Principles of Auditing & Other Assurance Services (Irwin Accounting)
20th Edition
ISBN: 9780077729141
Author: Ray Whittington, Kurt Pany
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Education
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 3, Problem 38OQ
a.
To determine
Identify that the given item must be provided to the management of Company T.
b.
To determine
Identify that the given item must be provided to the management of Company T.
c.
To determine
Identify that the given item must be provided to the management of Company T.
d.
To determine
Identify that the given item must be provided to the management of Company T.
e.
To determine
Identify that the given item must be provided to the management of Company T.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
The revenue agent who audited Ms. Hsui's Form 1040 discovered a $15,250 deduction that wasn't allowed by the tax law. The
improper deduction reduced Ms. Hsui's tax by $5,033. The total tax deficiency for the year under audit was $6,490.
Required:
a. Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction was due to Ms. Hsui's negligence in preparing
the tax return.
b. Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction represented Ms. Hsui's deliberate attempt to
cheat the government by underpaying tax.
Complete this question by entering your answers in the tabs below.
Required A Required B
Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction was due to Ms. Hsui's negligence in
preparing the tax return.
Note: Round your answer to the nearest whole dollar amount.
A tax return client was audited for a prior year return and assessed a tax deficiency because a material deduction was disallowed. Nevertheless, the client insists on taking the very same kind of deduction on this year’s return...
(a) A CPA absolutely may not prepare or sign the client’s return for this year un-less it conforms to the audit result for the prior year.
(b) A CPA may prepare and sign the client’s return for this year claiming a de-duction that previously was disallowed if the CPA determines as a matter of in-dependent professional judgment that the deduction is proper.
(c) A CPA may prepare and sign the client’s return for this year claiming a de-duction that previously was disallowed if the CPA receives a formal tax opinion from a law firm or from an unaffiliated CPA affirming that it is more likely than not that the deduction would be sustained on its merits if litigated.
The revenue agent who audited Ms. Hsui's Form 1040 discovered a $15,500 deduction that wasn't allowed by the tax law. The
improper deduction reduced Ms. Hsui's tax by $5,053. The total tax deficiency for the year under audit was $6,510.
Required:
a. Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction was due to Ms. Hsui's negligence in preparing
the tax return.
b. Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction represented Ms. Hsui's deliberate attempt to
cheat the government by underpaying tax.
Complete this question by entering your answers in the tabs below.
Required A Required B
Compute the maximum penalty if the agent concludes that the improper deduction was due to Ms. Hsui's negligence in
preparing the tax return.
Note: Round your answer to the nearest whole dollar amount.
Negligence penalty s 291 Ⓡ
Required A
Required B >
Chapter 3 Solutions
Principles of Auditing & Other Assurance Services (Irwin Accounting)
Ch. 3 - What is meant by the term ethical dilemma?...Ch. 3 - What are the two major types of constraints on...Ch. 3 - Prob. 3RQCh. 3 - Prob. 4RQCh. 3 - Prob. 5RQCh. 3 - Prob. 6RQCh. 3 - Prob. 7RQCh. 3 - Bill Scott works as a manager in the Phoenix...Ch. 3 - Prob. 9RQCh. 3 - Prob. 10RQ
Ch. 3 - Prob. 11RQCh. 3 - Prob. 12RQCh. 3 - Prob. 13RQCh. 3 - Prob. 14RQCh. 3 - Prob. 15RQCh. 3 - Prob. 16RQCh. 3 - Prob. 17RQCh. 3 - Prob. 18RQCh. 3 - Prob. 19RQCh. 3 - Prob. 20RQCh. 3 - Prob. 21RQCh. 3 - Prob. 22RQCh. 3 - Prob. 23RQCh. 3 - Prob. 24RQCh. 3 - Prob. 25RQCh. 3 - Prob. 26RQCh. 3 - Prob. 27QRACh. 3 - Prob. 28QRACh. 3 - Prob. 29QRACh. 3 - Prob. 30QRACh. 3 - Prob. 31QRACh. 3 - Prob. 32QRACh. 3 - Ron Barber, CPA, is auditing the financial...Ch. 3 - Prob. 34AOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34BOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34COQCh. 3 - Prob. 34DOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34EOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34FOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34GOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34HOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34IOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34JOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34KOQCh. 3 - Prob. 34LOQCh. 3 - Prob. 35OQCh. 3 - Prob. 36OQCh. 3 - Prob. 37OQCh. 3 - Prob. 38OQCh. 3 - Prob. 39OQCh. 3 - Prob. 40OQCh. 3 - Prob. 41OQCh. 3 - Prob. 42OQCh. 3 - Gary Watson, a graduating business student at a...Ch. 3 - Prob. 44PCh. 3 - Prob. 45PCh. 3 - Prob. 46PCh. 3 - Prob. 47ITCCh. 3 - Prob. 48ITCCh. 3 - Prob. 49RDC
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Arthur Young & Co., a firm of certified public accountants, was the independent auditor for Amerada Hess Corporation. During its review of Amerada’s financial statements as required by Federal securities laws, Young confirmed Amerada’s statement of its contingent tax liabilities and prepared tax accrual work papers. These work papers, which pertained to Young’s evaluation of Amerada’s reserves for contingent tax liabilities, included discussions of questionable positions Amerada might have taken on its tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) initiated a criminal investigation of Amerada’s tax returns when, during a routine audit, it discovered questionable payments made by Amerada from a “special disbursement account.” The IRS summoned Young to make available all its information relating to Amerada, including the tax accrual work papers. Amerada instructed Young not to obey the summons. The IRS then brought an action against Young to enforce the administrative summons.a.…arrow_forwardDuring a recent IRS audit, the revenue agent decided that the Parker family used their closely held corporation, Falco, to avoid shareholder tax by accumulating earnings beyond the reasonable needs of the business. Falco’s taxable income was $1,010,000, it paid no dividends, and it had no business need to retain income. Falco’s marginal tax rate in prior years was 34 percent. Required: Compute Falco’s accumulated earnings tax assuming that it had accumulated $5 million after-tax income in prior years. Compute Falco’s accumulated earnings tax assuming that it had accumulated $141,000 after-tax income in prior years.arrow_forwardDuring a recent IRS audit, the revenue agent decided that the Parker family used their closely held corporation, Falco, to avoid shareholder tax by accumulating earnings beyond the reasonable needs of the business. Falco’s taxable income was $880,000, it paid no dividends, and it had no business need to retain income. Falco's marginal tax rate in prior years was 34 percent. Assume the accumulated earnings tax rate is 20% for all applicable years in this problem. Required: Compute Falco’s accumulated earnings tax assuming that it had accumulated $4 million after-tax income in prior years. Assume that for these years at issue, a corporation is exempt up to $250,000 of accumulated earnings without demonstrating a reasonable business need for the accumulation. Compute Falco’s accumulated earnings tax assuming that it had accumulated $128,000 after-tax income in prior years. Assume that for these years at issue, a corporation is exempt up to $250,000 of accumulated earnings without…arrow_forward
- Mr. Stanhope has an MBA degree from Stanford University and has successfully operated a business for 18 years. The revenue agent who audited Mr. Stanhope's Form 1040 discovered a glaring error resulting in a $16,200 underpayment of tax. When questioned by the revenue agent about the error, Mr. Stanhope just shrugged and offered no logical explanation. Required: a. If the error resulted from Mr. Stanhope's blatant disregard of a tax rule, compute the penalty for negligence. b. Is Mr. Stanhope's level of education and business experience likely to be a factor considered by the revenue agent in determining negligence? Complete this question by entering your answers in the tabs below. Required A Required B X Answer is complete but not entirely correct. If the error resulted from Mr. Stanhope's blatant disregard of a tax rule, compute the penalty for negligence. Accuracy-related penalty $ 3,440 X Required A Required B >arrow_forwardMr. Stanhope has an MBA degree from Stanford University and has successfully operated a business for 18 years. The revenue agent who audited Mr. Stanhope's Form 1040 discovered a glaring error resulting in a $17,500 underpayment of tax. When questioned by the revenue agent about the error, Mr. Stanhope just shrugged and offered no logical explanation. Required: a. If the error resulted from Mr. Stanhope's blatant disregard of a tax rule, compute the penalty for negligence. b. Is Mr. Stanhope's level of education and business experience likely to be a factor considered by the revenue agent in determining negligence? Complete this question by entering your answers in the tabs below. Required A Required B If the error resulted from Mr. Stanhope's blatant disregard of a tax rule, compute the penalty for negligence. Accuracy-related penaltyarrow_forwardSubject: acountingarrow_forward
- In examining the books for Hilroy Limited, an auditor, completing the audit for December 31, 2023 found that certain items had been overlooked or might have been incorrectly handled in the past:1. A tax lawsuit related to the year 2021 was settled in 2023. It was determined that the company owed an additional $92,000 in tax related to 2021. The company did not record a liability in 2021 or 2022 because the possibility of losing the lawsuit was considered remote. Management recorded an adjustment to retained earnings in 2023 as a correction of a prior period error.2. Management accrued production salaries at December 31, 2022 of $87,000. The amount should have been $46,000.3. On January 15, 2021, the company purchased equipment with a cost of $225,000, useful life of 6 years, and a residual value of $40,000. The company uses straight-line depreciation. Depreciation expense was calculated without including the residual value in 2021, 2022 and 2023.Instructions:a. Identify what type of…arrow_forwardOBTUSE DULL Co. is involved in a tax dispute. OBTUSE has wrongfully paid taxes and is claiming for refund of the taxes it has previously paid. As of December 31, 20x1, OBTUSE's legal counsel was very confident that OBTUSE will be able to recover the tax refund amounting to P40M in the coming year. The entry to recognize the probable receipt of the tax refund includes Select the correct response: a debit to receivable and a credit to gain a debit to receivable none of these a debit to prepaid asset a credit to gainarrow_forwardOn October 5, 2016, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) sent KLM Corp. a Final Assessment Notice(FAN), stating that after its audit pursuant to a Letter of Authority duly issued therefor, KLM Corp. haddeficiency value-added and withholding taxes. Subsequently, a warrant of distraint and/or levy wasissued against KLM Corp. KLM Corp. opposed the actions of the BIR on the ground that it was notaccorded due process because it did not even receive a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) afterthe BIR’s investigation, which the BIR admitted. a) Distinguish a PAN from a FAN.b) Are the deficiency tax assessment and warrant of distraint and/or levy issued against KLMCorp. valid? Explain.arrow_forward
- Petroleum, Inc. is in need of tax consulting services and wants to engage an accounting firm to perform these services on its behalf. The following events have occurred: On December 1, Petroleum, Inc., sent Brick, Waterhouse, & Co. (BW&C) a letter, via overnight delivery, offering to engage BW&C to review Petroleum’s tax situation for the current year for $10,000. In the letter, the company stated that BW&C had ten days to accept. On December 5, BW&C sent an e-mail message that stated, “The price for the tax analysis seems too low. We remain interested in the engagement. Would you consider paying $15,000?” Petroleum received the message without responding immediately. The next day, Smith & Taylor, a BW&C competitor, offered to conduct the tax services for $8,000. On learning of this offer, BW&C immediately e-mailed Petroleum, agreeing to do the work for $10,000. Petroleum received this message on December 7. Explain why BW&C and Petroleum do, or do…arrow_forwardNote:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.arrow_forwardPlease answer both questions with explanation. I will really upvote. Thanksarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach to Conducting a Q...AccountingISBN:9781305080577Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. RittenbergPublisher:South-Western College Pub
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach to Conducting a Q...
Accounting
ISBN:9781305080577
Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg
Publisher:South-Western College Pub