Michelle Ryckman, a public accountant, had been the partner in charge of the audit of Markel Manufacturing Company, a nonpublic company, for 13 years. Markel had had remarkable growth and profits in the past decade, primarily as a result of the excellent leadership provided by Bill Markel and other competent executives.Michelle had always enjoyed a close relationship with the company and prided herself on having made over the years several constructive comments that had aided in the success of the firm. Several times in the past few years, Michelle's firm had considered rotating a different audit team onto the engagement, but this had been strongly resisted by both Michelle and Bill.

For the first few years of the audit, internal controls were inadequate and the accounting personnel had inadequate qualifications for their responsibilities.Extensive audit evidence was required during the audit, and numerous adjusting entries were necessary.However, because of Michelle's constant prodding, internal controls improved gradually and competent personnel were hired.In recent years, there were normally no audit adjustments required, and the extent of the evidence accumulation was gradually reduced.During the past three years, Michelle was able to devote less time to the audit because of the relative ease of conducting the audit and the cooperation obtained throughout the engagement.

In the current year's audit, Michelle decided that the total time budget for the engagement should be kept approximately the same as in recent years.The senior in charge of the audit, Phil Warren, was new on the job and highly competent, and he had the reputation of being able to cut time off budgets.The fact that Bill had recently acquired a new division through merger will probably add to the time, but Phil's efficiency will probably compensate for it.

The interim tests of controls took somewhat longer than expected because of the use of several new assistants, a change in the accounting system to computerize the inventory and other accounting records, a change in accounting personnel, and the existence of a few more errors in the tests of the system.Neither Michelle nor Phil was concerned about the budget deficit, however, because they could easily make up the difference at year end.

At year end, Phil assigned the responsibility for inventory to an assistant who also had not been on the audit before but was competent and extremely fast at his work.Even though the total value of inventory increased, Phil reduced the size of the sample from that of other years because there had been few errors in the preceding year.The assistant found several items in the sample that were overstated as a result of errors in pricing and obsolescence, but the combination of all of the errors in the sample was immaterial.Accordingly, Phil decided that adjustments to control risk were not warranted.The assistant completed the tests in 25 percent less time than the preceding year's tests.The entire audit was completed on schedule and in slightly less time than the preceding year's.

There were only a few adjusting entries for the year, and only two of them were material.Michelle was extremely pleased with the results and wrote a special letter to Phil and the inventory assistant complimenting them on their efficiency during the audit.

Six months later, Michelle received a telephone call from Bill and was informed that the company was in serious financial trouble.Subsequent investigation revealed that the inventory had been significantly overstated. The major cause of the misstatement was the inclusion of obsolete items in inventory (especially in the new division), errors in pricing as a result of a programming error in the new computer system, and the inclusion of nonexistent inventory in the final inventory listing, which had been printed two weeks after the inventory count had actually been conducted.The new controller had been directed to intentionally overstate the inventory to compensate for the reduction in sales volume from the preceding year.

REQUIRED:

Form a group of 2 to 4 and answer the following questions.

a. Following the sequence of the phases in the audit process, list the deficiencies in the audit and state why they took place. (20 marks)

b. What things should have been apparent to Michelle or Phil in the conduct of the audit? (10 marks)

c. If Michelle's firm is sued by creditors, what is the likely outcome? (5 marks)

Please print out and submit your assignment in a word document.The assignment is due during week 12's seminar class.

Marking key is as follows:

a. 20 marks - 2 marks for identifying each deficiency, 2 marks for explaining why each deficiency took place

b. 10 marks - 2 mark each for identifying and explaining issues during the audit that Michelle and Phil missed.

c. 5 marks - identify and explain the possible legal issues related to this audit and the probable outcome.

5 marks - organization and clarity, spelling and grammar