Audit Assurance and Compliance Glover & Wood

Question: Discuss about theAudit Assurance and Compliancefor Glover Wood. Answer: Introduction In the words of Christensen, Glover Wood (2012), audit is the procedure of verifying the different accounts of a firm. In this context, the auditors bear the responsibility for performing and planning the process of auditing by complying with the mandatory regulations, rules and doctrines of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The auditors issue two kinds of audit reports, which include qualified and unqualified audit reports, after performing the audit procedure of an organisation (Becker Bailey, 2014). The qualified auditors opinion denotes that the scope of the given accounting and financial information is restricted and the firm has not complied with the GAAP principles effectively. On the contrary, unqualified audit report implies that the accounting and financial records of the organisation are presented with accuracy and appropriateness. Therefore, the auditors are needed to maintain diverse aspects, while performing the audit operations of an organisation. Firstly, it is necessary for the auditors to maintain their transparency while evaluating the financial reports. Secondly, the auditors are required to take into account the different aspects of the financial position of the firm, which could influence the investment decision of the banks, financial institutions, banks and investors (Chambers Odar, 2015). From the provided case study, it has been observed that the audit report was unqualified after 30 June 2012. However, it could be noted from the audit report of King Queen audit firm, the position of Impulse Pty Limited has been effective at the time of the audit process. The organisation has been suffering from intense liquidity problem, since the turnover of the debtors along with inventory turnover has been poor. This implies that the organisation has fallen short of its liquid assets. The auditor of King Queen has been aware of the fact; however, adequate priority has not been provided to this matter. As a result, the firm has not used effective measures to gauge the appropriate asset values. Along with this, the auditor has not considered the fact that the additional process was needed in order to ascertain the debtor and inventory valuations of the organisation. Depending on the unqualified audit report of the organisation, Easy Finance Limited (EFL) has granted a large sum o f loan to Impulse, since the report depicts the liquidity position of the organisation has been effective. However, the liquidity position of the organisation has declined in 2012 and EFL has been struggling to recover the provided loan amount. The above signifies the case of negligence of the auditors responsibility, in which the auditor has failed to consider the significant aspects of the financial position of the organisation, which has caused problems in recovering the loan amount (Cohen Simnett, 2014). In this context, some identical cases pertaining to the negligence of the responsibility of the auditor are described as follows: The first case has been considered as Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners (1964) AC 465. From the outcome of the case, it has been observed from the court verdict that the auditors report would have direct influence on the decision-making process of the audited parties. Therefore, the auditors negligence has influenced the audited party significantly (Decaux Sarens, 2015). The second case that has been considered constitutes of Law Society vs. KPMG Peat Marwick and Others; CHD 3 NOV, 1999. From the case, it has been identified that the auditor of the auditing organisation believes that the community and the fund of compensation would rely on the auditor decisions. However, the negligence of the auditor has delayed the discovery of the malpractices of accounting, which has resulted in increased costs. Therefore, considering the depicted facts, the auditor could be held responsible for neglecting his professional responsibility (Duncan Whittington, 2014). From the instances of the above-mentioned two cases, it could be evaluated that negligence in the responsibility of the auditor has been a serious offence from the side of the auditor. Hence, the firm of King and Queen is liable to EFL. According to the accounting doctrines of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), both the auditor and the audited party need to maintain confidentiality. Therefore, as per the policy of confidentiality, the auditor could not unveil any information relating to the audit of the organisation (Erickson, Goldman Stekelberg, 2015).Moreover, in special cases, the auditor could not disclose any information related to internal audit to the third party. The special cases denote the instances, in which the classified audit information could enable both the auditors and the audited party to earn something (Homb et al., 2014). According to the provided case study, there could be two chances. The first instance is the situation, in which the auditor could unveil the information pertaining to internal audit to the third party. The decision of investment is greatly dependent on the report of the auditor. Therefore, King Queen would be liable to EFL, as the former has been instructed to unveil the internal position of the organisation to the banks, financial institutions and investors. In the provided case, King Queen has not disclosed any sort of internal financial information to the third party, which has decreased its liability to EFL. This is because it would violate the GAAP regulations for disclosing any kind of information pertaining to internal audit (Knechel, 2016). Thus, the liability of King Queen towards EFL is minimised. Therefore, these are two different types of conditions, in which the answer would vary based on the consent of the audited party. Auditors independence refers to the independence given either to the internal or external auditors from the parties involved in the financial interest of the business being conducted. The independence of the auditor could be featured through objective approach and integrity to the audit procedures. It is the cornerstone of the audit being conducted. It provides the audit approach to the process of auditing and is characterised by the integrity (Mollik Berapi, 2014). The concept of independence requires the auditors to carry his work in an objective manner. Actual Independence: Actual independence is also known as real independence. This actual independence of the auditors is regarded as the independence of mind. It is concerned with the way auditors deals with the specific situation. It determines the ability of the auditors to take the independent decisions even if they are placed in a compromising situation on the part of the directors of the company or the management (Schmidt, Wood Grabski, 2016). The personal integrity and the mental attitude of an auditor determine whether the auditors are actually independent. The opinion made by the auditors on the financial statement of the company is valued by maintaining the principle of actual independence. Perceived Independence: The perception of the auditors in tackling and solving the various problems associated with the auditing process is the perceived independence. The auditors make use of different perceptions in solving the single problems, which helps in arriving at the solution, which is optimal. The judgment of the perceived independence cannot be done using any particular process, as the perception varies across the auditors (Shah Jarzabkowski, 2013). Therefore, there is high chance that could lead to material misstatements while conducting the asset valuations of an organisation. Since the arrangements are perceived in a different way by users and for this, the professional judgement needs to come to the fore. The auditor who faces the issue concerning the perceived independence needs to consider the materiality. It is mainly the consideration of the independence of the auditors by the third parties from the clients participating in the arrangement of the process of auditing. In the first case, Bob is performing two tasks at the same time. While undertaking the studies at University, he is also an audit assistant of the Club Casino. Bob needs to complete the university assignment and at the time of conducting the auditing, he came across the financial information, which would provide the assistance in the completion. Here, Bob is sing the internal information of the company for his own personal use. The principle of confidentiality is being breached by this act of Bob. He has also breached the integrity principle and being the auditor, he is liable to maintain the integrity and confidentiality while conducting the auditing process. The confidentiality of the information should be maintained and he should not disclose or use the internal financial information without the authority. The second case discusses about the Ace limited, where Wendy is the audit partner for long time. The organization does not have company secretary and in the absence, Wendy is performing all the company secretary duties for a period of six months. The entity is required to comply with all the rules and regulation and maintain the professional behaviour in carrying out the activities of the organisation. In accordance with the regulations and rules of GAAP, the acting partner of audit could not perform the responsibility of any member of the directors board or the team of higher management. In accordance with the same guideline, this act could be treated as a major offence in the audit profession. Therefore, after committing such act, Wendy has breached the regulations of audit procedures. Hence, it is suggested to Wendy to put forward his resignation from the secretarial position of the organisation as the safeguarding measure for the action (Shah Nair, 2013). Coming to the third case as per the provided scenario, Leo is the eldest son of the factory worker of an organisation, which is Precision Machinery Limited. During the period of vacation work, Leo has been assigned with the role of acting as the internal auditor of the above-mentioned organisation. In addition, added responsibilities have been assigned to the person, which constitute of the internal control testing and the payments of cash systems associated with the organisation. As a result, this particular act has resulted in breach of the regulations and rules of the audit procedures (Spears, Barki Barton, 2013). This is because according to the audit regulations and rules, the acquaintances of any staff or employee of an organisation could not be appointed as the audit partner of the same organisation. This contradicts the auditing regulations and doctrines. There are two available measures, which could be utilised to protect against such breach of regulations. The first alternative that is available is that Leo needs to resign from the internal auditor position of Precision Machinery Limited. The other alternative available is that the father of Leo could resign from his position, which would allow Leo to continue as the internal auditor of Precision Machinery Limited. Therefore, adopting any one of the two above-stated alternatives would help the organisation to comply with the audit regulations and procedures. From the fourth case, it has been observed that Chan Associates are the auditors of Classic Reproduction Pty Limited. The firm has been passing through stringent financial complexities, since it has failed to settle the fees of Chan Associates for the past three years. Therefore, in order to settle off the dues, the organisation has provided its furniture, which is worth 50% of the outstanding fees of Chan and Associates. Along with this, the latter has accepted 25% shares of an unconnected listed firm in order to recover the remaining portion of the fees from Classic Reproduction Pty Limited. According to the auditing rules and regulations, the auditors could not accept bribes as a substitute of their fees. In addition, the auditors could not accept shares from the unlisted organisations (Sta?iokas Rupys, 2015). This implies the breach of principle on the part of the auditor. Therefore, in order to undertake remedial measures, Chan Associates is required to return the furniture taken and shares obtained to Classic Reproduction Pty Limited. Such remedial action would help Chan Associates to conform to the prevailing audit regulations and doctrines. References: Becker, J., Bailey, E. (2014). A Comparison of IT Governance Control Frameworks in Cloud Computing. Chambers, A. D., Odar, M. (2015). A new vision for internal audit.Managerial Auditing Journal,30(1), 34-55. Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., Wood, D. A. (2012). Extreme estimation uncertainty in fair value estimates: Implications for audit assurance.Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory,31(1), 127-146. Cohen, J. R., Simnett, R. (2014). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda.Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory,34(1), 59-74. Decaux, L., Sarens, G. (2015). Implementing combined assurance: insights from multiple case studies.Managerial Auditing Journal,30(1), 56-79. Duncan, B., Whittington, M. (2014, September). Compliance with standards, assurance and audit: does this equal security?. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks(p. 77). ACM. Erickson, M., Goldman, N., Stekelberg, J. (2015). The Cost of Compliance: FIN 48 and Audit Fees.Journal of the American Taxation Association. Homb, N. M., Sheybani, S., Derby, D., Wood, K. (2014). Audit and feedback intervention: An examination of differences in chiropractic record-keeping compliance.The Journal of chiropractic education,28(2), 123. Knechel, W. R. (2016). Audit quality and regulation.International Journal of Auditing,20(3), 215-223. Mollik, A. T., Berapi, M. K. (2014). Effects of Audit Quality and the Qualifications of Audit Committee Members on the Firms Compliance with IFRS: Evidence from Australias Listed Firms. Pitt, S. A. (2014).Internal Audit Quality: Developing a Quality Assurance and Improvement Program. John Wiley Sons. Schmidt, P. J., Wood, J. T., Grabski, S. V. (2016). Business in the Cloud: Research Questions on Governance, Audit and Assurance.Journal of Information Systems. Shah, M., Jarzabkowski, L. (2013). The Australian higher education quality assurance framework: From improvement-led to compliance-driven.Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education,17(3), 96-106. Shah, M., Nair, C. S. (Eds.). (2013).External Quality Audit: Has it Improved Quality Assurance in Universities?. Elsevier. Spears, J. L., Barki, H., Barton, R. R. (2013). Theorizing the concept and role of assurance in Information Systems Security.Information management,50(7), 598-605. Sta?iokas, R., Rupys, R. (2015). Application of Internal Audit in Enterprise Risk Management.Engineering Economics,42(2), 20-25.