Bullseye, a publicly traded company and general merchandise retailer based out of Minneapolis, MN, is one of our firms most prestigious clients. I, Jennifer Gore, have just been informed that I will be leading a team of four other accountants to perform the 2016 integrated audit. One of whom is an IT expert and will bring valuable insight into the technology side of the audit. This audit is a continuation from previous years’ audits and anticipate that things will run smoothly barring any new revelations that we find within the audit itself. Per the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), all publicly traded companies need to have an integrated audit that consists of the Financial Statement audit as well as the Internal Control of Financial Reporting (ICFR) audit (Hooks, 2011, pg. 36). There are several sections to the plan of this integrated audit and they include:
1. Preliminary Engagement Procedures
2. Planning and Risk Assessment
3. Testing of the Operating Effectiveness and Substantive Procedures
4. Wrap-Up, Completion, and Reporting
Normally, there would be an engagement letter and a client acceptance of our accounting firm. However, in this case, there has already been a client continuance accepted between Bullseye and our firm. They already know that we will provide them with a professional and knowledgeable audit, however, they need to know that since there will be a new team leading this audit, that we will perform our duties to the best of our abilities.
Bullseye is a
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.
This memorandum discusses a brief history of Pat, his wrongdoings and related action, and the response by the related law enforcement agencies.
Depreciation and depletion are two models of computing financial reports. These techniques are used as adjustments when preparing statements of cash flow within the direct or indirect method. This paper will identify and examine the methods of depreciation and depletion, describe the difference between the methods, and compare and contrast depreciation and depletion as well using scholarly references to support the points.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Introduction2001-2002 was marked by the Arthur Andersen accounting scandal and the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. Corporate reforms were demanded by the government, the investors and the American public to prevent similar future occurrences. Viewed to be largely a result of failed or poor governance, insufficient disclosure practices, and a lack of satisfactory internal controls, in 2002 George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that became effective on July 30, 2002. Congress was seeking to set standards and guarantee the accuracy of financial reports.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush to “mandate a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud” and applies to all public companies in the U.S., large and small (The Laws That Govern the Securities Industry, 2015). The main purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley is to “eliminate false disclosures” and “prevent undisclosed conflicts of interest between corporations and their analysts, auditors, and attorneys and between corporate directors, officers, and shareholders” (Neghina & Riger, 2009). As a whole, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is very complex and affected organizations must do their due diligence to ensure they
Prior to the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, referred to herein as “SOX,” the board of directors’ pivotal role was to advise senior leaders on the organization’s strategy, business model, and succession planning (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the board had the responsibility for risk management identification and risk mitigation oversight, determining executive benefits, and approval of significant acquisitions (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, for many public organizations, audit committees existed before SOX and provided oversight of internal processes and controls. Melissa Maleske (2012) advised that the roles and responsibilities of the board were viewed “…from a perspective that the board serves management” (p. 2). In contrast, Maleske (2012) noted that SOX regulations altered the landscape “…to a perspective that management is working for the board” (p. 2). SOX expanded not only the duties of the board and the audit committee, but also the authority of these bodies (Maleske, 2012, p. 2).
White collar crime has been around for ages. Today more and more news stories can be found where the elite, the top executives of fortune 500 companies, are being prosecuted for participating in illegal activities. It was hoped that the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2001 after the Enron debacle would reduce the amount of illegal acts being committed in corporate America. The Sarbanes Oxley act makes executives personally responsible for their activities requiring top management to sign off on financial statements stating they are true and accurate and these executives can face jail time for committing fraudulent acts. Unfortunately, immorality in business is still running rampant. One illegal practice we see happening in
New levels of auditor independence and personal accountability for CEOs and CFOs are provided by the Act. Additional accountability for corporate Boards, as well as increased criminal and civil penalties for securities violations, increased disclosure regarding executive compensation, insider trading and financial statements are also presented under SOX. (The Institute of Internal Auditors: “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Effect on Audit Committees at Organization Not Publicly Traded.” January 2004. Accessed May 31, 2012 from: http://www.itaudit.org/)
Some can say that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is working while some say that there still ways to get around to committing corporate fraud. Washington wants to crack down on corporate fraud so they came up with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 that was designed to protect the interest of investors. “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act established oversight of public corporate governance and financial reporting obligations and redesigned accountability and ethics standards…” (Ferrell, O., Hirt, G., & Ferrell, L., 2009). The act was an important stepping-stone in the right direction especially when responding to the financial scandals of Enron and WorldCom. Those scandals shook customer’s faith and confidence in corporate management of private organizations.
However, SOX was not the end of the story. 2008 ushered in, what is now
In this paper the author will describe the main aspects of the regulatory environment which will protect the public from fraud within corporations. The author will pay special attention to the Sox requirement; along with evaluating whether Sox will be effective in avoiding future frauds.
I think that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has been feasible in managing tricky financial reporting from major corporations. It has a much lower influence on the misappropriation of benefits. No law or Act have the ability to cover all human predisposition to endeavor relationships with good offense. The law made it harder to quote out of context the association's cash related affairs and made the results more extraordinary (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). SOX have increased auditor’s vigilance and tightened management's responsibility for reporting misappropriating assets (Church & Shefchik, 2012). Here are two reasons I trust SOX was successful. First, this Act was powerful enough to cause chief executives to consider money
Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 by former president George Bush. Essentially to combat the Enron crisis. The Sox Act basically has regulatory control and creates an enviroment that is looking out for the public. Ideally this regulatory environment protects the public from fraud within corporations. Understanding, that while having this regulatory control at times the Sox requirements need to be tweaked or amended. Not only now but in the future as well. The main aspects of the Sox act are essentially looking out for our welfare as a consumer. Our government has the obligation to regulate
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also known as the SOX Act, is enacted on July 30, 2002 by Congress as a result of some major accounting frauds such as Enron and WorldCom. The main objective of this act is to recover the investors’ trust in the stock market, and to prevent and detect corporate accounting fraud. I will discuss the background of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and why it became necessary in the first section of this paper. The second section will be the act’s regulations for the management, external auditors, and companies, mainly publicly-traded companies, and the cost and benefits of the act. The last section will be the discussion of the quality of financial reporting since SOX and the effectiveness of SOX provisions to prevent another financial statements fraud, such as Enron and WorldCom from occurring in the future.
In order to prevent the happening of such disaster, the USA congress enact a new regulation named Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 , also called “Public Company Accounting Reform and investor Protection Act” The main purpose of the act is to protect shareholders and general public from accounting errors and fraudulent practices in the enterprise, as well as improve the accuracy of corporate disclosures. (Mike Oxley 2002). Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is deemed to be one of the most virtual governance reforms and corporate disclosure in the United States history.