This case includes the following quote from a former PCAOB official: “The [audit] firm tends to be the subject of disciplinary action when there is a failure of oversight or supervision. Where a particular partner simply makes an error but the firm was not negligent, only the party may get named in the proceeding.” Do you believe that Deloitte, in addition to Linden and Anderson, should have been sanctioned by the PCAOB in connection with the 2003 Navistar audit? Justify your answer.
Answer to relevant QuestionsWhat professional standards require accounting firms to develop quality controls for their audit practices? What key issues should such quality controls address? In commenting on Deloitte’s quality controls, the PCAOB ...Explain why some corporate executives may perceive that their independent auditors are a “necessary evil.” How can auditors combat or change that attitude?Assess Grant Thornton’s decision to rely heavily on JGI’s delivery receipts when auditing the company’s prepaid inventory. More generally, compare and contrast the validity of audit evidence yielded by internally ...Was the change that Paragon made in applying the percentage- of- completion accounting method a “change in accounting principle” or a “change in accounting estimate”? Briefly describe the accounting and financial ...Under what general circumstances should auditors retain outside experts to assist them in completing an audit? How could an expert be useful in auditing a client’s pension-related financial statement items?
Post your question