preview

North Face Inc. Case Study Essay

Better Essays

Tiffany Hale

AC503-02

Unit 2 Case Study

North Face Inc. Case Study

1. Should auditors insist that their clients accept all proposed audit adjustments, even those that have an “immaterial” effect on the given set of financial statements? Defend your answer.

When it comes to immaterial effect on a set of financial statements I would say that clients should not accept all proposed audit adjustments. By clients not accepting all proposed audit adjustments, auditors are forced to determine the aggregate basis the impact of a proposed or passed audit adjustment that might occur on a client’s financial statement. A client may disagree with the need for a given adjustment.

2. Should auditors take explicit …show more content…

Another area of the revenue recognition principle would be with bartering. When a company receives credits for an exchange, it is not determinable at the time of exchange. Although the exchange is satisfied by the transaction of the revenue recognition principle, the revenue is not yet “realized”, therefore any profit should be deferred. North Face Inc. violated both features of the revenue recognition rule because there was not a true exchange since the two customers did not pay for the merchandise and the transactions were not finalized, therefore the “realized” requirement was not satisfied within the revenue recognition principle.

4. Identify and briefly explain each of the principal objectives that auditors have to accomplish by preparing audit workpapers. How were these objectives undermined by Deloitte’s decision to alter North Face’s 1997 workpapers?

Audit documentations are used for two purposes: 1) to provide the principal support for the auditor’s report and 2) aid the auditor in the conduct and supervision of the audit. Deloitte’s decision to alter the workpapers that the 1997 audit team did affected the 1998 audit because of the information that were used from the audit done in 1997. Deloitte’s auditors destroyed audit evidence when they modified and did not document the given revision in the workpapers in 1997, which the audit team had properly investigated the

Get Access