Disciplinary
Matters
The
Joint Trial Board expelled Robert E. Levine of Brooklyn,
N.Y., from NYSSCPA and AICPA memberships, effective July
16, 2003.
The
board found Mr. Levine guilty of violating the NYSS-CPA
Code of Professional Conduct and an AICPA bylaw as follows:
AICPA
Bylaw Section 2.3.4
1.
Mr. Levine engaged in the practice of public accounting
performing financial statement compilations with a firm
that is not enrolled in an AICPA practice-monitoring program
as required by AICPA Bylaw Section 2.3.4/220R.
Rule
202—Compliance with Standards
1.
Mr. Levine testified before a hearing panel of the Joint
Trial Board that the financial statements he compiled omitted
all disclosures; however, he did not disclose this fact
in the compilation reports he issued (AR Section 100.19).
Rule
501—Acts Discreditable
1.
Mr. Levine represented to the administrators of the AICPA
Peer Review Program on May 29, 2001, that he did not perform
any financial statement compilations, thereby exempting
his accounting practice from undergoing a peer review. However,
Mr. Levine testified before a hearing panel of the Joint
Trial Board on Oct. 12, 2001, that he had performed from
10 to 15 compilation engagements yearly.
The
Joint Trial Board admonished Allan J. Amer of Massapequa,
N.Y., effective July 17, 2003.
The
board found Mr. Amer guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Conduct of the NYSSCPA and AICPA in connection with his
audit of an employee benefit plan, as follows:
Rule
201—General Standards, B. Due Professional Care
1.
Mr. Amer did not utilize the AICPA Audit and Accounting
Guide – Audits of Employee Benefit Plans with Conforming
Changes as of May 1, 1995, (the “Audit Guide”)
in planning and performing the audit of financial statements
for a profit sharing and TSA plan for the year ended Dec.
31, 1995.
2.
Mr. Amer inappropriately performed a limited scope audit.
The various institutions holding the plan’s assets
did not certify to both the accuracy and completeness of
the information submitted and therefore a limited scope
audit was not appropriate (Audit Guide paragraph 5.02).
Rule
202—Compliance with Standards
1.
The audit report issued by Mr. Amer was not presented in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS).
The report stated that Mr. Amer performed a limited scope
audit but the report included an unqualified opinion. The
Audit Guide requires a disclaimer of opinion when a limited
scope audit is performed (SAS 58/AU Section 508.42, Audit
Guide paragraphs 5.02 and 13.25).
2.
Mr. Amer’s auditor’s report was not modified
(SAS 58/AU Section 508.35), nor did he justify the departure
from generally accepted accounting principles (SAS 69/AU
Section 411.07) for the omission of the footnote disclosures
required by the Audit Guide (Audit Guide paragraph 3.23).
Rule
501—Interpretation 501-5 Failure to Follow Requirements
of Government Bodies, Commissions, or Other Regulatory Agencies
in Performing Attest or Similar Services
The
additional information required by ERISA and DOL regulations
to be presented and audited was presented but not addressed
in Mr. Amer’s report. This information should have
referred to the auditor’s disclaimer of opinion and
the audit report should have included an explanatory paragraph
(Audit Guide paragraph 13.10-.16 and APP A.51).
The
panel directed Mr. Amer to submit proof of successful completion
of the following continuing professional education courses
by July 17, 2004:
The
panel also directed Mr. Amer to provide a written attestation
by Aug. 17, 2003, stating that he does not perform audits,
reviews, compilations or other attest functions, and that
he does not plan to perform any of these services during the
18-month period from the effective date of the panel’s
decision.
Print