PRESENTASI AUDIT 1

Ethical Dilemma
-

Lukius Prabowo B.
3203014134
Soni Setiawan
3203014138
Yohana Olivia
3203014126
Flani Anatasia
3203014137
Cicilia Renata T
3203014238

Ivan Bakti S.
320301425
Yosep Ponco S.
3203014132
Angelina Usboko

SOAL BEBAS :
Kramer &
Reuben CPAs
Julia Brinks ( senior
auditor)
SOAL PAKET :

Foresster
, Inc Audit
Firmansyah
Daud (Manajer
Senior)
KAP Barly & Lubis (Tempat
Firmansyah
Daud bekerja)
Partner
PT. Teknika Utama Sejati

SOAL PAKET
PT. Teknika Utama Sejati
Firmansyah Daud, a senior audit manager for KAP Barly &
Lubis, has recently been informed that the firms plans to
promote him to partner within the next year or two if he
continues to perform at the same high-quality level as in
the past. Firman excels at dealing effectively with all
people, including client personnel, professional staff,
partners, and potential clients. He has recently built a
bigger home for entertaining and has joined the citys
most prestigious golf and tennis club. He is excited about
his future with the firm.

Firman has recently been assigned to the audit of PT Teknika Utama Sejati, a large
wholesale company that ships goods throughout the world. It is one of KAP Barly & Lubiss
most prestigious clients. During the audit, Firman determines that PT Teknika Utama Sejati
uses a method of revenue recognition called bill and hold that has recently been questioned
by the Bapepam-LK. After considerable research, Firman concludes that the method of
revenue recognition is not appropriate for PT Teknika Utama Sejati. He discussed the matter
with the engagement partner, who concludes that the accounting method has been used for
more than 10 years by the client and is appropiate, especially considering that the client is
the revenue recognition method is found inappropiate. Firman argues that the revenue
recognition method was appopriate in prior years, but the Bapepam-LK ruling makes it
inappropiate in the current year. Firman recognizes that partners responsibility to make the
final decision, but he feels strongly enough to state that he plans to follow the requirements of
SAS 22 (AU 311) and include a statement in the audit files that he disagrees with the partners
decision. The partner informs Firman that she is unwilling to permit such a statement because
of the potential legal implications. However, she is willing to write a letter to Firman stating
that she takes full responsibility for making the final decision if a legal dispute ever arises.
She concludes by saying, Firman, partners must act like partners, not like loose cannons
trying to make life difficult for their partners. You have some growing up to do before I would
feel comfortable with you as a partner.

6 Langkah Pendekatan Untuk

Memecahkan Dilema Etika

1. Fakta Relevan :
Firman menemukan PT. Teknika Utama Sejati menggunakan
metode Bill and Hold yang tidak sesuai dengan perusahaan
tersebut menurut Bapepam-LK.
Partner menyetujui penggunaan metode tersebut dan bersedia
bertanggung jawab jika ada masalah hukum.
Firman tidak setuju dengan keputusan partner dan berniat
melaporkan partner berdasarkan SAS 22 (AU 311).
Partner melarang Firman memberikan keputusan yang
berlawanan (pengaduan).

2. Masalah Etika
Apakah Firman akan membiarkan penggunaan
metode Bill and Hold tanpa melaporkan temuannya
, juga perilaku partneryang menyimpang peraturan ??

3. Siapa yang terpengaruh dan

bagaimana pengaruhnya ?
a. Firmansyah Daud :
. Prestasi pekerjaan terpengaruh
. Loyalitas terpengaruh
. Integritas terpengaruh
b. KAP Barly & Lubis
. Risiko kehilangan klien
. Kemungkinan beresiko pada kelangsungan KAP

c. Partner :
Mendapat Hukuman
Mendapat pencitraan yang buruk
Kehilangan klien
d. PT. Teknika Utama Sejati :
Gagal mendapat opini WTP pada Lap. Keuangan
Kemungkinan kehilangan Investor dan Kreditor
Mendapat Hukuman

4. Alternatif Tersedia

1. Menyetujui perintah Partner (a)

2. Menolak perintah Partner (b)
3. Memberitahu perusahaan tentang adanya ketidaksesuaian tanpa
melaporkan Partner (c)

5. Konsekuensi tiap alternatif

(a) 1. KAP bisa tetap bekerjasama klien
2. Partner terhindar dari laporan Firman
3. Klien tetap menggunakan metode yang tidak sesuai
4. Firman tidak perlu bertanggung jawab jika ada masalah hukum
5. Terbiasa melawan Etika Auditor
(b) 1. Dipecat
2. KAP berpotensi kehilangan klien bersangkutan
3. Keburukan Klien dan Partner terungkap
(c) 1. Kemungkinan dipecat atau sanksi
2. KAP berpotensi kehilangan klien bersangkutan

6. Tindakan yang tepat

Melawan perintah partner
-Trustworthiness
-Responsibility
-Citizenship

- integrity
- Profesional Behavior and
competence

SOAL PAKET
FORRESTER Inc.

Kramer & Reuben CPAs

Kramer & Reuben, CPAs, assigned Julia Brinks, a newly
promoted senior staff person, as auditor in charge of the
initial examination of Forrester, Inc., a small construction
firm, Brinks had participated in prior audits of Forrester as
an assistant. As the audit progressed, Brinks discovered
some rather complex contracts accounted for on a
percentage of completion basis. Although she wasnt sure
whether the profits should have been recognized in this
manner, the controller of Forrester assured her that these
contracts did indeed constitute sales and that the profits
had been properly booked in accordance with GAAP. Brinks
accepted the controllers assurances, having been satisfied
during past audits with his integrity.

Kramer & Reuben CPAs

Following the audit, an unqualified opinion accompanied the
financial statements of Forrester, Inc. Shortly thereafter,
Forrester filed from bankruptcy and Kramer & Reuben were sued
for negligence by the minority stockholders. The contracts that
had concerned Brinks were, in reality, sale and leaseback
transactions, followed by subleasing and extensive discounting of
notes with banks and factors. Title to most of the properties
resulting from the projects had remained with Forrester,
therefore the profits should not have been recognized. When
asked by Reuben, one of the senior partners, why she had not
detected the fictitious nature of the profits. Brinks replied that,
given the audit teams past experience with the corporate
controller, she assumed he was being truthful and she therefore
relied on his assurances

Fakta Relevan
Julia menemukan beberapa transaksi(kontrak) yang kompleks dan
dicatat langsung oleh perusahaan sebagai pendapatan penjualan.
Julia tidak yakin apakah keuntungan harus diakui atau tidak.
Sehingga, Julia menanyakan kepada manajer apakah transaksi ini
sudah dicatat sesuai GAAP atau belum ? Dan manajer meyakinkan
Julia bahwa hal tersebut sudah sesuai peraturan. Perkataan
manajer pun didukung oleh laporan audit tahun lalu di perusahaan
tersebut. Sehingga Julia percaya atas perkataan manajer di
perusahaan klien nya.

Mengidentikfikasi is-isu etika berdasarkan

fakta-fakta tersebut

Apakah etis Julia menggunakan

dokumentasi audit tahun lalu sebagai dasar
untuk menentukan laporan tahun ini?

Siapa yang akan terkena pengaruh dan

bagaimana masing-masing dipengaruhi?
1. Julia Brinks ( Senior Auditor)
- Profesionalitasnya terpengaruhi
- Dokumen yang ia buat akan digunakan dalam Laporan Audit
2. Foresster, Inc ( Construction Firm)
- Memungkinkan manajer mendapat keuntungan dari kesalahan laporan
audit
( apabila laporan audit tahun lalu yang digunakan sebagai dasar
mengandung kesalahan)
3. Kramer & Reuben, CPAs
- Laporan Audit yang diterbitkan bisa terpengaruhi
4. Eksternal Perushaan(Pemakai Laporan Keuangan Forrester Inc.)
- Informasi yang didapat terpengaruh

Alternatif

1. Percaya kepada pihak manajemen dan dokumentasi audit tahun

lalu
2. Memeriksa sendiri terlebih dahulu tentang tranksaksi tersebut

Konsekuensi dari alternative tersebut

1. - Dokumen audit yang diberikan pada manajer dan partner tidak
objektif.
- Julia tidak professional
- KAP bisa dituntut oleh pemegang kepentingan external
perusahaan
- Manajer memperoleh keuntungan akibat pembiaran tersebut
2. - Melakukan pemeriksaan detail mengenai transaksi tersebut.
- Mampu memberikan dokumen audit yang lebih objektif dan
lengkap
- PRO

Alternatif Yang Dipilih

Memeriksa transaksi yang mencurigakan terlebih dahulu

AUDitor