Marshall And Wyatt

495 Words2 Pages
This case presents several interesting facets. According to the information presented, Marshall and Wyatt were the independent auditors of Interstate Land Development Corporation for many years. What is known is that 1) Marshall and Wyatt have been the auditors for Interstate Land Development Corporation for several years; apparently from 2002 to 2010. 2) It is also known that they did not file taxes for Interstate. 3) The available tax information would be provided via the finance statement. 4) The three years showing as underpaid are those included in the registration statement filed with the SEC. 5) The audit was described as having been done carefully and fairly. The implication is that in performing the audit, they followed the standard accounting procedures which includes a registration statement. “A registration statement contains audited financial statements, including balance sheets for a two year period and income statements, statements of retained earnings, and statements of cash flows for a three year period” (Whittington & Pany, 2012, p. 16). Since Marshall and Wyatt have been Interstate’s independent auditors for several years, it is not unreasonable to surmise they would have found discrepancies in the documents if in fact the numbers were not supported by the preceding years. Yet, supposing there were significant changes, the documentation provided appears to have supported and substantiated the financial status of this company. It is interesting to note that Wyatt was advised by Dunkirk that the IRS “was on a fishing expedition and that they will not find any material deficiencies.” There is no indication that any discrepancies or irregularities were found during the audit. What is not known is how the taxes were filed and therefore what was exempt; just the amount paid. As pertains to common law, since there was no breach of contract, negligence,

More about Marshall And Wyatt

Open Document