Aicpa Code Of Ethics Case Study

1542 Words4 Pages

Case 1-4 1. The principles of the AICPA Code of Conduct should guide the work that Jose and Emily do as auditors. The principles that specifically apply to this situation are Responsibilities, The Public Interest, and Due Care. CPAs have the responsibility to “exercise sensitive professional and moral judgments in all activities.” (Mintz, p. 19) The AICPA defines the public interest as “clients, credit grantors, governments, employers, investigators, the business and financial community, and others who rely on the objectivity and integrity of CPAs to maintain the orderly function of commerce.” (Mintz, p. 19) Taxpayer dollars fund the Lone Star School District. Therefore, the auditors have a duty to protect the public interest in this …show more content…

Jose and Emily should be following standards and ensure that exceptions are not being made due to the pressure from the school district manager. 2. Josephson’s Six Pillars of Character can provide insights into the statements and behavior of the manager. Those statements and behavior indicate that there are problems with his Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, and Citizenship. In order to be trustworthy, the manager needs to provide transparent information. It is standard practice in business to provide receipts for any kind of reimbursement you are asking for. The honesty of the manager is being called into question since he cannot provide this basic information. He is also being unreliable as the district cannot count on him to follow the rules. The managers demeanor is defensive and rude and does not show respect to the auditors who are merely trying to exercise due care in the performance of their …show more content…

The ethical and professional issues of concern to Beverly Wald are: • The accounting system misallocated motors from the asset manufacturing equipment to inventory. There are issues of honesty, responsibility, and professional ethics. • Markowitz ordered motors against direct orders. He showed a lack of respect towards his supervisor, issues with loyalty and honesty. • Although the plant accountant knew it was wrong to charge motors to operating expenditures, the accountant bowed to the pressure to do it anyway. The accountant violated the AICPA code of conduct, especially regarding serving the public interest. There were also issues with honesty and integrity. • Milton issued such a restrictive standard that the business needs of the company were not being met. The machines were breaking down and customers experienced delays in receiving their product. The adherence to a strict rule blinded the company to ongoing operational needs. 2. The courses of action available to Wald, Plotkin, and Sugofsky to present at their meeting with Milton are: a. Approve the audit without making the changes to move the motors out of inventory and into assets. This does not protect the public interest and would violate professional standards. Milton Manufacturing would qualify for the

Open Document