Bloor Italian Summary

The media article indicated that Coles was facing more than $4 million fines, as ACCC argued its behaviour of lying about bread freshness could constitute breach of consumer law (SMH 2015). As the total amount of fines could be considerable, along with a negative impact on reputation, Coles could have entered into financial distress. The reason I chose this article was that most Australian people shop in Coles every week, thus the case is closely related to our life which is worth talking about. Besides, the article covered issue of sales and non-compliance of law which often attract auditors’ attention. The event mentioned in the article posed a risk to auditors in terms of inherent risk. Inherent risk means an auditor fails to identify or correctly understand the business risks that could result in material misstatement (Clubb 2015b). It is apparent that Coles’ behaviour is a non-compliance of law, which is included in business risk (Clubb 2015b). Therefore, auditors need to better understand the event highlighted in the article to increase the possibility of uncovering material misstatement. Auditors are held accountable for the problem because the problem may relate to potential misstatement in financial statements. If an auditor fails to uncover the misstatement, it is likely that he or she will issue a false opinion. However, auditor should express a true and fair view to increase the confidence of the external

Claimant is lawfully incorporated to conduct business within the State of Illinois and the State of Indiana.

A member of the AICPA owns an interest in a separate business that performs tax services. If the member does not control the business, who must comply with the Code of Professional Conduct?

2. Attorney Babot is arguing the summary judgment to defendant of proximate cause should not to be granted for the following 3 reasons: . (1) It is determined that a jury could award damages to the plaintiff, thus summary of law this precludes judgment. (2) Injuries to the plaintiff and death of her husband were the foreseeable consequences of service to a visibly intoxicated person. (3) Criminal act can be the intervening act that does not break the can of causation because the act is easily foreseeable, There are differences in truths offered by both parties. The defendants state this was a criminal act which breaks the chain of

And it's not uncommon for a CPA not to want to admit to a deficiency in any area of tax law or appropriation.

As you may see I'm trying to satisfy the requirements you have on a side of the fact that your office did not provided almost any support nor information, till you was assigned on my case, as required by law to assist me in this matter.

We have also received correspondence from co-defendant’s attorney, Law Offices of Stacey L. Tokunaga, requesting any information supporting the filing of our Application for Adjudication of Claim. We have also

Thank you for the referral of this matter to our office. I look forward to working with you as we bring this matter to an equitable conclusion for all parties. As always, if you have any questions or comments concerning the above-referenced matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. It is my practice to return all communications within 24 hours, if possible. Please consider this letter a brief Initial File Analysis on this matter.

The entity in question did not receive an opinion from the audit firm this is because they are provided with few procedures, which do not suffice to provide assurance about the statements. (Fischer, et, al, 2012)Although the audit firm is supposed to come up with opinions concerning the financial position of the county, the G.A.S.B provides limited procedures for the audit firm to manipulate. (Ruppel,

Mr. Patra also mentioned that he will not close the transaction without the above is done and if the above is not done, his client will require compensation of at least $10,000.00. Attached hereto and marked, as “Exhibit D” to my affidavit is true copy of faxed letter, dated June 27, 2016.

Crabtree Amusements wishes to drop the April 7, 2016 hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment. Our venue requires me to provide a letter with all counsel agreement to same. I would appreciate your signing below and returning this agreement to me so that I can provide it to the Court so that the hearing is removed from the Court’s April 7, 2016

The first step under Trevino and Nelson is to gather the facts. In this case, the manager was not aware of or chose to ignore the facts surrounding the Italian tax system. The knowledge that the bank had with respect to the Italian tax system was therefore incomplete. The facts in this case included the mores surrounding the Italian system of tax collection and negotiation. The manager was informed that it would be advisable to declare a low amount of income and was subsequently informed of the need to hire a commercialista to handle the negotiations. The manager failed to heed this advice, in particular because he thought that these practices were unethical. The manager should have gathered the facts with respect to the mores and customs of the Italian tax collection system.

The chief executive of the company was closely working with the vendors whose confirmations were vital in the auditing work and hence they could have submitted false confirmations. The auditing firm established a national risk management program for its clients and so national reviews were done to identify the high risk items in the financial statement. The vendor allowances were particularly high but they were not documented. As such, the auditors were supposed to demand for the documentations and compare them with the real figures. It is however noted that most of the documentations received were non-standard and this could have led to a different audit report given that vendor allowances were earlier identified as a high risk area. Inventory management was found to be poor especially in the allowances for inventory reserves. The audit firm was therefore obliged to carry out a thorough evaluation of the inventory reserves and determine whether it was reasonable. The valuation was also supposed to include all classes of inventory but for the case of the company, the evaluation excluded instances where no sales had been made. Hence, this evaluation could not accurately represent the position of the inventory reserve in the company. (Waters,2003)

This essay explores the corporate collapse of Harris-Scarfe on April 3 2001, which before their collapse was Australia’s third largest retail group (Buchanan 2004, p. 55). It will explore the collapse in the context of the auditing framework. In particular, how the financial indiscretions were not discovered by the auditors, which were going on as early as six years prior to the collapse (Buchanan 2004, p. 62). To start with, we define what the auditing objective is in order to work out where it failed in this case. ASA 200.11/ISA 200.11 defines the auditing objective as one that needs to ascertain reasonable assurance that the financial report as a whole is free from misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. In doing so the auditor can give an opinion of whether the financial report was prepared in accordance with the financial reporting framework (Gay & Simnett 2012, p. 12).

Following the risk assessment procedures, substantive procedures are designed and conducted to detect material misstatements of relevant assertions. Substantive procedures include analytical procedures and tests of details. Analytical procedures involve evaluations of financial statement information by a study of relationships among financial and nonfinancial data. Tests of details may be divided into three types. One test is the test of account balances to address whether there are misstatements in the ending balance of an account. In the case of Crazy Eddie, auditors should have put greater attention to inventory and accounts payable accounts. The second test is a test of classes of transactions to determine whether particular types of transactions have been properly accounted for during the period. Crazy Eddies fraudulently classified these transshipping transactions as retail sales to inflate its sales revenue and continue growth at existing stores. A key ratio for retailers is to compare growth in existing stores to growth from new stores. The third and final test is a test of disclosures to evaluate whether financial statement disclosures are properly presented. Crazy Eddie prepared bogus debit memos of over $20 million to understate accounts payable.