AUDIT OPINIONS 12 marks REQUIRED: For each of the following four (4) independent situations regarding an Auditee company, determine whether you would issue an Unqualified audit opinion or a Qualified audit opinion (if Qualified, specify what kind of Qualified audit opinion). Ensure you describe the reasons WHY you made this choice. SITUATION 1: Aldershot Incorporated: The audit firm of Teper and Lubetsky was engaged by Aldershot to perform a financial statement audit for the recently completed year. None of the audit staff from Teper and Lubetsky was in attendance when the inventory count was taken by Aldershot staff. Furthermore, confirmations were not used for clients found in the accounts receivable records. However, Michele Teper (the audit partner) approved the use of alternative auditing procedures and Michele was therefore satisfied with the results. SITUATION 2: Banerjee Corporation: The audit firm of Teper and Lubetsky was engaged by Banerjee to perform a financial statement audit for the recently completed year. While Michele Teper (the audit partner) was generally satisfied with the results of the audit, she did communicate to the management of Banerjee her disagreement regarding the use of an inappropriate revenue recognition method for its Sales of services to clients. Specifically, Banerjee always receives immediate payment for UPUTSLUIT. THIC QU IL RITUI ICPC au LUUCLINY was CH1595cu uy Banerjee to perform a financial statement audit for the recently completed year. While Michele Teper (the audit partner) was generally satisfied with the results of the audit, she did communicate to the management of Banerjee her disagreement regarding the use of an inappropriate revenue recognition method for its Sales of services to clients. Specifically, Banerjee always receives immediate payment for services to be provided to its clients over the next 3 years, and Banerjee therefore immediately recognized 100% of the revenue in the current period. While Michele Teper did not agree that this policy is consistent with GAAP, she does consider the financial statement to be fairly presented overall and that the error was not pervasive throughout the financial statements. SITUATION 3: Chow Incorporated: The audit firm of Teper and Lubetsky was engaged by Chow to perform a financial statement audit for the recently completed year. None of the auditor staff from Teper and Lubetsky was present when the inventory count was taken by Chow staff. Also, the audit team was not able to verify the inventory balance by any other means which was documented in the audit file. Michele Teper, the audit partner, does not consider this to cause a pervasive error throughout the financial statements. SITUATION 4: Dunhao Corporation: The audit firm of Teper and Lubetsky was engaged by Dunhao to perform a financial statement audit for the recently completed year. Michele Teper (the audit partner) communicated her disagreement with Dunhao management regarding their use of the LIFO (Last In, First Out) method of inventory valuation which is not in accordance with GAAP. Michele Teper believes that the impact of the misstatement is both material and pervasive