Case studies are designed to actively involve you in ethical decision-making in accounting and to help you apply the
concepts covered in the course to complex real-world situations. These case studies provide practice assessing a professional situation, applying what you have
learned, and making an informed decision.Prompt: Read attached Case Study 1-7 and answer the questions that follow.
case_1.docx

acc_696_case_study_1_rubric.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Case 1-7 Eating Time
Kevin Lowe is depressed. He has been with the CPA firm Stooges LLP for only three months. Yet the
partners in charge of the firm—Bo Chambers and his brother, Moe—have asked for a “sit-down.” Here’s
how it goes:
“Kevin, we asked to see you because your time reports indicate that it takes you 50 percent longer to
complete audit work than your predecessor,” Moe said.
“Well, I am new and still learning on the job,” replied Lowe.
“That’s true,” Bo responded, “but you have to appreciate that we have fixed budgets for these audits.
Every hour over the budgeted time costs us money. While we can handle it in the short run, we will have
to bill the clients whose audit you work on a larger fee in the future. We don’t want to lose clients as a
result.”
“Are you asking me to cut down on the work I do?” Lowe asked.
“We would never compromise the quality of our audit work,” Moe said. “We’re trying to figure out why it
takes you so much longer than other staff members.”
At this point, Lowe started to perspire. He wiped his forehead, took a glass of water, and asked, “Would it
be better if I took some of the work home at night and on weekends, completed it, but didn’t charge the
firm or the client for my time?”
Bo and Moe were surprised by Kevin’s openness. On one hand, they valued that trait in their employees.
On the other hand, they couldn’t answer with a yes. Moe looked at Bo, and then turned to Kevin and said,
“It’s up to you to decide how to increase your productivity on audits. As you know, this is an important
element of performance evaluation.”
Kevin cringed. Was the handwriting on the wall in terms of his future with the firm?
“I understand what you’re saying,” Kevin said. “I will do better in the future—I promise.”
“Good,” responded Bo and Moe. “Let’s meet 30 days from now and we’ll discuss your progress on the
matters we’ve discussed today and your future with the firm.”
In an effort to deal with the problem, Kevin contacts Joyce, a friend and fellow employee, and asks if she
has faced similar problems. Joyce answers “yes” and goes on to explain she handles it by “ghost-ticking.”
Kevin asks her to explain. “Ghost-ticking is when we document audit procedures that have not been
completed.” Kevin, dumbfounded, wonders, what kind of a firm am I working for?
Questions
1. Kevin is not a CPA yet. What are his ethical obligations in this case?
2. Given the facts in the case, evaluate using deontological and teleological reasoning whether Kevin
should take work home and not charge it to the job. What about engaging in ghost-ticking?
3. What would you do if you were Kevin and why? How would you explain your position to Bo and Moe
when you meet in 30 days?
ACC 696 Case Study 1 Rubric
This course includes four case studies. These case studies are designed to actively involve you in ethical decision-making in accounting and to help you apply the
concepts covered in the course to complex real-world situations. These case studies provide practice assessing a professional situation, applying what you have
learned, and making an informed decision. Please review the evaluation criteria in the rubric below, which highlights grading information.
Prompt: Read Case Study 1-7 in your text and answer the questions that follow.
Critical Elements
Case Analysis
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides examples
Proficient (90%)
Analyzes case study questions
with details and explanations
Conclusions
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
conclusions are compared to
current workplace scenarios
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
is presented in a professional
and easy-to-read format
Draws conclusions that are
justified with evidence
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
and is of a sufficient length to
provide necessary details in
answering the question
Needs Improvement (70%)
Analyzes case study questions
with minor gaps in details and
explanations; has difficulty in
applying both technical and
communicative proficiency
Draws logical conclusions, but
does not defend with evidence
Not Evident (0%)
Does not provide in-depth
analysis for the required case
study questions
Value
40
Does not draw logical
conclusions
35
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas. Answers are brief
and lacking in detail
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas. Answers fail to address all
parts of the question or omit
important details
Earned Total
25
100%

Purchase answer to see full
attachment