Two Short Case Studies in Staff Auditor and Student-myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theTwo Short Case Studies in Staff Auditor and Student. Answer: Introduction The present report is developed to analyze the ethical scenarios presented in the case study given. The scenarios given relates to professional and personal code of ethics to be followed for complying effective with ethical principles and procedures. The professional scenario has presented a case where a certified public accountant has not complied with his duties. The second scenario depicts the case of a student who has acted against the integrity code of ethics. As such, the report presents an analysis of the ethical concerns in the given two scenarios with the application of ethical frameworks. Standards Principles of Ethics Violated by Johnny and Marry The professional scenario represents the situation of violation of code of ethics established for the public accountants. Johnny, engaged in carrying out audit of ABC Company, has not fulfilled his duties effectively as discovered by the firm manager before the inspection of PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), 2004). The work paper submitted by Johnny before the inspection does not include supporting worksheet and signed engagement letter. Johnny has added an earlier version found on his computer hard drive as supporting sheet after his manager direction and also the engagement letter is inserted into the file later without proper explanation of its subsequent reasons. The ethical standard violated by Johnny as per the professional code of ethics is professional competence and care (Professional ethics, 2018). As per the ethical standard, the professional accountants hold the responsibility of carrying out their duties as per the legislations and should act diligently as per the ethical standards. Johnny has not demonstrated full competency in carrying out their roles and responsibilities as he has not maintained proper record of worksheet and also engagement letter. Johnny can be sanctioned by the firm or PCAOB due to negligence of his duties as per the Public Accountancy Act that ahs provided the working standards for professional accountants (Langenderfer and Rockness, 1989). In the second scenario of students, Mary Jo has acted against the ethics of integrity. She has issued a certificate of being aware of integrity code of ethics but has avoided the code by studying from the test paper that is meant only for instructor use. This is because she has violated the code of ethics maintained by the University for the Students and therefore liable to gain punishment from the university (Cheng and Flasher, 2016). The main stakeholders in each case Professional Scenario On the basis of case study provided there only one other stakeholders other than the Johnny. The stakeholder will be manager of the company he is much impacted by the decision of the Johnny. So it vital to known here that the decision to add the working paper through applying unfair means as audit standard requires working paper should be properly made through carrying out proper audit process. In order to save the time and to provide the manager with the working paper he taken from working paper from old hard drive put the tick marks without even checking them properly. This action by Johnny will put the manager of the company in trouble as Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) will question about the integrity of the working paper that auditor has provided and also review the engagement letter. As all these documents are not original and has no supporting evidence to prove that these documents are made at the time of real audit process carried out by the Johnny (James, 2015). Student Scenario In this scenario that main stakeholders other than the Mary Jo will be the students who have also appeared in the test paper in which Mary Jo has appeared. It is because Mary Jo has opted for unethical means to pass percentage in the test which is unfair on the parts of other students (Tritschler, 2013). Rationalize Behavior of Johnny and Mary Jo Johnny in the case of professional scenario can rationalize his behavior as he does not intend to conceal any materialistic information for his personal benefits. It is by mistake he has failed to submit the spreadsheet and gain sign from the client. Also, Mary Jo intends to pass the examination through studying the test paper. She has only downloaded the paper meant for instructor use to only study and not for any other illegal activities and this rationalize her behavior (Cheng and Flasher, 2016). Alternative actions recommended for Johnny and Mary Jo The alternative action for Johnny as per the Public Accountancy Act is to provide reliable and fair disclosure of information to the PCAOB. However, Johnny in the case is not able to find out the working paper for supporting the results provided in the main file. As such, he should do the calculations gain for providing a fair record of information for supporting the information disclosed to the auditing board (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), 2012). The alternative course of action for Mary Jo in the student scenario as per the student code of ethics is to gain permission from instructor regarding the use of study kit for achieving success in the examination. This would enable her to gain support of the instructor for studying and also complying with the ethical rules and regulations of the university effectively (Keenan, 2015). Ethical Dilemmas of Johnny and Mary Jo Johnny on confronting with his ethical dilemma in the professional case scenario failed to speak up due to negligence on his part to maintain the proper record of spreadsheet and signature of client. He has acted against the code of ethics established for professional accountants and therefore was not able to rationalize his behavior on being confronted. However, he can voice over his concerns as the firm ABC may be has not directed the accounts to maintain a record of spreadsheet that may be the cause for Johnny to being reluctant in maintaining an appropriate record of spreadsheet (Cheng and Flasher, 2016). On the other hand, in the case of student scenario, Mary Jo may have failed to speak up on being confronted as she violated the integrity code of university by non-complying with the copyright act. However, she can voice her concern by proving that the study material download by her protected by the copyright act was only for studying purpose and is also used by other students (Cheng and Flasher, 2016). Conclusion It can be stated from the overall discussion held in the report that compliance with professional and personal code of ethics is very essential for an individual to achieve long-term growth. Violation of the code of ethics can only provide short term success to an individual but complying with ethical standard is essential to promote ones long-term success. References Cheng, C. and Flasher, R. 2016. Two Short Case Studies in Staff Auditor and Student Ethical Decision Making. Issues in Accounting Education 33(1), pp. 45-47. James, H.C. 2015. Modern Auditing Assurance Services. Wiley. Keenan, J. 2015. University Ethics: How Colleges Can Build and Benefit from a Culture of Ethics. Rowman Littlefield. Langenderfer, H. Q., and J. W. Rockness. 1989. Integrating ethics into the accounting curriculum: Issues, problems, and solutions. Issues in Accounting Education 4 (1), pp. 5869. Professional ethics. 2018. Retrieved 28 April, 2018, from https://www.aat.org.uk/about-aat/professional-ethics Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2004. Audit Documentation. Auditing Standard (AS) No. 1215. Release No.2004-006. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2012. Order Instituting Disciplinary Proceedings, Making Findings, and Imposing Sanctions. Release No. 105-2012-008. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Tritschler, J. 2013. Audit Quality: Association between published reporting errors and audit firm characteristics. Springer Science Business Media.