.
Trieu, V., 2017. Getting value from Business Intelligence systems: A review and research agenda. Decision Support Systems, Volume 93, pp. 111-124.
Werner, M., 2017. Financial process mining – Accounting data structure dependent control flow inference. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Volume 25, pp. 57-80.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
