Gordon Good Case Study

1185 Words3 Pages

In this case study, the two partners of GBB are the Engagement Quality Review Partner (EQRP) and the audit partner of LPL respectively. As they are a part of the same firm, the Audit partner, who found a material misstatement which changed the profit figures and which he should have been communicated to LPL, decided to talk internally in his firm where he was told by his senior to cover up the mistake done by their consulting staff by changing the accounting policy itself and give an unqualified report for their own personal benefits
In this whole scenario, the following ,fundamental ethical principles are being violated:
Integrity
This principle puts an obligation on all assurance practitioners to be straightforward and honest in …show more content…

In this case, Jane is making Gordan violating the principle of objectivity by trying to influence his decision of disclosing the wrong variance calculation for saving the reputation, market share and profits of their firm which will be affected if he’ll disclose it .
Professional Competence and Due Care
This principle imposes the obligation on assurance practitioners to maintain professional knowledge and skill at the level required to ensure that a client receives competent assurance services based on current developments in practice, legislation and techniques and act diligently and in accordance with the standards issued by the External PES 1 (Revised) 8 Reporting Board, the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the New Zealand Accounting Standards …show more content…

Gordan should follow the fundamental ethical principles and professionalism towards his auditing engagement. He should keep his professional scepticism hat on all the time and should have the ability to make his own decisions regarding his audit findings.
He should keep the matters confidential in first place but then if by chance he discusses with anybody, he should be objective enough to not get influenced by his seniors or anybody and go on the wrong path. He was wrong on his part discussing the material misstatement with Jane rather than directly informing his client LPL. Maintaining his integrity, he would have either truthfully discussed the matter directly with LPL management so that they can work over it to correct their profit or should have given a qualified report stating about the misstatement and inflated profits due to the large unfavourable labour variance which was recorded as an asset.
Being objective, he should not be scared to give an adverse report about the unfavorable variance which was miscalculated by the new system recommended by GBB only and would have decrease the profits already declared by LPL

Open Document