The Blues Company AICPA Code of Professional Conduct Discussion Paper

User Generated

Funjarre

Business Finance

Description

In this Discussion, you will be able to familiarize yourself with the rules that govern CPAs. Understanding these rules helps to ensure you provide accounting services to your clients with sound ethical and legal practices.

  • Based on the scenario below, determine the violations of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. State which rules are violated and how the parties’ actions violated those rules.

The Blues Company hired Dan Wilson, a CPA and a member of the AICPA, to perform the financial statement audit for its current year. Halfway through the audit, the Blues Company president released Dan Wilson from the engagement due to several disputes with management. Dan Wilson was not paid for performing his part of the audit, and Dan Wilson did not give his working papers to Blues Company to use. The working papers contained several adjusting journal entries as well as company analysis, among other things that Blues Company cannot recreate.

Just do response each posted # 1 to 3 down below only

Posted 1

After looking through the code of professional conduct i found on www.AICPA.org I believe that this situation falls under the Acts Discreditable Rule. Reading through section 1.400.200 since the member was not paid for the work done they do not have to provide any of their working documents. The member does however need to return any documents that they received from the client. The reasons a member could withhold documents are because fees are not paid to member, work is incomplete, professional standards, or litigation against the member. The way I understand the rule is all working documents are the owner of the member so even if they pay the member they would not have to give up the documents. Plus it is incomplete work so that is another reason they would not have to turn over their work.

AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2019, from https://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/codeofconduct.html

Posted 2

Good afternoon classmates,

The scenario this week can be a bit tricky and could vary from state to state. When you review the Code of Professional Conduct found on the AICPA website (Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, 2016), It has a clear definition of what working papers are, who can claim ownership, and when certain records must be turned over. It also clarifies that even with the AICPA Code of Conduct, a member must also follow their State’s Board of Accountancy (Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, 2016, p. 114)

The AICPA regulations state that the working papers are the member’s property and the member is not required to provide that information to the client (Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, 2016, p. 115). However, it does state that there may be other regulations from the state or Federal level that can be imposed on this matter to the member. The AICPA further states that if a member violates their local regulations, they are also in violation of the AICPA Code of Professional conduct, as the AICPA Code states you must follow other state and Federal regulations.

In New Jersey where I live, Section 13:29-3.16 of the New Jersey State Board of Accountancy states (June 2015) “A licensee or the licensee's firm shall furnish to the licensee's client or former client, upon request made within a reasonable time after original issuance of the document in question…A copy of the licensee's or his or her firm's working papers, to the extent that such working papers include records which would ordinarily constitute part of the client's books and records, and are not otherwise available to the client” (p.29). Furthermore New Jersey’s regulations clearly state that client’s records cannot be withheld because of non-payment of fees.

Therefore in New Jersey, in this scenario, Dan Wilson would be in violation of the New Jersey Board of Accountancy and therefore in violation of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct for withholding working papers that contain information that cannot be recreated. In order for Dan Wilson to avoid being in violation, he should copy all information and provide same to the Blues Company. He will then need to seek a civil tort in order to receive the professional fees that he feels is due to him. Having remained ethical on his part and turning over all documentation would help Dan in the civil suit, as the documentation would show that he did everything that he was obliged to do, and that the Blues Company has not honored their part of the contract.

Posted 3

Hello Class,

According to Gibson, Pany, & Smith, “CPAs must document their understanding of engagement in the working papers and include its’ objectives, the responsibilities of the auditor and of management and the engagements’ limitation” (1998). Also, according to AU sec. 339, audit documentation is the record of audit procedures, evidence, opinion, and conclusion of the auditor (PCAOB, n.d.). The auditor is the author of the audit documentation and he/ she has a responsibility to keep and maintain the records. (PCAOB, n.d.). In addition, adjusting entries are considered as prepared records Therefore, in the scenario, I do not think Dan Wilson violated the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. I also think if the engagement letter stated that payment was due when both parties were satisfied, then the Blues Company might not have to pay for Dan’s performing his part of the audit. In real life, I have read the engagement letters of our company with the CPA company that the amounts are broken down into portions and are due as they complete each part of the audit. Auditors do not have to wait until the end of the audit term to receive the money. If this is the case, Blues Company is obligated to pay Dan Wilson for the part he had finished.

References:

Gibson, K. M., Pany, K., & Smith, S. H. (1998, January 1). Do We Understand Each Other? Journal of Accountancy. Retrieved from https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/1998/jan/gibson.html

PCAOB. AU Section 339. (n.d.). Audit Documentation. Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Archived/Pages/AU339b.aspx

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

First Name Last Name
Instructor
Course
26 May 2019
Responses
Response to Post 1
From the post, it is clear that the actions of Dan can be justified. Keeping the papers from the
company appears to be the right thing to do as he is allowed to withhold documents when there
are any fees pending. Even so, I don’t understand why you state that he needs to return
documents that he received from the client....


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags