AIPCA Code Of Conduct Analysis

The AIPCA Code of Conduct ET Section 55 Article IV, objectivity, and independence. It notes that objectivity is the state of mind. Accordingly, it is impossible for the third parties to recognize whether or not an auditor performs a given audit objectively. Also, a close relationship between an auditor and client may cause third parties to question the auditor’s independence. Robert Fish’s relationship with Brant was improper but the information states that there was a father-son kind of relationship between the two individuals. This relationship has likely cause third-party financial statement users a question towards Fish’s auditing in Take-Two. Also Fish failed to comply with generally accepted auditing standards(GAAS) while auditing the
company’s financial statement. Fish also identified revenue recognition and accounts receivable reserves as the area of high risk and to give proper attention will audit. But he did not respond to the risk properly and failed to exercise due professional care and failed to obtain sufficient competent evidential matter. Fish also failed to test the five sales returns received by Take-Two and did not compare the returns with the original sales invoices. According to my view, Robert Fish has not maintained is objectivity and independence while supervising the Take-Two audits. Also, he could not objectively and independently assess Take-Two’s financial statements. that were ultimately the responsibility of Brant.