Professional Ethics and the Audit Partner's Pressure
You are the audit partner on the statutory audit of a listed company, Safari Hotels plc. The audit fee is KES 6 million, which is 18% of your firm's total annual revenue. During fieldwork, you discover that management has capitalised KES 40 million of operating costs as 'property improvements', inflating profit by KES 40 million - enough to keep the company within its banking covenants. The CFO says the treatment is 'aggressive but defensible' and hints that if you insist on adjustment, the firm will lose the audit and the lucrative tax advisory work. Your engagement quality reviewer is on leave and cannot be reached before the reporting deadline. The audit committee chair is a former partner of your firm.
1. Identify the ethical threats and evaluate whether the capitalisation is defensible.
Read the worked answer
Ethical threats (IESBA Code):
- Self-interest threat - fee dependence (18% of firm revenue) and the prospect of losing advisory work create pressure to acquiesce.
- Intimidation threat - the CFO's hint about losing the engagement.
- Familiarity threat - the audit committee chair is a former partner of the firm.
- Self-review threat - if the firm also provides tax advisory, potential overlap with audit judgements.
Is the capitalisation defensible? Capitalisation requires the costs to meet the definition of an asset and the recognition criteria (probable future economic benefits, reliable measurement). 'Operating costs' capitalised as 'property improvements' suggests costs that do not enhance the asset or extend its life - likely repairs and maintenance that should be expensed. The fact that adjustment would breach covenants is a red flag, not a justification. On the facts, the treatment appears not defensible and materially misstates profit by KES 40m.
2. State the actions you should take, including safeguards and escalation.
Read the worked answer
Actions:
- Do not accept the treatment. Require adjustment; if management refuses, the financial statements are materially misstated.
- Escalate to those charged with governance - report to the audit committee. The chair's former-partner status is a familiarity threat; the matter should be reported to the other independent members or the board.
- Document everything - the disagreement, management's rationale, and your conclusions.
- Engagement quality review - the EQR is mandatory for listed entities; do not sign off without it. Escalate to another partner or delay the opinion if necessary.
- Consider a modified opinion - if unadjusted, issue a qualified or adverse opinion as appropriate; consider whether the matter should be reported to the regulator.
- Safeguards on fee dependence - disclose the fee dependence to the audit committee and consider whether the firm can continue; independence may be compromised.
- Decline the advisory work if accepting it would create a self-review threat or impair independence.
Bottom line: Independence and integrity override the fee. Losing the client is preferable to issuing a false opinion.