Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
REG STUDY GROUP
 CPAnet Forum : REG STUDY GROUP
Subject Topic: Becker CPA Liability Question (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
  
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
CPA2011
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 49
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 18:47 | IP Logged  

Becker has contradicting answers on two questions on the PassMaster related to CPA negligence liability. Can anyone clarify the following for me?

To prove a CPA negligence liability, must a client or a third party prove reliance? Becker says yes/no? Please help!



__________________
FAR 05/10   87
BEC 07/10   85
AUD 08/10   93
REG 10/10   64, 74, 84
Back to Top View CPA2011's Profile Search for other posts by CPA2011
 
divyagovil1
Major Contributor
Major Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1456
Posted: 14 Nov 2011 at 05:14 | IP Logged  

I remember this confusion quite well when I was studying
for REG.

Refer the following post:
http://www.cpanet.com/cpa_forum/forum_posts.asp?
TID=24693&KW=constructive+fraud&PN=0&TPN=1

Hope it helps you if the rules haven't changed in 2 years !

__________________
Divya - CO State

Passed using Becker Review :
FAR - 04/11/09 - 94
BEC - 05/30/09 - 86
REG - 08/29/09 - 95
AUD - 11/21/09 - 92
Ethics - 2011
Back to Top View divyagovil1's Profile Search for other posts by divyagovil1 Visit divyagovil1's Homepage
 
tho9504
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Nov 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Posted: 16 Nov 2011 at 11:06 | IP Logged  

i may be wrong but for the 1933 act section 11, one dont have to prove reliance but 34 act you need to prove reliance:

1933:  Duty of care existed, Breached that duty, The breach was the cause of Harm/injury.

1934: Purchased securities based on Accountant's opinion, You were unaware of the mistatement before purchase, You relied(Reliance) on the audited statement to purchase, Scienter on part of the accountant.

 

Back to Top View tho9504's Profile Search for other posts by tho9504
 
CPA#1
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
Posted: 16 Nov 2011 at 13:55 | IP Logged  

It depends.

Ordinary Negligence- No
Gross Negligence- Yes, you must prove reliance.


__________________
FAR: 52,66,73,61,89
AUD: 47,87
BEC: 80
REG: 64,74,84

DONE!!!!!!!
Back to Top View CPA#1's Profile Search for other posts by CPA#1
 



Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.


  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version 7.9
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.0957 seconds.

Copyright © 1996-2016 CPAnet/MizWeb Communities All Rights Reserved
Twitter
|Facebook |CPA Exam Club | About | Contact | Newsletter | Advertise & Promote