OPPapers.com

Accounting

After the breakdown of the talks Dan knew how the regulations were defined, and because of the difference in opinion that he had to disclose the CPA’s opinion because it was more than 3% difference. Dan submitted the report to Oliver Freeman as a recommendation that the report be filed as a provision on the financial statement, which in this case Dan recommends an adjustment of $1.9 million accompany his opinion (Brooks, 2007).
After Oliver Freeman reviewed Dan’s report, a list was sent back to Dan of what the Baker Greenleaf company calls To Do’s. The report that Oliver Freeman sent to Dan recommending to take out pages referring to the real estate property of $100,000, Dan expression of opinion, removed subject opinion and substitute clean opinion (Brooks, 2007).
After reviewing what Oliver Freeman sent Dan, he immediately replied. Dan’s reply was “that he would not alter his assessment since it clearly violated his own reading of accounting regulations” (Brooks, Para 10, 2007). Once Oliver received Dan’s reply they met behind closed doors (Brooks, 2007). At this point Oliver stated to Dan that he does not want any problems with the audit. He claimed that he knew better on how to handle the situation since he had been doing this for six years (Brooks, 2007). In response Dan told Oliver that “Any neglect of his duties would be viewed as an act of irresponsibility” (Brooks, Para 11, 2007). Oliver claimed that no one read the financial statements that the report would only be seen in house (Brooks, 2007).
After this, the discussion became heated! Dan exclaimed that it was his interpretation of the write-down, and that it was material difference to the sub and was important “from the standpoint of both professional integrity and legality” (Brooks, Para 12, 2007). Dan gave an situation where Baker issued a clean opinion which the client subsequently used to show prospective buys of the property, and shortly after the buyer might discover the real...