gone.

1.  I think the answer would be B - because the firm's "professional staff" could consist of people working in the HR department or other professionals that have no influence on the engagement.

2. D - because providing services on a contingent fee basis to attest clients is not allowed.

3. B - The one year cooling off period applies to the lead audit partner who assumes a financial reporting oversight role with the client.

4. I am not sure about this one but I would guess B.

5. I think the answer is D - I believe she should discuss the matter with the supervisor's boss, and then if it is not resolved she should go to the senior partner.

gone.

2. The service described in the problem is an advisory service, however if they also performed a review engagement (attest service) they could not provide advisory services on a contingent fee basis.

Choice a. is not correct because it raises ethical questions for any firm providing attest services. Choice b. is partially correct; however the contingent fee arrangement raises ethical issues for attest clients. Choice c. says only if they are also the auditors, they could be providing other attest services besides an audit.

4. This question is very confusing, I cannot decide between b or a. I like b better because the IESBA uses the conceptual framework approach throughout, while the AICPA only uses it if the rules do not address the situation. Choice c. is not correct because the IESBA code is divided into 3 parts, A. professionals and accountants, B. persons in public accounting and C. People in business. The AICPA does not assign principles in this manner. D. is not correct because they are not the same.

5. The ethics decision tree recommends attempting to solve the problem within the organization before contacting outsiders. The first thing is to talk to your supervisor and determine if the issue is material. She has done that, the next step is to contact the level above the supervisor.