Cpa Case 1-7 Eating Time
Mitalben Patel
Case 1-7 Eating Time
The case is about Kevin Lowe, who is a three months old staff at CPA firm Stooges LLP and the partners of the firm Bo Chambers and his brother Moe “have asked for a sit-down.” The partners were concerned about the time efficiency, costs and losing clients as Kevin was taking “50 percent longer” in completing his audit work compared to his work mates.
The approaches that Kevin came across to solve the problem were, to reduce the work he does, however it was against Moe because that would mean comprising on the quality of the audit work; Kevin suggested to take work home at night and over weekends and not charging his time to the audit firm neither the client. The partners did not respond to any of the approaches, therefore they concluded that it’s up to Kevin to know …show more content…
The harm of not taking the work home might lead Kevin to engage in “ghost-ticking” in order to complete the work and the benefit of him taking the work home would enable him to complete the work. The drawback of applying utilitarianism philosophy is that it can be difficult to allocate values to harms and benefits. The conclusion to such a scenario would be for Kevin to act in accordance with the moral rule that integrity requires not only performing duties ethically but to disclose any information that another party needs to know.
If I were Kevin, I would consider following the company’s established policies on the resolution of the “ghost-ticking” as this would be considered as an ethical practice. Second, I would approach other staff members and consider asking on how I could enhance working efficiently and effectively. In 30 days, I would tell Bo and Me to give me more time on learning the job and would inform them on the “ghost-ticking” practice that’s on going in the
Case 1-7 Eating Time
The case is about Kevin Lowe, who is a three months old staff at CPA firm Stooges LLP and the partners of the firm Bo Chambers and his brother Moe “have asked for a sit-down.” The partners were concerned about the time efficiency, costs and losing clients as Kevin was taking “50 percent longer” in completing his audit work compared to his work mates.
The approaches that Kevin came across to solve the problem were, to reduce the work he does, however it was against Moe because that would mean comprising on the quality of the audit work; Kevin suggested to take work home at night and over weekends and not charging his time to the audit firm neither the client. The partners did not respond to any of the approaches, therefore they concluded that it’s up to Kevin to know …show more content…
The harm of not taking the work home might lead Kevin to engage in “ghost-ticking” in order to complete the work and the benefit of him taking the work home would enable him to complete the work. The drawback of applying utilitarianism philosophy is that it can be difficult to allocate values to harms and benefits. The conclusion to such a scenario would be for Kevin to act in accordance with the moral rule that integrity requires not only performing duties ethically but to disclose any information that another party needs to know.
If I were Kevin, I would consider following the company’s established policies on the resolution of the “ghost-ticking” as this would be considered as an ethical practice. Second, I would approach other staff members and consider asking on how I could enhance working efficiently and effectively. In 30 days, I would tell Bo and Me to give me more time on learning the job and would inform them on the “ghost-ticking” practice that’s on going in the