Question

In 2005, Jill Smith was an audit senior working for a public accounting firm on the audit engagement of the ABC company. One of Jill’s friends asked her whether she thought that ABC stock was a good investment. She said yes.

Her friend offered to purchase ABC stock on her behalf. Jill provided $5000 for the purchase placed under her friend’s name. She didn’t want her name associated with it because of independence concerns; an auditor is not allowed to own stock in a company that they audit.

Auditors that own stock in companies they audit as considered part owners, and therefore not independent. This may infer with an unbiased audit because they may make decisions in the best interest of the client instead of external users. Even if they do conduct an unbiased audit, if they are stock holders, they may not be perceived as unbiased.

Jill continued working on the ABC company account into 2006, and she failed to comply with the firm’s independence policies by lying on the yearly disclaimer. The public accounting firm launched an internal investigation into the matter based on an anonymous tip and terminated her employment. The PCAOB barred her from serving as an external auditor for a period of at least one year.

1. What are the unethical actions of the auditor, Jill Smith?
2. Discuss what her decisions in this case cost her? Was it worth it?
3. What are some of the current rules in relation to the independence of an auditor?
4. In this case, compare independence in fact versus independence in appearance.
5. Do you think that Jill’s punishment was appropriate? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

DO0 Page Ne. Tell Smith investeel ins the empanys piends accaurit stock thraugh her unile ABC Co uhen being an exte1nal auditor cleardy prohibidec prem deing she ta as was par prfessienal guidalines and codef cthics Aic RA sseued the ( The decision to gie han riend 500o When the friend for aadeetice aduice fthe cempamy geod far investment hesr and ebliging te lt hin invest behalf hadwarked ied in the he didl not en against her As ulell years disclaime stating that any iavestment in sdainly she the Olun cempany she has lost her fob oncl alss barsced rem 4+ was not Warth it as daing audits Sfotin her caeesr black gear luhich and alsa tinancially that she does nat ene JA a has weakened hernow job haue a The Independence impaired in the fallousing eircumstances the auditor is The auditan makas invest ment decisions dhe ferm he ating audi

tenduet by the clients ovestment ar dell tsansactiens Has phystal Custooky f the clients sets dTndependene im fast was nat pset as Jill indisnectly held the shases of empany theaugh er fiendl the appeasran was mde pendent as she did nat hald any Tadefendence affears ndepandencs Investmentin hen name in appearan what aA nces whereas the greund Sealty fact The punishment given s appropriate Since auditors haue nccessto clrenta cenfidential financial inermatien and alsa hat infarmatien that s nt aluay pule Hauing a the tompany that ta interest n auditar s auditing Lan lead dading and thainges in Jnsider tases unwornanted tauss tock frites SHne