Free Essay

Deferred Tax

In:

Submitted By Vermo
Words 15534
Pages 63
Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues Leader’s Guide

Leader’s Guide Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues
Jan Taylor Morris, PhD, CPA Time: 3 hour unit of study Module Objectives
1. Help students understand the importance of exercising high quality professional judgment; 2. Introduce students to the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework; 3. Provide students with an opportunity to apply the framework; and 4. Provide students with the opportunity to begin developing an appropriate mindset for making good judgments.

Module Learning Objectives
Critical analysis of case issues and application of KPMG Professional Judgment Framework allow students to increase their: 1. Problem solving and decision making skills in an ambiguous learning environment;

2. Strategic / critical thinking as they consider the relevant issues of the case and make subjective decisions; 3. Ability to identify relevant risks associated with improper judgments; and 4. Understanding of ASC 740 and accounting for income taxes and how judgment impacts financial reporting.

Module Components
• Class Structure: 3 hour unit of study • PowerPoint Lecture • Case Assignment • Workpaper • Five Videos • Summary: Elevating Professional Judgment in Auditing and Accounting: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework (available at: http://www.kpmguniversityconnection.com/ProfessionalJudgment/CurriculumSupport/Monographs/Professional-Judgment-Summary.aspx
Acknowledgements: The author gratefully acknowledges the advice offered by Daryl Taylor, KPMG Houston, and Kathryn Radfar, in developing this case and suggested solutions. KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Overview
According to KPMG, “With the move toward a more principles-based financial reporting framework and increased emphasis on fair value measurement, consistently making quality professional judgments is increasingly important. 1 ” Certainly, the ability to exercise good judgment is a key component of quality auditing. This case was developed to help students understand the importance of exercising high quality professional judgment, introduce them to the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework, and provide them an opportunity to begin applying the framework and developing an appropriate mindset for making good judgments. Judgment is the process of reaching a decision or drawing a conclusion where there are a number of possible alternative solutions. Judgment often occurs in a setting of uncertainty and risk. A unique aspect of teaching cases that deal with judgment is the ambiguity inherent in the case facts. Helping students understand that their “answers” are only appropriate if supported by critical and well-described thought processes, such as following the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework (“the framework”), is vital. Dealing with the ambiguity of these cases can be challenging for both the instructor and the student. Further, several aspects of teaching this case help support the development or reinforcement of several of the personal, broad-based, and functional competencies the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants identified in their Core Competency Framework.2 Appendix A provides a summary of how this case supports this development or reinforcement, noting the level of emphasis that is likely to result.

1 2

Page 6 - Elevating Professional Judgment in Auditing and Accounting: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework, 2011. KPMG (Monograph), American Institute of CPAs Core Competency Framework & Educational Competency Assessment Web Site, http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/accounting education/resources/pages/corecompetency.aspx
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 2

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Suggested Teaching Plan
The following teaching plan was designed for a 3-hour unit of study of judgment, skepticism, and professionalism in auditing. The plan can be modified for a shorter time devoted to professional judgment but students will need to do more out-of-class preparation. A PowerPoint presentation slide-deck that follows this suggested teaching plan is included in the instructor resources available from KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Step 1: Student Pre-unit Preparation
1. Assign Student Pre-work Reading: KPMG Professional Judgment Framework: Understanding and Developing Professional Judgment in Auditing (“Framework Summary”3). This 10-page summary of Elevating Professional Judgment in Auditing and Accounting: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework monograph (“monograph”) provides a good introduction to the framework and provides a knowledge base for class discussion. NOTE: Since there are some questions in the case related to the KPMG framework that are answered in the monograph, it is suggested that the instructor not make the monograph available for download until after this unit of study has been completed (Direct student to use the monograph for reference only). 2. Recommend (but do not require) that students go online and take one or two of Harvard’s Project Implicit “tests” and write down any “surprises” – perhaps an unconscious bias that they were unaware of. (Stress that this is just one type of judgment exercise and should not be viewed as an absolute predictor of bias or lack of bias). 3. Require students to read the case study and based on understanding from pre-unit reading, answer Judgment Framework and Professional Judgment questions, and familiarize themselves with and attempt to answer Valuation Allowance questions. They should not attempt to answer questions related to the Uncertain Tax Position before class. Have students submit answers to required questions at the beginning of class on Day 1 of the unit coverage.

Step 2: In-class
Day 1: 80 minutes 1. Collect responses to case Part 1 questions.

2. Approximately 30 minutes – Discuss the framework and process for developing Valuation Allowance and Uncertain Tax Position case questions. See KPMG Professional Judgment Instructor’s Guide4 for guidance on teaching professional judgment. 3. Approximately 30 minutes – Discuss bias and its effect on judgments, skepticism, and other decisions made by auditing professionals. NOTE: Start this portion of the unit by showing one of the Invisible Gorilla 1 or Invisible Gorilla 25 videos to illustrate how easy it is to miss something even when it is obvious to others. Discuss how attention to task
3 4 5 Professional Judgment Framework: Understanding and Developing Professional Judgment in Auditing. 2013, KPMG (Summary), http://www. kpmguniversityconnection.com/ProfessionalJudgment/CurriculumSupport/Monographs/Professional-Judgment-Summary.aspx Instructor’s Guide: Elevating Professional Judgment in Auditing and Accounting: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework, 2011, KPMG. Available on instructor’s CD. (Instructor’s Guide) Request at www.kpmguniversityconnection.com Chabris, Christopher and Daniel Simons, http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 3

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

(something auditors should understand) can, in fact, sometimes lead to missing vital information. Ask students if they can share any other implications that attention bias can have for auditors. Next, students are asked to voluntarily share any surprises or discoveries from the Harvard Implicit tests 6. Tell students to think about how bias impacts the auditor. For instance, use the below to illustrate: a. Ask: What if someone took one of these implicit bias tests and it revealed a gender bias or a racial bias, how could that impact audit judgments? b. Usually, students will respond but if it is not mentioned, suggest to them that information received from a client may be perceived differently depending upon the “messenger” For instance, even without a spe. cific bias, if you are interviewing a charming older woman who reminds you of your grandmother, are you going to be less skeptical than if that same information comes from a younger male? You may also show a few optical illusions during this portion of the discussion. Students may realize that some of them are not seeing the same thing as others in the room. This highlights that two people can look at the exact same image (or information) and perceive entirely different images (or effects on financial statements). It is a matter of judgment. Visual illusions (or links to) can be found in the Instructor’s Guide to the framework. 4. For the remainder of the session, the class will watch the first three sections of the video that accompanies the case and form teams of four (even numbered teams are preferred so that any judgments cannot become majority wins). Ask teams to identify a discussion authority (who ensures that all voices within the team are heard and that the discussion stays on the task at hand) and gatekeeper (who watches the clock and ensure that the team is moving forward; assists the discussion authority in ensuring that the team does not lose focus). Teams should also identify other team roles as needed, such as a scribe [note: you may want to use these roles for all team activity throughout the semester]. NOTE: DO NOT SHOW THE FINAL TWO SECTIONS OF THE VIDEOS (REACH CONCLUSION; ARTICULATE AND DOCUMENT RATIONALE) AT THIS POINT! SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS ARE PROVIDED IN THESE SECTIONS OF THE VIDEO. Section 1 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oS0YzHBAGQ&feature=youtu.be Section 2 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck-6tURJ71w&feature=youtu.be Section 3 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTjREYcGzyo&feature=youtu.be 5. If students have not yet answered questions related to the Valuation Allowance, these should be assigned for next class period.

Day 2: 80 minutes
6. Approximately 20 minutes – Class begins by teams getting together and determining one consensus set of “answers” to Valuation Allowance questions. One member of the team, the scribe, is responsible for summarizing and logging the team’s answers and submitting at the end of the team’s discussion period. 7 . Approximately 15 minutes – Within the large class group, facilitate a dialogue of how teams arrived at their judgments. Since this case is an introductory case and fairly simple, this discussion should not take much longer than the allotted time. Points to highlight in this discussion are provided in the Suggested Solutions section of these Teaching Notes; Selected portion of the suggested solutions are provided in the PowerPoint presentation that accompanies this case and teaching notes. https://implicit.harvard.edu © 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

6

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 4

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

8. 2-3 minutes – Watch remaining segments (Reach Conclusion; Document and Articulate Rationale) of video. REMINDER NOTE: A SUGGESTED SOLUTION IS PROVIDED IN THESE SEGMENTS. Section 4 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztX64A-uQM&feature=youtu.be Section 5 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13mw03D6C48&feature=youtu.be 9. Wrap up discussion by allowing students to comment on the suggested solution highlighted in the video. There are two questions embedded in the video to facilitate discussion of audit procedures and how the framework facilitates good audit work habits. 10. For the remaining class time, discuss the Uncertain Tax Position portion of the case. Within the large class group, walk through the framework process together to arrive at a consensus “answer” . Author’s note: I do not assign this portion of the case as an out-of-class assignment. However, as we discuss the UTP concern, I generally require students to vote on their Conclusion as discussed in the Suggested Solutions and Supporting Documentation section. You can have them write it down, and submit- or just do a simple vote of the class. Either way, I then ask for volunteers to share their reasoning. 11. Wrap-up: Using Socratic method, ask questions about the framework, the lessons learned from the case, the videos, and in-class discussions / dialogues within their teams or in the large group setting.

Quiz / Unit Exam Questions
See Appendix B for questions that can be used for a reading quiz (to ensure that students have actually read the case) or for a unit exam.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 5

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Suggested Solutions and Supporting Discussion
Judgment Framework and Professional Judgment
1. Discuss the importance of “judgment framing.” “Judgment framing” occurs early in the judgment process. “The definition of framing follows: Frames are mental structures that we use, usually subconsciously, to simplify, organize, and guide our understanding of a situation. They shape our perspectives and determine the information that we will see as relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant. Frames are a necessary aspect of judgment, but it is important to realize that our judgment frames provide only one particular perspective”7 —and our perspective may not be the same as others. As professionals, auditors must be able to consider the ways others might be viewing the same data. “The concept of judgment framing is important because appropriately questioning management’s perspective by viewing the situation through other frames is fundamental to professional skepticism. 8 ” [Author’s note: when I go over this question and topic, I refer to Senge’s concept of mental models and how our own mental models establish the frames we may be using. Senge wrote: “Mental models are deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behavior. 9 Reinforces ” this important concept in class discussion of biases and effect on professional judgment] 2. How do perceptual biases relate to judgment biases?10 From Framework Summary: Our eyes and related perceptual skills ordinarily are quite good at perceiving and helping us to accurately judge shape similarity. However, optical illusions can predictably and systematically fool our eyes. Just as with perceptual biases, there are times when our intuitive judgment falls prey to systematic traps and biases.11 KPMG Professional Judgment Framework: Similar to how our minds can be deceived by optical illusions or perceptual biases, there are times when our judgment can fall prey to systematic traps and biases.12 3. What are the five steps in the judgment process?13 [Briefly discuss / describe each] 1–Clarify Issues and Objectives: To get at issues, ask “what is the problem to be solved?” To get at objectives, ask “what is wanted or needed?” Ask “what” and “why” questions. 2–Consider Alternatives: To identify alternatives, we often need to be creative in seeking input from others as we consider how we can best achieve our objectives. If we have properly clarified the issue and objectives, we often can identify alternatives by asking, “how can we achieve our objectives?” 3–Gather and Evaluate Information: the information that is gathered and considered should result in sufficient appropriate audit evidence. A common mistake we make in evaluating the quality of a judgment is to focus only on the outcome and ignore the quality of the process that led up to the outcome. Because uncertainty is involved
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 6 - Monograph. Page 6 - Summary. Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday Currency, p. 8. Page3 – Monograph. Page 4 – Summary. Page 50 – Monograph. Page 15 – Monograph.
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 6

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

in making choices, it is often best to evaluate judgment performance by considering the quality of the judgment process employed rather than focusing solely on the outcome that resulted from the judgment. 4–Reach a Conclusion: It is important to consider whether the conclusion reached makes sense when taking into account the bigger picture. At this stage, it is appropriate to consider the strength of evidence and whether the alternatives considered and evidence gathered have been considered in a way that is objective and unhindered by judgment traps. 5–Articulate and Document Rationale: This step is included as a separate step in the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework because it is extremely important to properly document the work performed in an accounting or auditing setting. In this final step, we need to be prepared to articulate our rationale to those who may not agree with the conclusions reached. It is also appropriate to document positive/supportive evidence as well as evidence that went contrary to the ultimate conclusion. For example, it is common in a professional judgment setting for there to be more than one reporting alternative that could be supported. The fifth step asks the auditor to articulate why the alternative selected is supported by the strength of evidence. Documenting the rationale also helps to make sure that all of the other steps of the judgment process were completed in an appropriate fashion and that the logic holds together when documenting the process and conclusion. 4. Describe the availability tendency in your own words, and give an example of how the tendency could result in auditor bias.14 KPMG Professional Judgment Framework: The tendency for decision makers to consider information that is easily retrievable from memory as being more likely, more relevant, or more important for a judgment. Student examples will vary. An illustrative example would be: An auditor who identified a significant amount of unrecorded liabilities on a prior audit is likely to overestimate the likelihood of the presence of unrecorded liabilities on a subsequent audit.15 5. Describe the confirmation tendency in your own words, and give an example of how the tendency could result in auditor bias.16 KPMG Professional Judgment Framework: The tendency for people making judgments to seek and to put more weight on information that is consistent with their initial beliefs or preferences. Student examples will vary. An illustrative example would be: If management has taken a particular stance in accounting for a complex transaction and the authoritative standards are not clear on the subject, the auditor may be likely to seek and to place inordinate weight on evidence that supports or “confirms” management’s treatment of the transaction.17 6. What are some common judgment traps that prevent exercising good professional judgment? “Rush to solve” and “judgment triggers” – In an effort to make judgments quickly and to appear “decisive, we ” can fall prey to not taking the necessary time to invest in the early judgment framework steps. KPMG suggests that this leads to shallow thinking or even solving the wrong problem.

14 15 16 17

Page 30 - Monograph. Page 51 - Monograph. Page 30 - Monograph. Pages 50-51, Monograph.
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 7

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

7 .

What is the most important factor in avoiding traps or reducing bias?18 KPMG Professional Judgment Framework: Awareness of potential traps and conditions that lead to bias is the most important factor—it is a necessary first step before any other efforts to mitigate bias can be implemented.19

Valuation Allowance
1. Assume that the engagement team has completed testing the clerical/mathematical accuracy and completeness (agreement to the underlying general ledger) of the valuation allowance workpapers and met with the Tax Director. As you consider the appropriateness of the valuation allowance, document the steps in the professional judgment framework to conclude on the appropriateness of the valuation allowance. a. Clarify Issues & Objectives (what is this issue about?) Suggested Answer: The client has changed their projected margins on their rigs located in Brazil from the 10% used in the prior year to 15%. As a result of this 5% increase in projected gross margin, the client believes it will be able to fully utilize the NOL realized from prior years. As a result, based on five factors (Lease dayrate, Operator percentage, Rig efficiency, Days in operations, and Projected margins), the client has reversed all prior valuation allowance recorded for the NOL DTA. Only the lease dayrate and operator percentage (information about this percentage is presented in the Uncertain Tax Position scenario in the case) are known factors; the remaining three are estimates made by the client that must be assessed to determine the appropriateness of the client’s DTA valuation allowance. The client is using nine years of projected income based on its ability to project income and this is a key assumption that the engagement team would also need to audit. While the IRS is challenging the profit split for U.S. taxing purposes, we are told that Riggers has agreed to a 60/40 operator/owner profit split in an Advanced Pricing Agreement with the Brazilian taxing authority. As such, 60% is the appropriate operator percentage to use in the worksheet calculations of projected margins. b. Consider Alternatives (what Valuation Allowance amounts are reasonable and might be considered?) Suggested Answer: Margins: • 10% is the industry average and was used by Rigger’s in 2011. • 15% is the projected margin being used by Riggers. Based on information presented in case and video: newness of rigs; safety record; not transporting rigs during the years; production efficiencies and customer relations. • Other percentage based on stress/sensitivity testing of 10% and 15% margins. Perhaps point out that a 1% change in margin results in a $1,340,334 change in projected NOL application (see projected margin at 1% in the worksheet accompanying the case). It is important to note that Riggers would have to record a Valuation Allowance if they use any margin projected up to 14.5% projected margin (based on ½% adjustments to the margins) – see Gather and Evaluate information section below. Rig Efficiency: Riggers is estimating 100% rig efficiency for all years. Discuss with students if this is reasonable, even with the rigs newness and stability (not being relocated).
18 19 Page 37 – Monograph. Page 53 - Monograph.
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 8

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Days Operating: What evidence does the client have to support their projected days of operation? Similar to rig efficiency, should the client take a more conservative estimate of days in operations? Operator Percentage: Operator percentage is based on Advanced Pricing Agreement with the Brazilian taxing authority. (This is discussed in the Uncertain Tax Position part of the case). c. Gather & Evaluate Information (provided for you in the case, videos, and workpaper) • Additionally, you might want to show students how to stress test client’s workpaper to see effect of changes:
Projected Margins Gross NOL BOY Current Year NOL Generated / Applied Gross NOL EOY 20,093,833 20,093,833 Projected NOL Application Valuation Allowance (if < 0, none recognized) 13,403,340 6,690,493 14,743,674 5,350,159 16,084,008 4,009,825 17,424,342 2,669,491 18,764,677 1,329,157 19,434,844 658,990 20,105,011 (11,177) 10% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 11% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 12% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 20,093,833 13% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 20,093,833 14% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 20,093,833 14.5% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 20,093,833 15.0% 2012 DTA 11,072,746 9,021,088 20,093,833

d. Reach Conclusion (what Valuation Allowance do you think is appropriate?) Stone’s assessment is that the client has not provided sufficient, appropriate evidence to support raising the percentage to 15%. Based on a sensitivity analysis, they would have to record a VA up to 14.5% projected margin. The first projected margin (with 0.5% changes) where a VA is not needed is at 15%. Professional skepticism would at least require the auditor to question this seeming manipulation. Stone concludes that the 10% margin that is both consistent with industry and prior client estimates is more appropriate. The client is making predictions about the future productivity, safety, and economy and these would be assessed to determine if the auditor agrees with the client’s position. AGAIN, remind students that this case is not about solving for a right answer, but rather about going through the steps of the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework to assess the appropriateness of the client’s valuation allowance. Obviously, we are working with less than perfect information (as do auditors, many times!) and we are unable to continue gathering evidence to help support a fully informed conclusion. However, the video does have the auditor making the judgment that the client’s position is not supported given the weight of all available evidence – both positive and negative – reviewed to date. ASK: (Question at end of video segment 4) If the client chooses to revise their margin workpaper to be consistent with the auditors’ preferred margin of 10%, do the auditors have to do any additional testwork or can they simply sign off on the revised estimates? Suggested answer: Obviously, more work has to be done to test the client’s revised workpaper, both for clerical accuracy and to ensure that all elements of the workpaper are consistent with prior tested assumptions or projections. If any amounts are different from prior PBC workpaper, we will have to audit / test those. Further, since the auditors have concluded that we don’t agree with management’s estimates of profit margin, it calls
KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 9
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

into question whether they can reasonably estimate other items AND whether a 9-year forecast horizon is appropriate as the longer the forecasted projections, the more uncertain the forecast naturally becomes. It is important here to highlight that it may impact the work and conclusions relative other estimates within this particular calculation (while presumably the engagement has already audited these other estimates, they may need to gather additional evidence when faced with the fact that their work on the margin suggests a management bias and therefore there is heightened risk) and may also impact the broader conclusion about management’s ability to forecast income at all and if so, how many years is appropriate. e. Articulate & Document Rationale (Explain why you reached your conclusion in 1.d.) As portrayed in the video, Stone reaches the conclusion that the client’s projected margin is unsupported and that a proposed audit adjustment is necessary if the client refuses to modify their Valuation Allowance estimate. This adjustment would be documented along with supporting rationale (see Reach Conclusion step). The auditor notes that the workpapers will be documented to fully reflect both the auditor’s and client’s positions and that the remaining documentation will be dependent upon the client’s decision to revise the estimate to the more supportable 10% projected margin or not. ASK: (Question at end of video segment 5) Do you think the auditor judgment during this part of the audit will cause the auditor to question management’s estimates in other audit areas, such as with their allowance for uncollectible receivables? Suggested answer: When auditors question the client’s judgment in one area of the audit, it will have an impact on their assessment of the remainder of the client’s estimates and justifications for those estimates.

2. The Tax Director mentioned that the Company uses “a conservative approach” in determining the profit margin for forecasting future taxable income and corresponding NOL utilization. According to professional accounting and auditing standards and using professional judgment, do you agree with the client’s approach? Explain your answer. Suggested answer: ASC 740-10 details the required generally accepted accounting procedures for the accounting for income taxes, including deferred tax assets and related valuation allowances. Since the standard require companies to assess all positive and negative evidence available when evaluating the appropriateness of the valuation allowance, auditors are required to understand and audit the appropriateness of management’s assessment. The below table represents a sample of the types of evidence that should be considered. In order to keep the case short and easily implemented into an undergraduate auditing course, it does not include enough information to be able to determine or process many of these items, but students can be made aware of the types of evidence audit standards require.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 10

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Positive and Negative Evidence Considerations – Valuation Allowance: Positive Evidence i) Cumulative profits in recent years ii) Trends in Recent Operating Performance iii) Operational efficiency iv) The Company’s forecasts/projections suggest they will achieve future income (forecasted) v) Industry Negative Evidence i) Historical forecasting ii) Uncertain economic conditions iii) Credit environment iv) Rig output mix (production differences) v) Loss contingencies

vi) A pattern of losses in most recent years vi) Net operating loss recovery period - The general tax credits and net operating loss carryforwards have lengthy carryforward periods. A significant amount of the NOL that was carried into 2012 is expected to be utilized when the 2012 return is filed. vii) The Company’s core business vii)

Based on the available evidence, it appears that the client is being aggressive rather than conservative in their estimation of the need for a valuation allowance. They have used higher than industry norm profit margin projections and have an aggressive estimate of utilization of their rigs. Even with the discussion of the rigs’ efficiency, increasing the anticipated margins by 5% (a 50% increase) from 2011 to 2012 does not appear to be a conservative approach.

Uncertain Tax Position
It is suggested that students do not attempt to respond to these questions in advance of class. Students should read the UTP portion of the case in advance, but they should be instructed that these questions will be covered in a large group setting only. General Notes: • Transfer pricing is a profit allocation method used to attribute a corporation’s net profit or loss before tax to tax jurisdictions. • An advance pricing agreement (APA) is an ahead of time agreement between a taxpayer and a taxing authority on an appropriate transfer pricing methodology (TPM) for some set of transactions at issue over a fixed period of time. Note: Brazilian tax law has changed in 2013. Historically, APAs have not been common in Brazil; rather they used a unique Brazilian tax code policy to set transfer pricing agreements. To be consistent with common language and because tax law is changing, I used the more traditional “APA” terminology in the case. • A Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) is a document that formally presents the IRS agent’s issue with a taxpayer; discusses and identifies all of the relevant facts; discusses and applies the applicable law to the previously identified facts and circumstances; states the official IRS position or determination; presents the taxpayer’s legal position (if disclosed); and rebuts the taxpayer’s legal position in reaching a final conclusion or determination with respect to the issue presented. 20

20

Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7 .5.4, http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007-cont01.html#d0e2442
© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 11

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

1.

What would your next step(s) be in evaluating the uncertain tax position? Use the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework. a. Clarify Issues & Objectives (what is this issue about?) Suggested answer: The IRS is challenging the transfer pricing 75/25 operator/owner profit split for U.S. taxing purposes (meaning that Riggers will pay tax on 25% of their profits in the U.S.). Riggers has agreed to a 60/40 profit split in an Advanced Pricing Agreement with the Brazilian taxing authority, but the IRS’s position is that a transfer pricing adjustment using the profit split method at 50/50 is more appropriate. b. Consider Alternatives Suggested answer: 75/25 profit split per Val-Nation study 60/40 profit split per Brazil APA 50/50 profit split per IRS Others: if students propose any alternative profit split other than the three mentioned in the case, they should be asked to justify their choice of alternative. Again, we are more concerned with student’s ability to recognize alternatives and how they consider the various reasonable alternatives. c. Gather & Evaluate Information Suggested discussion point: Most auditors are not transfer pricing specialists and, therefore, would rely on the use of a transfer pricing specialist to help determine the appropriate profit split. Based on the Val-Nation study acquired by the client and the APA with Brazil, Stone’s internal transfer pricing experts signed off on both documents as being reliable audit evidence. This allows for a discussion of relying on the use of experts – both client based and audit firm-based. Discuss whether the audit team should rely on the work of the experts and the reliability of internal versus external specialists/experts. (Note: Stone would not simply rely on the Val-Nation transfer pricing study, however, after Stone’s own internal experts assessed the Val-Nation study and deemed it reliable audit evidence, the engagement team should be willing to accept it as such). d. Reach Conclusion Suggested answer: Stone’s assessment is not made clear in the case, however students should understand that an auditor cannot be an expert in all areas of GAAP and tax law and will often have to base their judgment on the expert opinion of others. In this case, they have both internal and external transfer pricing experts as well as the Brazil APA to support a lower owner percentage for U.S. taxing purposes. Since Riggers booked a UTP liability for the difference in the 60/40 APA based split and the 75/25 Val-nation based profit split, it appears reasonable. e. Articulate & Document Rationale Suggested answer: Remind students of the importance of documenting their work as well as the work of specialists and experts. The audit working papers should fully articulate the three profit-split positions and that based on the expert opinions of Stone’s transfer pricing experts, the firm agrees with the client’s UTP accrual.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 12

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

2. Do you agree with the Riggers conclusion to book an uncertain tax position (unrecognized tax benefit) as the difference between the 75/25 profit split method taken on the filed 2011 tax return and the 60/40 profit split method? Why or why not? Teaching Note: While this question is asking students to make a decision related to the Conclusion from the framework (discussed above), it is sometimes useful to have the class vote to energize the case discussion. The recommendation is to have students vote on this question when you are discussing the Conclusion portion of the framework.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 13

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

APPENDIX A
Emphasis of the AICPA Core Competency Framework21
The AICPA has developed a framework of core competencies for those entering the accounting profession. These competencies are grouped into Personal, Broad Business, and Functional categories. Whereas the first two categories apply to all business courses (for example, the personal competency of communication skills), functional competencies are more course-specific. Listed below are the AICPA’s core competencies and how this case helps with the development and reinforcement of these competencies:
Categories Technical skill Personal Competencies Case Competency Development

Communication

Ability to listen, deliver powerful presentations and produce examples of effective business writing.

Minor emphasis: Students present their ideas to each other in small team setting and then report back to class.

Interaction

Ability to work with others to accomplish Major emphasis: Students work in teams objectives. to present their case to class. Learning to exercise good professional judgment requires learning from others and the experience of observation of others. Ability to effectively lead in appropriate circumstances, including skills needs to influence, inspire, and motivate others to achieve results. Acquisition of new skills and determination of how new technologies should be best incorporated into their practices. Minor emphasis: Team settings, especially with assigned authority roles, allows students the opportunity to practice leadership skills. No emphasis

Leadership

Leverage Technology

Problem Solving/Decision Making

Ability to discern the true nature of a situ- Major emphasis: Students analyze issues and consider judgment framework to ation and then determine the principles reach conclusions. and techniques needed to solve problems or make judgments. Behavior in a manner that is consistent with the character and standards of the discipline of accounting, including demonstrating objectivity, integrity, and ethical behavior. Minor emphasis: Students can see a mock interview between the auditor and tax director. While not an intent of the case, the video does allow students to assess whether the auditor acted with a professional demeanor.

Professional Demeanor

Project Management

Ability to effectively control the course of Moderate emphasis: The case contains multiple requirements, with students a multi-dimensional, multi-step undergiven a short timeframe (such as a week) taking. to complete its requirements.

21 American Institute of CPAs Core Competency Framework & Educational Competency Assessment Web Site, http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/accountingeducation/resources/pages/corecompetency.aspx

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 14

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Broad Perspective Competencies Industry/Sector Perspective Ability to identify (through research and analysis) the economics, accounting and broad business financial risks and opportunities of the industry and economic sector in which a given organization operates. Ability to identify and communicate the variety of threats and opportunities of doing business in a borderless world. Limited emphasis: There is some introduction to the oil and gas rigging industry with the case and video.

International/ Global Perspective

Limited emphasis: Instructors can note the different rules for NOL carryforward in Brazil.

Legal/Regulatory Perspective

Capability to describe the legal and regu- No emphasis latory environment and analyze the impact of changes in relevant requirements, constraints, and competitive practices. Understanding of the effects of technolo- No emphasis gy on the broader business environment. Ability to anticipate and meet the changing needs of clients, employers, customers, and markets. No emphasis Ability to apply management and human No emphasis resources development theories to human resource issues and organizational problems. Major (primary) emphasis: Students Ability to link data, knowledge, and insight together from various disciplines to draw upon auditing and tax disciplines provide information for decision-making. in this case and are required to make subjective decisions as they exercise professional judgment.

Leverage Technology Marketing/Client Perspective

Resource Management

Strategic/Critical Thinking

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 15

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Functional Competencies Decision modeling Consideration of issues, identification of alternatives, choose and implementation of solutions. Understanding of audit and business risks. Major emphasis: Students are required to make a subjective decision, based on limited information and knowledge. Major Emphasis: Students identify the risk of estimates and how these subjective judgments regarding margins can impact the financial statements. Major emphasis: Students must understand ASC 740 requirements and how the choice of anticipated margins impact financial reporting. Major emphasis: Students prepare an analytical report detailing how they utilized the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework to assess the appropriateness of the client’s estimates. No emphasis No emphasis

Risk analysis

Measurement

Knowledge of appropriate measures of performance and applicable standards.

Reporting

Preparation of meaningful reports on work performed and conclusions.

Research Use of technology

Ability to obtain, understand and apply relevant information. Ability to use technology for furthering functional competencies.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 16

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

APPENDIX B
KPMG Professional Judgment Framework and Riggers Case Quiz
1. What are judgment frames? a. Mental structures that we use to simplify, organize, and guide our understanding of a situation. b. The generally accepted auditing standards that determine how judgments in auditing should be made. c. The scaffolding used by clients to show auditors how they arrived at their judgments. d. Holders of photos of good judgment. 2. What is confirmation bias? a. The tendency of an auditor to not trust any information that is not supportive of their own opinion. b. The tendency to seek out and value information that supports a previously determined position. c. The tendency to want all information to confirm the client’s position. d. The bias associated with sending out confirmation notices to customers of the client. 3. What is availability bias? a. The tendency to view information that the client prepares and gives us in advance as being less trustworthy. b. The bias associated with closed door policies by upper management at a client. c. The tendency to consider information that is easily retrievable as more important for a judgment. d. The bias associated with the availability of appropriate audit personnel for making professional judgments. 4. What is overconfidence bias? a. The tendency to be overconfident in the information provided by our clients. b. The tendency to be overconfident in our judgment making ability. c. Believing that the judgment of our audit superiors is superior to that of our clients. d. The tendency to be overconfident in our ability to gather appropriate evidence. 5. Which of the following is not specifically included in KPMG’s Professional Judgment Framework? a. Reflect on lessons learned b. Clarify issues and objectives c. Articulate and document rationale for judgment conclusion d. Ensure that the client is exercising good judgment

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 17

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

6. In the case, “Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Taxes Issues,” what industry does Riggers operate in? a. Chemical production b. Offshore drilling c. Manufacturing oil-well machinery d. Diamond mining 7 . In the case, “Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Taxes Issues,” in what country is Riggers operating? a. Argentina b. Portugal c. Brazil d. Columbia 8. In the case video, “Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Taxes Issues,” who does the auditor interview to help make her professional judgment? a. The CFO b. The CEO c. The accounting director d. The tax director 9. In the case video, “Rigorous or Not? A Case for Professional Judgment in Auditing Deferred Taxes,” which of the following is NOT a reason noted by the client representative for Rigger’s judgment on the valuation allowance? a. Newness of equipment b. Safety training for workers c. Stability of the equipment (not moving it around) d. Improvement in the industry for the past several years 10. In the case, “Rigorous or Not? A Case for Professional Judgment in Auditing Deferred Taxes,” other than the deferred tax asset valuation allowance judgment, what other issue is the auditor concerned with? a. Riggers’ Uncertain Tax Position b. Riggers’ calculation of its Net Operating Loss c. Riggers’ understanding of foreign tax laws d. Riggers’ failure to file taxes in 2011

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 18

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

11. In the case, “Rigorous or Not? A Case for Professional Judgment in Auditing Deferred Taxes,” what margin did Riggers use for their 2012 computation of deferred tax asset valuation allowance that is causing the auditor to question its judgment? a. 12% b. 8% c. 15% d. 10% e. 20%

Answers: 1. A

2. B 3. C 4. B 5. D 6. B 7 . C

8. D 9. D 10. A 11. C

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 19

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Introduction

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Rigorous or Not?:
A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 1

Rigorous or Not?

About the author

Jan Taylor Morris
Jan Taylor Morris, Ph.D., CPA, is a member of the accounting faculty at Sam Houston State University. Jan's primary teaching area is auditing and her research focuses on behavioral auditing, accounting ethics, and leadership. Her most recent publications appear in Issues in Accounting Education, Strategic Finance, Journal of Accountancy, and Journal of Healthcare Finance. She is a member of and active in several professional and academic organizations, including the American Accounting Association, American Institute of CPAs, Texas Society of CPAs, and Beta Alpha Psi. Jan serves as the 2013-2014 President of the Beta Alpha Psi International Board of Directors.
Jan began her career in accounting as an auditor with a ‘Big Eight’ firm and spent nine years in public practice. She is licensed as a certified public accountant in the state of Texas and often conducts audit training and professional workshops for local CPA firms. Jan has been an external professor with KPMG since 2005, co-instructing training sessions for new audit associates and technical training for senior associates. Jan has received numerous awards for her teaching, research, and service to both the accounting and academic professions, including the Outstanding Volunteer Award from the Leadership Committee of the Texas Society of CPAs; the Beta Alpha Psi National Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award; the Dissertation of the Year Award from USD; the Outstanding Education Manuscript Award from Southwest Region, AAA; the Outstanding Accounting Professor at UHCL Award; the Outstanding Accounting Educator Award from the Texas Society of CPAs.; and most recently, received the 2013 Outstanding Accounting Educator Award from the American Woman’s Society of CPAs. Jan is also actively engaged in her community and serves as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for children in the child protection system in the state of Texas.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

1

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 20

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 2

Rigorous or Not?

Pre-work
Pre-work Reading: For Next Class

• KPMG’s Professional Judgment Framework: Understanding and Developing Professional Judgment in Auditing (“framework summary”) • Go to https://implicit.harvard.edu and take one or two of Harvard’s Project Implicit “tests” and make note of any unexpected results (a bias that you do not think you have or were unaware of previously). • Read the case, Rigorous or Not? A Case for Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues • Based on understanding from pre-unit reading of the framework summary, answer Judgment Framework and Professional Judgment questions, and familiarize yourself with and attempt to answer Valuation Allowance questions.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

2

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 3 (Hidden) KPMG Professional Judgment Instructor Resource CD: http://www. kpmguniversityconnection.com/ ProfessionalJudgment/CurriculumSupport/Monographs/ProfJudgment. aspx

Rigorous or Not?

KPMG Professional Judgment Framework Hidden slide (for instructors only): • If teaching a full unit on professional judgment: Request the Instructor Resource CD for teaching the framework are available at KPMG University Connection. • If covering judgment and the case in a three-hour class: Slides 5-11 provided for covering the basics of the framework summary before discussing the case.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

3

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 21

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 4

Rigorous or Not?

KPMG Professional Judgment Framework • The Importance of Professional Judgment in Auditing • A Model of a Good Judgment Process
• Evaluation of evidence • Estimating probabilities

• Deciding between options

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

4

The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework

Slide 5

© 2010 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.

5

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 22

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 6

Rigorous or Not?

KPMG Professional Judgment Framework • Traps that Catch us in the Early Steps of the Judgment Process
• The Rush to Solve • Solving the Wrong Problem

• Professional Skepticism and “Judgment Framing”

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

6

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 7 If your students have not seen the original “Invisible Gorilla” video, click on the black and white video shot on the left. If your students have already seen the original version, click on the second video shot with the red curtain for those familiar with the “invisible gorilla” Discuss how attention to task (something auditors should understand) can, in fact, sometimes lead to missing vital information. Ask students if they can share any other implications that attention bias can have for auditors.

Rigorous or Not?

Understanding Biases

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

7

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 23

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 8 If you prefer not to use the IATs – delete this slide. If you do: Ask students to voluntarily share any surprises or discoveries from the Harvard Implicit tests. Tell students to think about how bias impacts the auditor. For instance, use the below to illustrate: Ask: What if someone took one of these implicit bias tests and it revealed a gender bias or a racial bias, how could that impact audit judgments? Usually, students will respond but if it is not mentioned, suggest to them that information received from a client may be perceived differently depending upon the “messenger” . For instance, even without a specific bias, if you are interviewing a charming older woman who reminds you of your grandmother, are you going to be less skeptical than if that same information comes from a younger male? https://implicit.harvard.edu

Rigorous or Not?

Understanding Biases

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

8

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Rigorous or Not?

Understanding Biases

Slide 9 Old lady vs. young woman
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

9

Sax player vs. woman’s face.

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 24

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 10

Rigorous or Not?

KPMG Professional Judgment Framework • Judgment Tendencies that can Result in Bias
• Availability tendency • Confirmation tendency • Overconfidence tendency

• Mitigating the Effects of Judgment Biases

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

10

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 11

Rigorous or Not?

KPMG Professional Judgment Framework

Professional judgment is an increasingly important subject in accounting and auditing. As accounting standards become more subjective and fair value measurement increasingly takes center stage, professionals will be required to apply more and better professional judgment on a consistent basis.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

11

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 25

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 12 WATCH the first three videos. Watch the videos from: Section 1 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oS0YzHBAGQ &feature=youtu.be Section 2 video: http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ck6tURJ71w&feature=youtu.be Section 3 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTjREYcGzyo&f eature=youtu.be

Rigorous or Not?

A Case for Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Video Sections 1, 2, 3
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

12

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 13

Rigorous or Not?

Case Discussion In teams of three or four, derive consensus answers to Valuation Allowance questions. Time allowed: 20 minutes Submit team consensus answers when completed or time is called.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

13

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 26

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Slide 14

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

KPMG Judgment Framework Questions

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 15

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Discuss the importance of “judgment framing.” “Judgment framing” occurs early in the judgment process. “The definition of framing follows: Frames are mental structures that we use, usually subconsciously, to simplify, organize, and guide our understanding of a situation. They shape our perspectives and determine the information that we will see as relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant. Frames are a necessary aspect of judgment, but it is important to realize that our judgment frames provide only one particular perspective”
Source: Page 6 - Monograph
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

15

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 27

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 16

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

“The concept of judgment framing is important because appropriately questioning management’s perspective by viewing the situation through other frames is fundamental to professional skepticism.”
Page 6 - Summary

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

16

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 17

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions How do perceptual biases relate to judgment biases? Our eyes and related perceptual skills ordinarily are quite good at perceiving and helping us to accurately judge shape similarity. However, optical illusions can predictably and systematically fool our eyes. Just as with perceptual biases, there are times when our intuitive judgment falls prey to systematic traps and biases.
Page 4 – Summary

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

17

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 28

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 18

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Similar to how our minds can be deceived by optical illusions or perceptual biases, there are times when our judgment can fall prey to systematic traps and biases.
Page 50 – Monograph

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

18

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 19

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions What are the five steps in the judgment process? 1. Clarify Issues and Objectives

2. Consider Alternatives
3. Gather and Evaluate Information 4. Reach a Conclusion 5. Articulate and Document Rationale

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

19

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 29

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 20

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Describe the availability tendency in your own words, and give an example of how the tendency could result in auditor bias. The tendency for decision makers to consider information that is easily retrievable from memory as being more likely, more relevant, or more important for a judgment. Student examples will vary. An illustrative example would be: An auditor who identified a significant amount of unrecorded liabilities on a prior audit is likely to overestimate the likelihood of the presence of unrecorded liabilities on a subsequent audit. Page 51 - Monograph
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

20

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 21

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Describe the confirmation tendency in your own words, and give an example of how the tendency could result in auditor bias.

The tendency for people making judgments to seek and to put more weight on information that is consistent with their initial beliefs or preferences. Student examples will vary. An illustrative example would be: If management has taken a particular stance in accounting for a complex transaction and the authoritative standards are not clear on the subject, the auditor may be likely to seek and to place inordinate weight on evidence that supports or “confirms” management’s treatment of the transaction.
Pages 50-51, Monograph
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

21

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 30

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 22

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions What are some common judgment traps that prevent exercising good professional judgment? “Rush to solve” and “judgment triggers” – In an effort to make judgments quickly and to appear “decisive,” we can fall prey to not taking the necessary time to invest in the early judgment framework steps. KPMG suggests that this leads to shallow thinking or even solving the wrong problem.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

22

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 23

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions What is the most important factor in avoiding traps or reducing bias? Awareness of potential traps and conditions that lead to bias is the most important factor—it is a necessary first step before any other efforts to mitigate bias can be implemented.
Page 53 - Monograph

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

23

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 31

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

Slide 24

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Valuation Allowance Questions

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 25

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Assume that the engagement team has completed testing the clerical/mathematical accuracy and completeness (agreement to the underlying general ledger) of the valuation allowance workpapers and met with the Tax Director. As you consider the appropriateness of the valuation allowance, document the steps in the professional judgment framework to conclude on the appropriateness of the valuation allowance.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

25

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 32

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 26

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Clarify Issues & Objectives
1. Increased projected margins by 5% 2. Client suggests it will be able to fully realize NOL

3. Factors client used to justify increase in margins: Lease dayrate, Operator percentage, Rig efficiency, Days in operations, and Projected margins Lease dayrate and operator percentage are known factors (contracts; APA); others are estimates
4. Client using 9 years of projected profits
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

26

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 27

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Consider Alternatives:
•Margin Alternatives

•Rig Efficiency Alternatives
•Days Operating Alternatives •Operator Percentage Alternatives

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

27

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 33

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 28

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Gather & Evaluate Information: Provided in case, videos, and PBC workpaper Consider stress testing margin assumptions

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

28

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 29

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions
Projected Margins 10% 2012 DTA 11% 2012 DTA 12% 2012 DTA 13% 2012 DTA 14% 2012 DTA 14.5% 2012 DTA 15.0% 2012 DTA

Gross NOL BOY Current Year NOL Generated / Applied Gross NOL EOY Projected NOL Application Valuation Allowance (if < 0, none recognized)

11,072,746

11,072,746

11,072,746

11,072,746

11,072,746

9,021,088

9,021,088

9,021,088

9,021,088

Valuation11,072,746 11,072,746 Allowance NOT needed at 15% projected margin9,021,088 9,021,088 9,021,088
20,093,833 20,093,833

20,093,833

20,093,833

Valuation Allowance 20,093,833 20,093,833 needed at 14.5% projected margin
16,084,008 17,424,342

20,093,833

13,403,340

14,743,674

18,764,677

19,434,844

20,105,011

6,690,493

5,350,159

4,009,825

2,669,491

1,329,157

658,990

(11,177)

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

29

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 34

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 30 Ask what conclusions they reached. Stress NO Right Answer.

Rigorous or Not?

The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework

?
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

30 30

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 31

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Reach Conclusions:
The “evidence” provided: • mostly client opinion regarding the future productivity, safety, and economic predictions) • the first level of projected margin where a valuation allowance is not required is the client’s projected margin of 15% should lead the auditor to a skeptical view of the client’s position. Working with less than full information. Required to consider all available positive and negative evidence to confirm or disconfirm the client’s position.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

31

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 35

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 32 Watch video section 4 from: REMINDER NOTE: A SUGGESTED SOLUTION IS PROVIDED IN THESE SEGMENTS. Section 4 video: http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DztX64AuQM&feature=youtu.be

Rigorous or Not?

A Case for Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Video Section 4
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

32

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 33

Rigorous or Not?

Question from Video Segment If the client chooses to revise their margin workpaper to be consistent with the auditors' preferred margin of 10%, do the auditors have to do any additional testwork or can they simply sign off on the revised estimates?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

33

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 36

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 34

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Additional work would be required. • Test to ensure that all elements of the workpaper are consistent with prior tested assumptions and / or projections • Our disagreement with projected margin might make us question management’s ability to reasonably estimate other items in the calculation and if they can project 9 years into the future

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

34

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 35 Watch video segment 5 from: REMINDER NOTE: A SUGGESTED SOLUTION IS PROVIDED IN THESE SEGMENTS. Section 5 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13mw03D6C48 &feature=youtu.be

Rigorous or Not?

A Case for Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Video Section 5
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

35

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 37

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 36

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions Articulate & Document Rationale Stone is proposing an adjustment to the client’s Valuation Allowance account. This adjustment would be documented along with supporting rationale (see Reach Conclusion step). In the video, the auditor notes that the workpapers will be documented to fully reflect both the auditor’s and client’s positions and that the remaining documentation will be dependent upon the client’s decision to revise the estimate to the more supportable 10% projected margin or not.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

36

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 37

Rigorous or Not?

Question from Video Segment Do you think the auditor judgment during this part of the audit will cause the auditor to question management's estimates in other audit areas, such as with their allowance for uncollectible receivables?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

37

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 38

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 38 As noted in the suggested answer to prior video segment question, when we question management’s judgment in one area, we have to consider if they are capable of making informed judgments in all areas under audit.

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

When auditors question the client’s judgment in one area of the audit, it will have an impact on their assessment of the remainder of the client’s estimates and justifications for those estimates.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

38

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 39

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions The Tax Director mentioned that the Company uses “a conservative approach” in determining the profit margin for forecasting future taxable income and corresponding NOL utilization. According to professional accounting and auditing standards and using professional judgment, do you agree with the client’s approach? Explain your answer.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

39

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 39

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 40

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions ASC 740-10 details the required generally accepted accounting procedures for the accounting for income taxes, including deferred tax assets and related valuation allowances. The standard requires companies (and thus, the auditor) to assess all positive and negative evidence available when evaluating the appropriateness of the valuation allowance

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

40

Slide 41

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Uncertain Tax Position

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 40

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 42

Rigorous or Not?

UTP - Terminology
Transfer pricing is a profit allocation method used to attribute a corporation's net profit or loss before tax to tax jurisdictions. An advance pricing agreement (APA) is an ahead of time agreement between a taxpayer and a taxing authority on an appropriate transfer pricing methodology (TPM) for some set of transactions at issue over a fixed period of time. Note: Brazilian tax law has changed in 2013. Historically, APAs have not been common in Brazil; rather they used a unique Brazilian tax code policy to set transfer pricing agreements. To be consistent with common language and because tax law is changing, I used the more traditional “APA” terminology in the case.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

42

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 43

Rigorous or Not?

UTP - Terminology A Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) is a document that formally presents the IRS agent’s issue with a taxpayer; discusses and identifies all of the relevant facts; discusses and applies the applicable law to the previously identified facts and circumstances; states the official IRS position or determination; presents the taxpayer’s legal position (if disclosed); and rebuts the taxpayer’s legal position in reaching a final conclusion or determination with respect to the issue presented.
Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7.5.4, http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007-cont01.html#d0e2442

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

43

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 41

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 44

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions What would your next step(s) be in evaluating the uncertain tax position? Use the KPMG Professional Judgment Framework.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

44

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 45

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Clarify Issues & Objectives
The IRS is challenging the transfer pricing 75/25 operator/owner profit split for U.S. taxing purposes (meaning that Riggers will pay tax on 25% of their profits in the U.S.). Riggers has agreed to a 60/40 profit split in an Advanced Pricing Agreement with the Brazilian taxing authority, but the IRS’s position is that a transfer pricing adjustment using the profit split method at 50/50 is more appropriate.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

45

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 42

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 46

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Consider Alternatives
• 75/25 profit split per Val-Nation study

• 60/40 profit split per Brazil APA
• 50/50 profit split per IRS • Others: if students propose any alternative profit split other than the three mentioned in the case, they should be asked to justify their choice of alternative. Again, we are more concerned with student’s ability to recognize alternatives and how they consider the various reasonable alternatives.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

46

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 47

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Gather & Evaluate Information
Most auditors are not transfer pricing specialists and, therefore, would rely on the use of a transfer pricing specialist to help determine the appropriate profit split. Based on the Val-Nation study acquired by the client and the APA with Brazil, Stone’s internal transfer pricing experts signed off on both documents as being reliable audit evidence.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

47

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 43

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 48

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Reach Conclusion
Stone’s assessment is not made clear in the case, however understand that an auditor cannot be an expert in all areas of GAAP and tax law and will often have to base their judgment on the expert opinion of others. In this case, they have both internal and external transfer pricing experts as well as the Brazil APA to support a lower owner percentage for U.S. taxing purposes. Since Riggers booked a UTP liability for the difference in the 60/40 APA based split and the 75/25 Val-nation based profit split, it appears reasonable.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

48

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 49

Rigorous or Not?

Suggested Solutions

Articulate & Document Rationale It is important for auditors to accurately and completely document their work as well as the work of specialists and experts. The audit working papers should fully articulate the three profit-split positions and that based on the expert opinions of Stone’s transfer pricing experts, the firm agrees with the client’s UTP accrual.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

49

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 44

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues

Leader’s Guide

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 50

Rigorous or Not?

Question and Vote Do you agree with the Riggers conclusion to book an uncertain tax position (unrecognized tax benefit) as the difference between the 75/25 profit split method taken on the filed 2011 tax return and the 60/40 profit split method? Why or why not? Class VOTE!

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

50

www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com

Slide 51

Rigorous or Not?

Conclusion What does professional judgment mean to you?

What is the link between professional skepticism and professional judgment.
What did you learn from this unit of study that you did not know or understand previously?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

51

KPMG University Connection www.KPMGUniversityConnection.com
Page 45

© 2013 KPMG LLP a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member , firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. © 2013 Jan Taylor Morris

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Deferred Tax Asset

...1.0 Introduction This assignment focuses on the effects of Deferred Tax Assets (DTA) on entities and how entities make justifications on DTA arise or in this case, the Product Warranty, and the recognition criteria for DTA. A Deferred Tax Asset represents the increase or decrease in taxes payable or refundable in future years as a result of ‘Temporary Differences’ and Net Operating Loss or Tax Credit carry-forwards that exist at the reporting date (Nelson, Spiceland and Sepe, 2011). This is similar to the definition of DTA stated in the Accounting Standards AASB 112 Paragraph 5. Temporary Differences arise when the events are recognized in one period in a bank’s book but are recognized in a different period on its tax return. To find Deferred Tax Assets (DTA), first find Tax Base (TB) by taking Carrying Amount (CA) less the Future Taxable Amount and adds Future Deductible Amount. Having TB larger than CA, there will be Deductible Temporary Difference (DTD), while having TB lesser than CA gives rise to Taxable Temporary Difference (TTD). By multiplying the DTD with the Tax Rate, DTA will be calculated. 2.0 Discussion 2.1 Provision for Product Warranty A Product Warranty is generally a guarantee from one party to another that a certain conditions or facts are true or will happen. A product warranty is a provision because when a product warranty is issued, there is a legal obligation and settlement is expected to result in an outflow of resources (McNicholas and...

Words: 1212 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Deferred Tax

...Kudler Fine Foods is a growing business in an evolving world. Modern technology advancements in accounting information systems will aid Kudler in the company’s growth and will eventually reduce accounting costs and the time it takes to complete accounting processes. We recommend that Kudler switch from paper accounting to an automated system, such as POS system to enhance the payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, and inventory processes. Accounting Information Systems Kudler Fine Foods is a company that was started with an idea and has now expanded their chain into three additional stores within a couple of years. They are in need of software suitable for the specific needs of the organization. Analyze the nature of the software that Kudler would benefit most from is very important. A collective discussion will be on the accounting information system (AIS) in regards to the internal controls of Kudler’s Fine Foods and what the company will need in order to run reports and statements. Rational and Analysis of Recommendation If a company takes the time to develop their accounting system it will provide the organization with a long term benefit. It allows a company to meet their financial obligations with accurate reporting. Kudler Fine Foods benefit best if they developing a customized system. Although the development of a customize system could become significantly costly and very time consuming with implementation the advantage is that the system is designed to...

Words: 685 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Deferred Tax Assets

...the deferred tax asset as the amount of income taxes recoverable in future periods in respect of deductible temporary differences, the carryforward of unused tax losses and the carryforward of unused tax credits. A deductible temporary difference occurs as a result of a difference between the carrying amount of an asset or liability in the statement of the financial position and its tax base (Locke, C., 2004), in which the amount is deductible in determining taxable profit (tax loss) of future periods when the carrying amount is recovered or settled. In Surewin Ltd’s case, in terms of the accounting treatment using the accrual basis, the company recognises a product warranty expense in profit and loss for the year end from its provisions for product warranty. Whereas under the tax treatment which is cash based, the company is allowed to claim tax deductions only after it has paid out the warranty costs. There is a timing difference between when the warranty expense is recorded in the accounting books of the company (immediately) and when the liability is claimed and paid for in cash (in the future). Therefore, the difference in the carrying amount of the liabilities for product warranty in the balance sheet of the company and its tax base results in a future deductible amount. This amount is known as a deductible temporary difference, in which results in a deferred tax asset at a 30% tax rate. Part (b): Paragraph 24 outlines the recognition criteria for deferred tax asset...

Words: 1026 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Case Study of “Rigorous or Not?: a Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues”

...Case study of “Rigorous or Not?: A Case of Auditor Judgment for Deferred Tax Issues” Judgment Framework and Professional Judgment Discuss the importance of “judgment framing.” “Judgment framing” occurs early in the judgment process. The definition of framing follows: Frames are mental structures that we use, usually subconsciously, to simplify, organize, and guide our understanding of a situation. They shape our perspectives and determine the information that we will see as relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant. Frames are a necessary aspect of judgment, but it is important to realize that our judgment frames provide only one particular perspective. The importance is that judgment framing question management’s perspective appropriately by viewing other frames and it is a foundation to professional skepticism. How do perceptual biases relate to judgment biases? Our eyes and related perceptual skills ordinarily are quite good at perceiving and helping us to accurately judge shape similarity. However, optical illusions can predictably and systematically fool our eyes. The judgment biases are similar to the perceptual ones, like there are times when our intuitive judgment falls prey to systematic traps and biases. What are the five steps in the judgment process? a. Clarify Issues & Objectives: To get at issues, ask “what is the problem to be solved?” To get at objectives ask “what is wanted or needed?” Ask “what” and “why” questions. b. Consider...

Words: 2140 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Why Do Some Individuals Consider Tax Deferred to Be Taxes Saved? Is Their Reasoning Logical?

...have very high standard….soo….plz make spare few hours for this and post me the answers na aku…….. These are the questions…….? Question 1 Why do some individuals consider tax deferred to be taxes saved? Is their reasoning logical? (4 marks) Question 2 Mr. Karma is an employee of XYZ ltd. He draws salary @Nu.20,000 p.m during the year 2010-2011. He occupies residential house at Thimphu. Its rent is Nu.6000 p.m. He is offered three alternatives by the employer: 1) The company pays the rent direct to the landlord, the tenancy being between the company and the landlord. 2) The company pays house rent allowance to karma @Nu.5750 p.m and karma pays rent of Nu.6000 p.m to the landlord-the tenancy being between karma and the landlord. 3) The company neither offers karma the house accommodation, nor the rent allowance. Karma pays rent of Nu.6000 p.m for the accommodation occupied by him. He requests you to advise him as to which option would minimize his tax liabilities and maximize the cash inflow after tax. (5 marks) Question 3 Governments around the world are becoming increasingly sensitive to the loss of revenue resulting from multinational companies moving into other jurisdictions, most particularly tax havens, to lower their overall rates of tax. What are some of the measures that can be adopted to prevent such revenue losses? (5 marks) Question 4 Maxisoft is a private company incorporated, managed and controlled in country...

Words: 492 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Aidjsoi

...University. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward (sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel, etc.) provided immediately or two small rewards if he or she waited until the experimenter returned (after an absence of approximately 15 minutes). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI)[4] and other life measures.[5] However, recent work calls into question whether self-control, as opposed to strategic reasoning, determines children's behavior. The purpose of the original study was to understand when the control of deferred gratification, the ability to wait to obtain something that one wants, develops in children. The original experiment took place at the Bing Nursery School located at Stanford University, using children age four to six as subjects. The children were led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (Oreo cookie, marshmallow, or pretzel stick) was placed on a table, by a chair.[1] The children could eat the marshmallow, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteen minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second marshmallow.[1] Mischel observed as some would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around so that they can't see the tray, others start kicking the desk, or tug on...

Words: 581 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Thesis Statement

...Thesis Statement and Outline Online Shopping vs. Brick and Mortar Shopping Both forms of shopping have one goal in mind. That goal is to get the item that you desire. Many of the stores that you visit on a daily basis can come to you online. I. You can shop in the comfort of your own home. A. You do not have to worry about getting ready to go shopping. 1. You can shop in your pajamas if you prefer. 2. You can shop when it is convenient for you. B. You do not have to fight crowds in the mall or store. 1. There is no traffic to worry about getting to the stores. 2. During the holiday season, you do not have to worry about many people crowding you. II. You can see what you are buying. A. Depending on what you buy, you can feel the item and actually see the item. 1. You can feel the texture or weight of an item. 2. You can see if the item is big or overweight. B. There is no wondering if you are getting the item that you ordered. 1. You can be positive that you are getting the correct item. 2. You can see the exact shade or style of what you are buying in person. III. Instant gratification A. There is no waiting to receive your item. 1. You are able to take your purchase home that same day. 2. Site to store is an option with many stores and it is possible to pick it up that day. B. Being able to choose...

Words: 339 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Grit Test/Ways to Improve Grit

...Grit Test Questions: 1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. • Not like me at all. 2. Setbacks don’t discourage me. • Not much like me. 3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. • Not like me at all. 4. I am a hard worker. • Very much like me. 5. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. • Not like me at all. 6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. • Not much like me. 7. I finish whatever I begin. • Very much like me. 8. I am diligent. • Very much like me. 9. Gender • Male 10. Year of Birth • 1989 11. Do you currently live in the United States? • Yes 12. Ethnicity • Caucasian/White 13. Highest Level of Education • Associates Degree Result: 4.88 Out of 5 90% Grittier than people of your age. Ways to Improve My Grit I noticed throughout the test I had one question in particular that I had answered less than exceptional on. “It being difficult to maintain focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete.” I believe some of this is due to the fact that I am a patient person, but eventually my patience runs thin. This causes me to get\ discouraged and more willing to give up. Although, I have noticed throughout the years, as I get older, that my patience and my discouragement become less and less. I can...

Words: 891 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Lessons

...|Grade Level: 4th & 5th Grades | |Topic: Behaviors that disrupt communication | |Essential Question: | |How do our personal behaviors affect the climate/atmosphere of the classroom? | |Activating Strategy/Introductory Activity/HOOK: | |Select 2 – 3 students to sit in chairs facing one another. Instruct the students to count how many times they can hit a balloon | |back and forth w/out it touching the floor and w/out getting out of their seats. Afterwards, discuss whether or not they wanted | |to “slam” the balloon at the other person. If so what they did about that impulse? How did they stop themselves? | |Teaching plan: | |Write IMPULSE on board and define – a feeling or urge to have to do or say s/thing | |Ask: | |Have you ever been told that you were...

Words: 492 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Affects of Social Media on Time Management

...John Palfrey, a former executive director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society once stated, “Television did not transform education. Neither will the internet. But it will be another tool for teachers to use in their effort to reach students in the classroom. It will also be a means by which students learn outside the classroom” (pg. # if available – if not just put the period inside the quotations and delete all of this). Social media is so popularized today that it is finding its way into the classroom. It is available 24/7 on a variety of different devices and has the potential to aid in academic success, but it also holds a lot of setbacks (Alwagait, Shahzad, and Alim 1092). When there is a lack of balance between social media and real life, many problems can arise. Some of the problems include lack of time management, poor academic standing, and lack of self-control. In many instances one or more of these problems overlap. * Make the font type the same throughout paper- may just be showing up different on my computer for some reason Time management is paramount to a successful college experience; therefore, poor time management can in turn affect academic performance. Factors that account for poor time management are known as time traps. Today, one of the biggest time traps is technology (Bal Bal- is this person’s last name Bal Bal or should it be Bal and Bal? 134). In the 21st century, social media and the use of technology have skyrocketed in popularity...

Words: 861 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Journal

...Reflection Journal #5 (Chapter 10; pg. 251) Directions: Answer the prompt provided and answer an additional question from the guided journal questions in Chapter Ten on page 251 (please write the number of the question you chose). (5 Points) Prompt: #1. Analyze your self-discipline for college by answering the following: How difficult or easy is it for you to delay gratification (wait for a reward)? Accept responsibility? Balance between immediate and delayed gratification? Explain thoroughly and use examples for each question. I think it is not easy for me to delay gratification because I feel everything is like a mess. For example, I will travel to Paris tomorrow. I think if I prepare my luggage one or two day before the flight’s day, it is sooner. Thus, I decide to prepare them in the morning before my flight. However, when I arrive at airport, I forget something such as my wallet or my passport because I don’t have enough time to check again. Maybe, I put somewhere in my handbag or my baggage and I can’t remember. We have to accept responsibility when we delay gratification. We can’t blame for time or someone else. For instance, when I have exam next day, I don’t review lessons. I think it won’t be waste lots of time before the exam. Therefore, I will review them quickly before taking exam. To balance between immediate and delayed gratification, I think we know how to manage time. Which date and time should be priority? We will do it immediately. For example...

Words: 400 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Reflection

...Words to Live by; "My power lies in balance. I strive for equality and choose not to indulge in instant gratification at the expense of my purpose. I am responsible for my own decisions and take on only what I can handle based upon that which I value. I am empowered by choice and my asset is negotiation". Unfortunately, easier said than done. The power of peers always amazes me. I can have an absolute purpose in mind, and get me around several peers out for no good, and I become one of the pack. Becoming one of a pack can never have a good ending. It was going to be a boring Friday night. Just the thought of sitting at home watching some old rerun with my mom rubbed me the wrong way. But earlier, I had an invite from Jennifer to a birthday sleepover. At 17, I'm past the age for sleepovers but weighing my options, a sleepover didn't sound so immature. I found myself getting an address and saying I'll see you around 8. At home I get on Facebook to see who all is going to be there. The more I read, the more I know I shouldn't be attending this gathering. It has become more than a sleepover. The location has been moved to the house of some older boys who have graduated and are renting out a house referred to as the "party house". I know there will be no supervision, but this just makes it more interesting. I tell my mom, of course, it is still a sleepover for one of my friends birthday. I get her to drop me off before she has to go pick up my sister at...

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

100-1 Conceptual Framework for Aicpa Independence Standards

...ET Section 100 - Independence, Integrity, and Objectivity 100-1 Conceptual Framework for AICPA Independence Standards Sec.101 – Independence When performing attest engagement- Consult with the various organization that issues or enforces standards of independence. Ind. requirements or rulings might differ from those of the AICPA. Independence is impaired when: 1. A cover member had or was committed to acquire any direct or material indirect financial interest. 2. Was a trustee or executor or adm. of a estate committed to acquire any direct or material indirect financial interest in the client and the member can: Make investment decisions The trust or estate owned or will acquired > 10% of outstanding equity securities or ownership interest. The value of the trust or estate's holding in the client >10% of the total asset or estate. Had a joint closely held investment (material ) Had a loan with an individual owning > 10 % of the client's outstanding equity securities or ownership interests. A partner or professional employee of the firm, his immediate family, or any group of such persons acting together owned >5 % of a client's outstanding equity securities or other ownership interests. During the period covered by the financial statements or during the period of the professional engagement, a firm, or partner or professional employee of the firm was simultaneously associated with the client as a(n) 1. Director, officer, or employee, or in any capacity equivalent...

Words: 880 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Psy 202

...Self-Regulation and Willpower Instructions: Use this worksheet to reflect on self-regulation and willpower. Items with a blue asterisk require completion (*). 1. Summarize the main ideas from the video and article in one paragraph each. A. Video – “The Science of Willpower: An Interview with Kelly McGonagall”* The video for Week 2 Assignment is all about willpower and how it works. Having inner experiences and impulses and still directing the energy and attention to the things that matter the most to you. You have to know what you really want and not let the universe impose on you. You need to take action to have the ability to say yes to yourself. Willpower is like having three (3) powers I (will), I (wont), and I (want). I use me (will) and I (want) power the most and resist most of the temptations. I have self-compassion; I take small steps for small actions and get a bigger change. Sometimes we have to force ourselves to do things that we really don’t want to do but need to do. B. Article – “Academic Delay of Gratification, Motivation, and Self-regulated Learning Strategies”* 2. Using your own words define willpower and explain what it means to you.* What Willpower means to me is when you hold yourself back from doing something you may regret in the future. Having willpower is the ability to recognize when you’re about to do something that is inconsistent with your culture, values, and literally put on the I won’t brakes on and say I will. An example of...

Words: 1250 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Bookkeeping

...M aking Sense of Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities  Facebook (http://www.facebook.com /sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F %2Fquickbooks.intuit.com%2Fr%2Ftaxes%2Fmakingsense-of-deferred-tax-assets-and-liabilities) + POSTED IN TAXES (HTTP://QUICKBOOKS.INTUIT.COM/R/TAXES/) by Patricia Poladian (http://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/author /patriciapoladian/) on Jun 29, 2015 If you have your financial statements prepared for lenders or investors, your accountant may have noted deferred tax assets or deferred tax liabilities on your balance sheet. These assets and liabilities can directly affect your company’s cash flow for subsequent years, so it’s important to understand what yours represent and how likely you are to realize them. What Creates Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities The revenue and expenses you report on your income statement don’t always translate into income and deductions for tax purposes. Tax accounting and financial accounting have slightly different rules, which is why your business's taxable income isn’t always the same as the net income on your financial statements. Some of these instances result in permanent tax differences. For example, interest income from municipal bonds is excluded from taxable income, and half of meals and entertainment expense is always disallowed. Other differences are temporary. These differences have to do with timing. You’ll end up recognizing the income and expenses eventually, but you just may recognize them sooner under one system than you...

Words: 1306 - Pages: 6