Each of the following situations involves a possible violation of the rule on independence. For each situation, (1) decide whether the Code of Professional Conduct has been violated, and (2) briefly explain how the situation violates (or does not violate) the Code of Professional Conduct.
a. Harry Brown is a partner in the Topeka office of Hedley & Co., CPAs. Harry's brother is employed in an audit-sensitive position by Jensen Appliances, a publicly held company in Kansas. Jensen Appliances is one of Hedley & Co.'s audit clients. Neither Harry nor personnel from the Topeka office is involved in the audit of Jensen.
Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
b. John Woods is an audit manager with Calden & Co., CPAs, a one-office CPA firm. John owns 100 shares of common stock in one of the firm's audit clients, but he does not provide any audit or non-audit services to the company.
Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
c. The accounting firm of Fine & Herman, CPAs, provides bookkeeping and tax services for Henderson Corporation, a privately held company. Fine & Herman also performs the annual audit of Henderson Corporation.
Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
d. Bob Shelton, CPA, is the auditor of Cafe Ecko. A couple of weeks ago, Cafe Ecko's management commenced litigation against Bob, alleging he was negligent in last year's audit.
Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
e. Hamilton Appliance has not paid Karen Linwood, CPA, her audit fee for the past two years. Karen is starting work on the current year's audit of Hamilton.
Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
Chargaff's Rule
When children are “launched” into independence, their parents often find new interests together ...
Meiosis involves two complete divisional operations forming four potential sex cells.
How to use the chain rule to find the derivative of a function
Helpfulness Versus Independence
Using the Power Rule for Derivatives