Integrity: The Basis of Accounting

Integrity: The Basis of Accounting

Ethical Reasoning: Implications for Accounting 3

Joe Paterno and other university leaders did not act with integrity. They let external considerations of reputation and image dictate their internal actions. Ironically, the very factor—reputation—that they guarded so closely was the first to be brought down by the disclosure of a cover-up in the sex scandal case.

In accounting, internal accountants and auditors may be pressured by superiors to manipulate financial results. The external auditors may have to deal with pressures imposed on them by clients to put the best face on the financial statements regardless of whether they conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). It is the ethical value of integrity that provides the moral courage to resist the temptation to stand by silently while a company misstates its financial statement amounts.

Integrity: The Basis of Accounting

According to Mintz (1995), “Integrity is a fundamental trait of character that enables a CPA to withstand client and competitive pressures that might otherwise lead to the sub- ordination of judgment.” 6 A person of integrity will act out of moral principle and not expediency. That person will do what is right, even if it means the loss of a job or client. In accounting, the public interest (i.e., investors and creditors) always must be placed ahead of one’s own self-interest or the interests of others, including a supervisor or client.

Integrity means that a person acts on principle—a conviction that there is a right way to act when faced with an ethical dilemma. For example, assume that your tax client fails to inform you about an amount of earned income for the year, and you confront the client on this issue. The client tells you not to record it and reminds you that there is no W-2 or 1099 form to document the earnings. The client adds that you will not get to audit the company’s financial statements anymore if you do not adhere to the client’s wishes. Would you decide to “go along to get along”? If you are a person of integrity, you should not allow the client to dictate how the tax rules will be applied in the client’s situation. You are the professional and know the tax regulations best, and you have an ethical obligation to report taxes in accordance with the law. If you go along with the client and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigates and sanctions you for failing to follow the IRS Tax Code, then you may suffer irreparable harm to your reputation. An important point is that a professional must never let loyalty to a client cloud good judgment and ethical decision making.

WorldCom: Cynthia Cooper: Hero and Role Model Cynthia Cooper’s experience at WorldCom illustrates how the internal audit function should work and how a person of integrity can put a stop to financial fraud. It all unraveled in April and May 2002 when Gene Morse, an auditor at WorldCom, couldn’t find any documentation to support a claim of $500 million in computer expenses. Morse approached Cooper, the company’s director of internal auditing and Morse’s boss, who instructed Morse to “keep going.” A series of obscure tips led Morse and Cooper to suspect that WorldCom was cooking the books. Cooper formed an investigation team to determine whether their hunch was right.

In its initial investigation, the team discovered $3.8 billion of misallocated expenses and phony accounting entries. 7 Cooper approached the CFO, Scott Sullivan, but was dissatisfied with his explanations. The chief executive officer (CEO) of the company, Bernie Ebbers, had already resigned under pressure from WorldCom’s board of directors, so Cooper went to the audit committee. The committee interviewed Sullivan about the accounting issues and did not get a satisfactory answer. Still, the committee was reluctant to take any action. Cooper persisted anyway. Eventually, one member of the audit committee told her to approach the outside auditors to get their take on the matter. Cooper gathered additional evidence of fraud, and ultimately KPMG, the firm that had replaced Arthur Andersen LLP—the auditors during the fraud—supported Cooper. Sullivan was asked to resign, refused to do so, and was fired. 8

min622IX_ch01_001-053.indd 3min622IX_ch01_001-053.indd 3 09/08/13 4:46 PM09/08/13 4:46 PM

 

Lingzi Wang

 

4 Chapter 1 Ethical Reasoning: Implications for Accounting

Place Your Order Here!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *