Case 6.2 Essay

1025 Words5 Pages
1. DeBurger’s task on the Marcelle audit was to develop a two page memo in which he summarized 900 hours of work that had been completed with the assistance of five internal auditors and two staff accountants over a two month period. Marcelle’s once strong financial standing was deteriorating due to a struggling economy increasing competition and Marcelle’s suppliers were beginning to slash their prices, significantly cutting into the stores profit. Marcelle previously posted a profit of less than $8 million prior to their current audit; the company’s pre-audit net income posted at an abysmal $500,000. This case relates to practice issues in regards whether or not to project an error to the sample population. This case is unique in the fact that it’s hard to parallel it to other cases discussed in class thus far. DeBurger had no specific evidence that the inventory account balance was materially misstated. He was only able to formulate his assumption from working with the speculation that Marcelle’s was going to write off the inventory of two of their sales departments. Other cases discussed in class have shown the fraud being perpetrated to have intent behind it. In the DeBurger case, there is no evidence of fraud being committed with the intent of deceit. This case, however, does remind one of the Tommy O’Connell case, in where both individuals (O’Connell & DeBurger) found discrepancies throughout their audits, but waited too long to bring attention to the necessary individual(s) and even more neither had substantial evidence to back up their accusations. 2. During the audit of Marcell, the inventory was the focal point of concern for the audit staff, and the crumbling financial standing of the company made the inventory more of a concern. The audit staff was aware that any material overstatement in the inventory account would lead to the company

More about Case 6.2 Essay

Open Document