The Avis Love Case

(1) Professionally speaking, it would not have been appropriate for Avis to substitute another store for Store 51 after she discovered the errors. This is the same as condoning fraud and would go against the job of an auditor. She would jeprodize her reputation and even the reputation of her firm.

(2) Mo Rappele would most likely be the most affected by Avis' decision as he was the one who committed fraud and would likely lose his job as a result of her findings. Avis felt that she had an obligation to help him out since he had be kind to her when she was auditing his branch, however, Avis does not have any professional obligation to him. Avis does however have an obligation to her boss Teddy Tankersley because her findings represent him and the firm that they work for. She also has an obligation to the investors/ users of Lowell's financial statements. She is certifying that the financial statements reflect accurately the economic state of the company. Lastly she has an obligation to the CEO of Lowell Clay Shamblin to report her findings so that they can be dealt with accordingly.

(3) The AICPA has independence standards and is very clear about how an auditor can violate independence from the firm it is auditing. It is not forbidden to form friendships with clients however the AICPA code of professional conduct does stipulate that there are bounds and limits to the friendship auditors and clients form. One measure that auditors can take to prevent friendships from interfering with the performance of their personal responsibilities is to ensure that independence is always the most important thing. If it comes to a situation where an auditor is unsure of being able to maintain independence, they should back out. Furthermore, when forming these friendships, ensure that the clients understand that independence is your priority.

(4) The audit objectives of a year-end cash receipts and sales cutoff test is to verify that all sales and cash-receipts are accounted for in the correct period. It is to ensure that goods sales recorded in this period actually correspond with sales in this period, that the goods are no longer recorded in inventory, and that the Revenue recognition principles have been applied and respected. Essentially this test provides evidence of 'completeness, occurrence, existence and accuracy'. It also serves as a test of the current internal controls in place.

(5) Cash basis would seem appropriate in the situation since they are dealing with sales and cash-accounts. General 5% or more of the company is considered material. However, I don't think that the point of materiality is the concern in this case. This case is about fraud, which should be addressed whether it reaches a benchmark or not.