01-30-2008, 07:18 PM
Dear,
Firms are continuously monitored by ICAP and this monitoring is going to be and should be made more strict.
I dont personally appreciate any one who committs wrong things. Every one should do what his position requires from him. I personally do it. I never saved a penny of income tax on my own income and never ever advised any client to do it unless some over taxation is unjustifiable in accordance with law. Yes, wherever unjustified liability is imposed, it should be honestly pleaded at appellate forums.
Still, if some one is doing wrong, it does not make a reason for me or you to do it as well. This is the essense. We cannot correct the whole mankind at our own. Yes, we can start it from our ownselves.
Further to above all words, I still feel CA firms audit documents and records, and audit is never meant for absolute assurance (quality of an audit must not be jeopardized due to this reason) but audits always have inherent limitations. Thats why firms get Management Representation Letters on conclusion of audits from the management in which again every responsibility of fair presentation is taken by management. Auditors are meant to get moderate assurance in audits. Concept of "TRUE and FAIR" and not the conecpt of "TRUE and CORRECT" has to be followed. It is long story and you can understand it only if you know ISAs.
Furthermore, ISA pertaining to legal compliance states that the responsibility of compliance with law is of management which is charged with governance (higher management like board of directors). Auditor is not responsible for compliance of law within an entity. In so many cases, as per ISA, it is sufficient for auditor to inform/notify such higher management regarding non-compliances noticed by him. In extreme cases auditor has to decide otherwise which can include resigning from the engagement or qualifying the opinion depending upon situation and confidentiality of the client. It is not that simple. It has to be done as per laid down procedures. Auditor cannot straight-a-way, without considering anything, report the non-compliances to stakeholders or authorities. Mind it.
Despite above limitations and discussion, I agree that one should do his job honestly and there should be no compromise on quality.
Any one's wrong deed cannot make it justifiable for me or you.
Regards,
Kamran.
Firms are continuously monitored by ICAP and this monitoring is going to be and should be made more strict.
I dont personally appreciate any one who committs wrong things. Every one should do what his position requires from him. I personally do it. I never saved a penny of income tax on my own income and never ever advised any client to do it unless some over taxation is unjustifiable in accordance with law. Yes, wherever unjustified liability is imposed, it should be honestly pleaded at appellate forums.
Still, if some one is doing wrong, it does not make a reason for me or you to do it as well. This is the essense. We cannot correct the whole mankind at our own. Yes, we can start it from our ownselves.
Further to above all words, I still feel CA firms audit documents and records, and audit is never meant for absolute assurance (quality of an audit must not be jeopardized due to this reason) but audits always have inherent limitations. Thats why firms get Management Representation Letters on conclusion of audits from the management in which again every responsibility of fair presentation is taken by management. Auditors are meant to get moderate assurance in audits. Concept of "TRUE and FAIR" and not the conecpt of "TRUE and CORRECT" has to be followed. It is long story and you can understand it only if you know ISAs.
Furthermore, ISA pertaining to legal compliance states that the responsibility of compliance with law is of management which is charged with governance (higher management like board of directors). Auditor is not responsible for compliance of law within an entity. In so many cases, as per ISA, it is sufficient for auditor to inform/notify such higher management regarding non-compliances noticed by him. In extreme cases auditor has to decide otherwise which can include resigning from the engagement or qualifying the opinion depending upon situation and confidentiality of the client. It is not that simple. It has to be done as per laid down procedures. Auditor cannot straight-a-way, without considering anything, report the non-compliances to stakeholders or authorities. Mind it.
Despite above limitations and discussion, I agree that one should do his job honestly and there should be no compromise on quality.
Any one's wrong deed cannot make it justifiable for me or you.
Regards,
Kamran.
