Case 3.1
1. The alternatives available to Brent are working at the normal pace, trying to rush the work with the normal sample size, or cut the sample size. If Brent chose to work at the normal pace he would get the best and most accurate result. Being accurate and sure of the results is what Brent’s employer expects out of him.
Brent’s next option is “eating time” i.e., working off the clock, and then turning in that he worked the 35 hours to come in at budget. The pro to this option is that Brent does all the work required of him to do a thorough job. The con of doing this is that Brent is working off the clock and giving his time away to the company without compensation. This brings up an ethical problem for both Brent and the company. Brent has a duty to the company to perform services; in return the company has a duty to compensate Brent for the duties performed.
Brent’s last option is to cut corners on the work and finish on budget. The pro to this is that Brent comes in on or under budget which has a chance to reflect positively on Brent. Conversely, by cutting corners Brent’s quality of work would surely suffer and the audit team could miss a material misstatement. This could have a major negative impact on Brent’s career if it is found of that his team did not catch an act of fraud or a material misstatement.
2. There are many consequences that could arise from “eating time”. For Brent he would first miss out on pay that he is rightfully entitled to. Furthermore, in the future if management found out they could pressure Brent into doing the same thing in the future and management could continue to lower the hour allowed to complete the job. The company could be in big trouble if one of the employees decided to sue the company by not compensating the employees for time worked.
If the audit team does not follow the audit procedures they could all potentially lose their jobs. The company could lose the business of their client and maybe even multiple clients. The reputations of all of those evolved could suffer greatly.
3. In my opinion Brent’s best course of action is to not cut the sample size or “eat time”. Brent has a professional responsibility to, ”exercise due professional care during the performance of the audit and the preparation of the report”( Messier, Glover, & Prawitt, 2007). If Brent goes ahead and cuts the sample size or “eats time” then he will be breaking one of the 10 GAAS auditing standards.
Inevitably Brent would feel pressure from his fellow audit team members to bend or break one or more of the ten auditing standards issued by GAAS. All of Brent’s team members have a lot riding on the outcome of the audit. Brent should resist the temptation to give into the peer pressure and uphold himself to the GAAS auditing standards issued by the AICPA( Messier, Glover, & Prawitt, 2007).
4. In an ideal world one could say John should work less or make time for himself and his family. However, this might not be realistic given the demands his job is putting on him and as senior auditor John has more responsibilities than the employees working under him. The further John climbs up the corporate ladder the more responsibility one incurs. John will be able to make time for himself after the project is done, until then he has to work until the job gets done.
Messier, W, Glover, S, & Prawitt, D. (2007). Auditing and assurance services: a systematic approach, as6 edition. Irwin Professional Publishing.