Solution Manual Auditing Case 8.2 Royal Ahold, N.V

Synopsis

Royal Ahold, N.V., is a large multinational company based in The Netherlands that was founded in 1877 by Albert Heijn. Three generations of the Heijn family oversaw the company’s retail grocery business. In 1989, the company hired a professional management team. The new management team expanded Royal Ahold’s operations by purchasing grocery chains around the globe, resulting in the company becoming the third largest food retailer in the world. In 2000, the company diversified into the wholesaling segment of the huge food industry when it purchased U.S. Foodservice, a large food wholesaler based in Columbia, Maryland.

Royal Ahold’s professional management team established aggressive earnings and revenue goals for the company each year and pressured their subordinates to achieve those goals. An incentive compensation plan awarded large year-end bonuses to managers of operating units that met or surpassed their financial goals. Royal Ahold’s decentralized operations when coupled with the strong incentives to achieve unrealistic earnings and revenue goals created an environment in which fraud often flourishes.

In early 2003, Royal Ahold’s independent auditors suspended their fiscal 2002 audit of the company when they discovered numerous potential irregularities in the company’s accounting records. Subsequent investigations documented that the company had improperly included the operating results of foreign joint ventures in its consolidated financial statements, had accounted improperly for initial acquisition costs related to several of those joint ventures, and had materially overstated “promotional allowances” due from company vendors. The disclosure of the massive accounting fraud resulted in criminal and civil lawsuits being filed against the company and its top executives in both Europe and the United States. Three former Royal Ahold executives, including the company’s former CEO and CFO, were found guilty by a Dutch court. The three executives were fined and given suspended prison sentences. Fraud charges filed against the company were settled by the payment of a fine of 8 million euros. Several lawsuits stemming from the Royal Ahold case are still pending.

This case examines accounting, auditing, and control issues pertinent to multinational companies. In addition, the case examines recent controversies arising between and among international regulatory agencies and rule-making bodies within the accounting and auditing disciplines. Finally, the case illustrates important risk factors commonly associated with financial statement fraud.

Royal Ahold, N.V.—Key Facts

1. Royal Ahold was controlled by members of the Albert Heijn family until 1989 when a professional management team was hired. 
2. The new management team aggressively pursued an international expansion plan that eventually resulted in Royal Ahold owning retail grocery chains in 27 countries and a large food wholesaling operation in the United States.
3. Differences in cultural norms and expectations adversely impacted Royal Ahold’s ability to manage its global business operations.
4. The new management team pressured their subordinates to achieve unrealistic earnings goals and rewarded them with large year-end bonuses if they reached those goals.
5. In early 2003, Royal Ahold’s Deloitte auditors suspended their fiscal 2002 audit after discovering potential irregularities in the company’s accounting records.
6. Deloitte’s suspension of its 2002 audit caused significant financial problems for Royal Ahold, including sharp drops in the prices of its outstanding securities and its credit rating. 
7. Investigations of Royal Ahold’s accounting records revealed that the company’s previous financial statements had been materially misstated.
8. The three principal sources of Royal Ahold’s financial statement misrepresentations were the improper inclusion of financial data for foreign joint ventures in its consolidated financial statements, improper accounting for purchases of foreign joint ventures, and improper accounting for “promotional allowances” by the company’s food wholesaling subsidiary.
9. Among the parties blamed for the Royal Ahold scandal were the company’s top executives, the company’s Deloitte auditors, and international oversight and rule-making bodies in the accounting and auditing disciplines. 
10. The Royal Ahold case refocused attention on the lack of cooperation between international oversight and rule-making bodies in the accounting and auditing disciplines.

Suggested Solutions to Case Questions

1. The equity method is the proper accounting method for U.S. companies to apply to investments representing a 20–50% ownership interest in an investee company. U.S. GAAP generally does not permit full or proportional consolidation of a joint venture company in which the “parent” owns a 50 per cent interest.

In arriving at the U.S. GAAP-based net income figures shown in the reconciliations presented in Exhibit 3, Royal Ahold fully consolidated the operating results of the joint ventures in which it had a 50 per cent ownership interest. Since these entities were operating profitably, the result was to overstate the U.S. GAAP-based net income figures shown in Exhibit 3.


2. There isn’t a universally-accepted definition of “earnings quality,” but, generally, that phrase refers to the degree of correlation between a company’s reported earnings and its “true” earnings. The term “earnings quality” is also often used when referring to the degree to which a given entity’s reported earnings can be used to predict its future earnings. Because of the pervasive conservatism principle within the U.S. accounting profession, reported earnings figures that are conservative, that is, that tend to be understated, are often considered to be of high quality. However, consistently understated or overstated earnings are of low quality given the general definition of earnings quality just presented. So, in comparing the earnings produced by two competing sets of accounting principles, such as IFRS and U.S. GAAP, the key issue is which set of accounting principles produces net income figures that are more highly correlated with the given entity’s stream of actual earnings. Granted, determining “actual earnings” for purposes of this comparison is a difficult assignment.

In addressing this question, your students will likely focus on the large differences between the Dutch GAAP-based and U.S. GAAP-based net earnings figures shown in Exhibit 3. Notice that easily the most significant factor accounting for the difference in Royal Ahold’s Dutch GAAP-based

DOWNLOAD THE FULL FILE FOR FREE HERE

Solution Manual Case 2.6 Kansayaku

This case focuses on Japan’s accounting profession and independent audit function. As this case documents, the accounting profession and independent audit function within the United States and Japan are very similar in many respects but very dissimilar in others. Similar to the United States, Japan’s accounting profession has historically been dominated by a small number of large accounting firms. In fact, each of Japan’s four largest accounting firms is affiliated with one of the Big Four accounting firms that are principally domiciled in the United States. The overall role and nature of the independent audit function in the two major industrialized countries are also very similar. One of the major differences between the accounting profession in Japan and the United States is the relatively small number of Japanese CPAs. On a per capita basis, the United States has more than ten times as many CPAs as Japan. Likewise, there is a large disparity in audit fees between the two countries. The annual audit fee for a U.S. company is typically ten times the size of the audit fee for a comparable Japanese company. Finally, the nature and structure of the regulatory function for the accounting profession and financial reporting system have historically been very different between the two countries.

Similar to the United States, Japanese auditors have faced mounting criticism in recent years as a result of a series of high profile accounting and auditing failures. Much of this criticism stemmed from revelations that several of the large “mega banks” that have dominated Japan’s post-World War II economy were technically insolvent despite the fact that those banks had received unqualified audit opinions each year on their financial statements. As a result of the major financial crises within Japan’s banking industry, pervasive changes were made in the country’s regulatory infrastructure for its financial reporting system. Many of these changes directly impacted Japan’s accounting profession and independent audit function. The first major test of this new regulatory framework was posed by an accounting and auditing scandal involving a large cosmetics and apparel company, Kanebo Ltd. In fact, the Kanebo affair is often referred to by the Japanese press as “Japan’s Enron.”

Kansayaku—Key Facts

1. Similar to the United States, the public accounting profession and independent audit function in Japan are dominated by a small number of large accounting firms.

2. On a per capita basis, Japan has significantly fewer CPAs than any other industrialized country, including the United States; likewise, independent audit fees in Japan have historically been a small fraction of those in the United States.

3. A severe financial crisis that struck Japan’s banking industry during the late 1990s triggered a major credibility crisis for Japan’s accounting profession and independent audit function.

4. The criticism of Japan’s independent audit function focused on allegations that the close relationship between auditors and client management undermined the independence and objectivity of auditors.

5. Allegedly, independent auditors in Japan routinely subordinated their professional judgment to the wishes and demands of client executives.

6. In response to the widespread criticism of independent auditors, Japan’s federal government overhauled the regulatory structure for the nation’s financial reporting system.

7. The first major test of this new regulatory framework was posed by an accounting and auditing scandal involving Kanebo, Ltd., a large cosmetics and apparel company.

8. Kanebo’s top executives goaded the company’s accounting staff to misrepresent Kanebo’s financial statements throughout the late 1990s and beyond.

9. Kanebo’s independent auditors not only ignored the material misrepresentations in Kanebo’s financial statements but also suggested additional methods for improving the company’s apparent financial condition and operating results.

10. Despite the fact that Kanebo’s top executives and the company’s independent auditors either pled guilty or were convicted of various fraud charges, none of the individuals served any time in prison since each received suspended sentences.

11. Among the most significant results of the Kanebo scandal was the two-month suspension imposed on the company’s independent audit firm, ChuoAoyama.

12. The unprecedented suspension of ChuoAoyama signaled that Japan’s regulatory authorities were seriously committed to reforming the nation’s financial reporting system, including its independent audit function.
Question

Question and Answer

1. Research online news services to identify recent developments impacting the accounting and auditing profession in Japan. Briefly summarize these developments in a bullet format.

There have been recent developments in Japan that have impacted the accounting and auditing profession. Two of these developments are the Kanebo scandal of 2004 and the 2011 fraud scandal at Olympus Corp.
The Kanebo scandal of 2004 involved ChuoAoyama PricewaterhouseCoopers, a leading auditor in Japan. It was discovered that ChuoAoyama's monitoring systems failed to show that its employees had been cooking the books for Kanebo for five years. After this scandal was uncovered, the Japanese Financial Service Agency revised auditing standards, the CPA Law and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law. The FSA also introduced the Internal Control Report and Audit and quarterly financial statement reviews. In addition, the CPAAOB was formed and was to become an independent regulator under the FSA. Further reforms include requiring auditors to rotate client teams every seven years, with a two year interval before they return.

Another development was the Olympus Corp. fraud of 2011. Olympus Corp. admitted to hiding large securities losses by using payments to merger advisers and venture capital funds. The two auditing firms that were under investigation were KPMG ASZA and Ernst & Young ShinNihon. With each firm, there was a failure to obtain sufficient, competent evidence to support the auditors' opinion on the financial statements. Based on this scandal, the PCAOB was given more international freedom. The PCAOB and Japanese regulators reached an agreement that allows the two countries to carry out joint inspections of auditing firms in Japan and the US. As a result, the PCAOB conducts inspections of international firms that audit public companies whose shares trade on US exchanges, which includes on-site visits and sharing of confidential information under certain circumstances.


2. As noted in this case, Japanese companies typically rely more heavily on debt capital than US Companies. Explain how this fact may cause the independent audit functions in the two countries to differ.

In any economy, the parties that are the principal source of capital for business organizations will obviously be among the principal stakeholders in that economy’s financial reporting process. Not surprisingly, individual audit firms, rule-making authorities, and professional organizations will likely feel some pressure or need to cater (or kowtow) to the information needs of those principal stakeholders. No doubt, this pressure will influence decisions made on individual audit engagements, influence the nature of accounting and auditing pronouncements, and influence the agendas and policy initiatives pursued by professional accounting and auditing organizations.

DOWNLOAD FULL FILE FOR FREE HERE

401(k) vs IRA – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

401(k) and IRA plans are two of the most common retirement investment vehicles. Each allows you to reduce current income for tax purposes through annual contributions, and both allow for tax deferred accumulation of investment income. But each plan is unique, and offers options and opportunities that the other doesn’t.

A 401(k) is a qualified retirement plan that allows participants to contribute a portion of their income and invest it for future retirement. Not only are the contributions deductible from income in the year made, but investment income earned in the plan also accumulates on a tax deferred basis. This provides a way to both reduce current tax liability and allow for faster accumulation of investment assets for retirement.

401(k) plans are generally sponsored by an employer, though it is possible for a self-employed person to set up a plan for a small business as well.

An employee is eligible to participate in a plan that is offered by his or her employer. In general, there are no limits on how much income you can earn in order to qualify for a 401(k), though there is special consideration for employees determined to be “highly compensated employees”.

Contributions are limited to the amount of income an employee earns at the sponsoring employer, but there are no percentage limits with regard to that income. An employer may however impose percentage of income limits, or limit the dollar amount of contrib

Goals vs. Objectives – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Its often hard to know the difference between goals and objectives – in fact, we often use the two terms interchangeably. But knowing the difference can help us to use both in a constructive way, to get us from where we are to where we want to go.

The major similarity between goals and objectives is that the both involve forward motion

, but accomplish it in very different ways. We can think of goals as being the Big Picture — where we hope that our efforts will ultimately bring us. Objectives are about a specific plan of attack — usually a series of them — each being relatively short-term in nature.

Goals tend to be long on direction, and short on specific tactics. For example, you can set a goal of losing 30 pounds without having a specific plan as to how to do it. You’ve defined the destination you want to arrive at,

and tactics can be developed as you move forward.

We can think of a goal as doing the following:

Defines the destination Changes the direction to move toward the destination Changes the mindset to adjust to and support the new direction Creates the necessity to develop specific tactics

Goals tend to change your mindset by changing your focus. And as your focus changes, it takes your thinking with it. This is why goals are often accompanied by affirmations

, which involve projecting yourself into the desired (but as yet unattained) destination.

People set goals all the time, without ever being very specific. Organiz

Medicare vs. Medicaid – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Medicare and Medicaid. Both are government programs, both relate to healthcare, both are in the news much of the time…and both begin with the letter M.

It’s easy enough then to confuse the two programs. But that’s the extent of the similarities. For the most part, each program provides benefits to a different segment of the population, though there can be overlap between the two under certain circumstances.

For the most part, Medicare is a health insurance program, but one provided by the US federal government. Throughout your life you pay into the system through payroll taxes that are split between you and your employer, and when you are eligible for benefits, you will also pay a monthly premium — a relatively small one — for participating in the medical services and prescription drug portions of the program.

If you have paid payroll taxes into the program for at least 40 quarters (10 years), you will not be required to pay premiums for the hospital portion of the plan. But if you have paid in for less, there is a sliding scale on premiums, and they can be substantial.

And just as is the case with most other health insurance plans, you will have co-payments and deductibles that you will pay for medical services.

The program is primarily for people who are 65 years old and older, but it also extends to younger people who are deemed to be disabled.

Medicaid is a healthcare assistance program. It is also a government program, but one in which funding for the plan is shared between the

GDP vs. GNP – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

If you spend much time listening to politicians or watching financial news programs on TV or on the internet, you’ve undoubtedly heard the terms “GDP”

and “GNP”. The terms come up in discussions of the economy or big picture financial matters, and sometimes seem interchangeable. But what are GDP and GNP, and what is the difference between the two?

Both represent an attempt to measure the total economic output of a nation during a given period (usually one year), and serve as barometers to measure both the level and direction of a country’s economic activity.

GDP, or Gross Domestic Product is calculated either by measuring all income earned within a country, or by measuring all expenditures within the country, which should approximately be the same.GNP, or Gross National Product uses GDP, but adds income from foreign sources, less income paid to foreign citizens and entities.

GNP can be either higher or lower than GDP, depending on whether or not a country has a positive or negative result from net foreign inflows and outgo. Though GNP is still calculated, the United States shifted to GDP as its primary economic measure in 1991, in part because most countries in the world use GDP to measure the size and direction of their economies. As a result, GNP numbers are less common than GDP figures.

Both GDP and GNP are complicated, and best summarized in a side-by-side comparison:

A measure of the total economy of a nation Measuring all income earned within a country, or by measuring all expenditures within the country, which should approximately match GDP, plus income from foreign sources, less income paid to foreign citizens and

C Corporation vs S Corporation – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Now we see the difference of C corporation and S corporation.

C Corporations, or “C Corps” as they’re commonly known, are the primary format of publicly held companies. Their shares can be easily bought and sold on public stock exchanges since there is no limit on the number of shareholders they can have. In addition, unlike S Corporations, C Corp shareholders are not limited to natural persons (can be corporations or partnerships), nor is there a requirement that they be US residents or citizens.

C Corp status enables a business to function as a separate legal entity, able to enter into contracts, borrow money, hire employees and perform all other business functions without personal guarantees from its shareholders. This separation enables shareholders to participate in the company’s profits, but without the potential liability that a sole proprietor or partner would have in the event of liabilities, lawsuits and income tax obligations.

S Corporations, or “S Corps”, are similar to C Corps in that they are owned by shareholders, and provide all the same legal protections from debts, lawsuits and other company liabilities. They can also conduct business as a separate legal entity from their shareholders, including the hiring of employees.

In order to become an S Corp, the business must file IRS Form 2553 (Election by a Small Business Corporation) with the Internal Revenue Service, and meet the following requirements:

The business must first be either a C Corp or a Limited Liability Company (LLC) (which have the option to elect to be taxed as a corporation)The maximum number of shareholders is 100. Shareholders must be natural persons, not partnerships or other corporations. The business must be a domestic corporation, and its shareholders must be

Interest Rate vs APR – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

What is the difference?

Nearly all loan types come with two interest rates: the actual interest rate and annual percentage rate, or APR. Though the disclosure of both rates is done primarily to help borrowers decide what the true cost of loans are from one lender to another, they often confuse borrowers in the process.

Interest rate is the basic rate charged on a loan. It is sometimes referred to as the “note rate”, mostly by lenders, and will be the interest rate of record in all loan documents.

Your loan payments will be based on the total amount of the loan, multiplied by the interest rate, plus loan principal repayment (based on the required loan amortization).

APR is the effective rate on a loan, after subtracting required loan fees from the face amount of the loan. Unless the loan involves no required closing costs, the APR will always be higher than the actual interest rate.

APR is a rate that government regulators require lenders to disclose to prospective borrowers. Since lender fees can vary widely from one lender to

S Corporation vs. LLC – WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Hi ,,,,Many businesses – small ones in particular – make the decision to seek some type of legal and liability protections, as well as special tax treatment. This is typically done through adopting a business organization form that will effectively separate the business owner(s) from the business itself. In doing so, the obligations and liabilities of the business become the responsibility of the business entity, and not its owners.

Two prominent forms of ownership are corporations and limited liability companies (LLC’s). Each will provide the needed liability protection as well as certain income tax advantages. Corporation status is generally more formal in its structure and can be better suited to large, established businesses. LLC’s, being less rigid, tend to work better for newer and smaller businesses.

(NOTE: This discussion will limit consideration of Sub-chapter S corporations (“S corporations”) in order to minimize an already complex comparison.)

S Corporations are distinct legal entities created under state law. They enable business owners to separate themselves, legally and financially, from the business itself. This provides a strong level of protection for owners from creditors and lawsuits seeking financial compensation from