American Fuel ; Supply Company

A major focus of the lawsuit Chevron Chemical filed towards Touche Ross was the auditing profession’s guidelines relating to the “subsequent discovery of information existing at the date of the auditor’s report”. Those guidelines distinguish between conditions in which a client cooperates with the auditor in making all necessary disclosures and conditions involving uncooperative clients. Briefly summarize the differing responsibilities that auditors have in those two units of circumstances. Answer:

Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay

International Standard of Auditing (ISA) Section 560 Subsequent Events paragraph 15 outlined that “Subsequent discovery of details present on the date of the auditor’s report” is where the condition when after the financial statements have been issued, the auditor becomes conscious of a reality which existed on the date of the auditor’s report and which if identified at that date, may have brought on the auditor to change the auditor’s report, the auditor should contemplate whether or not the financial statements need revision, ought to focus on the matter with administration, and should take the motion applicable n the circumstances.

The subsequent discovery of details requiring the recall or re- issuance of monetary statements doesn’t arise from business occasions occurring after the date of auditor’s report.

While a variety of situations may apply, the commonest situation is the place the beforehand monetary statements include material misstatements due to either unintentional or intentional actions by management.

When information are encountered that may affect the auditor’s beforehand issued report, the auditor ought to consult with his/her lawyer as a end result of legal implications could additionally be nvolved and actions taken by the auditor might contain confidential client-auditor communications.

The auditor ought to determine whether the information are reliable and whether or not they existed on the date of the audit report. The auditor should talk about the matter with an acceptable stage of administration and request cooperation in investigating the potential misstatement. Messier, Jr. , W. , Glover, S. M. ; Prawitt, D. F. 2008) If the auditor determines that the beforehand issued monetary statements are in error and the audit report is affected, he/she ought to request that the shopper ssue a direct revision to the financial statements and auditor’s report. The causes for the revisions must be described within the footnotes to the revised monetary assertion. (Messier, Jr. , W. , Glover, S. M. & Prawitt, D. F. 2008).

ISA Section 560 paragraph sixteen further defined the obligations of the auditors in the scenario when a client cooperates with the auditor in making all necessary disclosures. It said that when administration revises the financial statements, the auditor would carry out the audit procedures necessary within the circumstances, would evaluate the teps taken by administration to make certain that anybody in receipt of the beforehand issued monetary statements along with the auditor’s report thereon is knowledgeable of the scenario and would concern a new report on the revised financial statements.

ISA Section 560 paragraph 17 highlighted that the new auditor’s report ought to embody an emphasis of a matter paragraph referring to a notice to the financial statements that more extensively discusses the rationale for the revision of the beforehand issued monetary statements and to the sooner report issued by the auditor. The new monetary statements.

If the consumer refuses to cooperate and make the required disclosures, the auditor should notify the board of directors and take the next steps, if possible: * Notify the client that the auditor’s report must no longer be related to the financial statements * Notify any regulatory businesses having jurisdiction over the client that the auditor’s report can not be relied upon. * Notify every particular person identified to the auditor to be relying on the monetary statements. Notifying a regulatory agency such because the SEC is usually the only sensible way of providing acceptable disclosure. (Messier, Jr. , W.

Glover, S. M. & Prawitt, D. F. 2008) The opinion of the above author additionally supported by ISA Section 560 paragraphs 18. It stated that when administration doesn’t take the necessary steps to guarantee that anybody in receipt of the previously issued financial statements together with the auditor’s report thereon is knowledgeable of the scenario and does not revise the monetary statements in circumstances where the auditor believes they need to be revised, the auditor would notify these charged with governance of the entity that motion might be taken by the auditor to stop future reliance on the auditor’s report.

The action taken will depend on the auditor’s authorized rights and obligations and proposals of the auditor’s lawyers. 2. Given your earlier answer, do you believe that Touche Ross complied with the relevant professional requirements after studying of the error in AES’s 1985 financial statements? Explain. Answer: Based on the earlier reply, I believed that Touche Ross did not adjust to the relevant skilled standards that are International Standard of Auditing (ISA) 560.


When the personnel of Touche Ross discovered that the AFS’s 1985 financial tatements contained a material misstatement, they attempted to influence AFS to recall the company’s 1985 monetary statements. But, sadly AFS officials declined to recall these monetary statements. At final, AFS and Touch Ross come out with a compromise. This compromise permitted Touch Ross to solely notify AFS’s sole secured creditor that the firm’s audit opinion on AES’s 1985 financial statements had been withdrawn however couldn’t notify AES’s unsecured collectors included Chevron Chemical.

The compromise that made by the Touche Ross with AFS have violated the ISA Section 560 paragraph 18. They mustn’t only notify a few of the AFS collectors. On the opposite, they should adjust to the usual that required them to inform those charged with governance of the corporate or every person known to the auditor to be counting on the monetary statement that action shall be taken by the auditors to prevent future reliance on the auditor’s report.

On top of that, Chevron Chemical Company is the largest suppliers of AFS and it’ll depend on the erroneous monetary statement in deciding to proceed extending credit to the corporate. So, the Touche Ross has the accountability to inform Chevron Chemical Company of the fabric misstatement in the financial assertion 1985. As a result, Chevron Chemical Company sued the Touche Ross and the court docket dominated that Touche Ross was negligent as a matter of legislation in failing to notify Chevron Chemical Company of the withdrawal of their opinion. iolated the profession’s client confidentiality rule by withdrawing its 1985 audit opinion and notifying all relevant third events of the decision? Why or why not? Answer: No, I don’t agree with the assertion of AFS’s authorized counsel that Touche Ross would ave violated the profession’s consumer confidentiality rule by withdrawing its 1985 audit opinion and notifying all related third events of the decision. First of all, we take a glance at the definition of confidentiality.

By-laws (On Professional Ethics, Conduct and Practice) of Malaysian Institute of Accountants Section one hundred Fundamental Principles and Conceptual Framework stated that a professional accountant ought to respect the confidentiality of knowledge acquired on account of skilled and enterprise relationships and mustn’t disclose any such info to 3rd parties with out roper and particular authority until there is a legal or professional proper or duty to reveal.

Confidential info acquired because of professional and business relationships shouldn’t be used for the personal benefit of the professional accountant or third parties. MIA By-laws Section a hundred and forty Confidentiality paragraph zero. 7 further explained in regards to the concept of legal or skilled right or responsibility to reveal the confidential information.

It highlighted that the disclosure of the confidential data could also be acceptable if there’s a professional responsibility or proper to reveal hen not prohibited by legislation: * To adjust to the standard assurance or apply review program of the Institute * To reply to an inquiry or investigation by the Institute’s Investigation Committee or Disciplinary Committee or any other regulatory body * To protect the professional interests ofa professional accountant in authorized proceedings * To adjust to technical standards and ethics necessities As acknowledged within the case of Fischer vs.

Kletz, the responsibility to correct an audit report that was incorrect on the time of issuance is a legal as properly as an expert obligation. (Cashell, J. D. Fuerman, R. D. ) In my opinion, Touche Ross has the professional duty or proper to withdraw their audit opinion and notify third parties of that their opinion had been withdrawn to comply with the necessities of the professional ethics and conduct. Interests of all events together with the third events like Chevron Chemical Company will be harmed if Touche Ross does not disclose the fabric misstatement of AFS to the general public.

It is as a result of the third parties will continue to depend on the faulty financial statement to make their financial selections corresponding to extending credits or approving the loans to AFS. On top of that, if Touche Ross resisted disclosing, then there will be a legal obligation in path of the Touche Ross on negligence in failing to inform the third events of the withdrawal of their opinion. I want to help my opinion with a case. The case Fund of Funds Ltd vs.

Arthur Andersen ; Co is an example of a case where the CPA was deemed to have had an obligation to disclose. Arthur Andersen ; Co (AA) was the auditor for 2 clients, Fund of Funds Ltd (FF) and King Resources Corp. (KRC). KRC developed pure useful resource properties and agreed to be the solely real vendor of such properties to FF at rices no higher than these charged KRS’s industrial shoppers. AA learned the agreement was not being met however failed to inform FF.

The court docket ruled AA should have disclosed this fact to FF because 1) they had information of the overcharges, 2) they their engagement letter produced a contractual obligation to disclose such info. (Cashell, J. D. , Fuerman, R. D. ) This case proved that auditors received the duty to disclose fraud or any misstatement to the outsiders. four. Suppose that Touche Ross had resigned as AES’s auditor following the completion of the 1985 audit but previous to the discovery of the error in the 1985 financial tatements.

What duty, if any, would Touche Ross have had when it realized of the error in AES’s 1985 monetary statements? Answer: According to the AU part 9561 Subsequent Discovery of Facts Existing on the Date of the Auditor’s Report: Auditing Interpretations of Section 561, it required that the auditor to undertake to find out whether or not the data is dependable and whether or not the facts existed at the date of his report.

This endeavor must be performed even when the auditor has resigned or been discharged. Hence, when Touche Ross had learned of the error in AFS’s 1985 financial tatements, it still has its personal responsibility to research its reliability and whether or not it existed at the date of the report although it had resigned as AFS’s auditor following the completion of the 1985 audit.

If the investigation finds the monetary statements or report would have been affected by the error if known earlier and it’s believed there are persons presently relying or more likely to depend on the monetary statements who would connect importance to the information, the auditor who’ve resigned also wants to advise the client to make acceptable disclosure of the newly found details. The responsibilities of the resigned auditors in the conditions in which a consumer cooperates with the auditors in making all needed disclosures and situations involving uncooperative purchasers are completely the identical with the persevering with auditor.

Written by Essay Examples

American growth in the 19th century

American Connector Company