Question

Worthington Department Stores

Auditing standards require the auditor to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence (AS 1105.04: Audit Evidence). The audit firm of Hepple & Ramsey was investigated for the audit of Worthington. Worthington is a large discount catalog department store chain. The company recently expanded from 6 to 43 stores by borrowing from several large financial institutions and from a public offering of common stock. A recent investigation has disclosed that Worthington materially overstated net income. This was accomplished by understating accounts payable and recording fictitious supplier credits that further reduced accounts payable. An SEC investigation was critical of the evidence gathered by Worthington’s audit firm, Hepple & Ramsey, in testing accounts payable and the supplier credits. The following is a description of some of the fictitious supplier credits and unrecorded amounts in accounts payable, as well as the audit procedures.

Manning Advertising Credits—Worthington had arrangements with some vendors to share the cost of advertising the vendor’s product. The arrangements were usually agreed to in advance by the vendor and supported by evidence of the placing of the ad. Worthington created a 114-page list of approximately 1,100 vendors, supporting advertising credits of $300,000. Worthington’s auditors selected a sample of 4 of the 1,100 items for direct confirmation. One item was confirmed by telephone, one traced to cash receipts, one to a vendor credit memo for part of the amount and cash receipts for the rest, and one to a vendor credit memo. Two of the amounts confirmed differed from the amount on the list, but the auditors did not seek an explanation for the differences because the amounts were not material.

The rest of the credits were tested by selecting 20 items (one or two from each page of the list). Twelve of the items were supported by examining the ads placed, and eight were supported by Worthington debit memos charging the vendors for the promotional allowances.

HealthLock Credits—Worthington created 28 fictitious credit memos totaling $257,000 from HealthLock Distributors, the main supplier of health and beauty aids to Worthington. Worthington’s controller initially told the auditor that the credits were for returned goods, then said they were a volume discount, and finally stated they were a payment so that Worthington would continue to use HealthLock as a supplier. One of the Hepple & Ramsey staff auditors concluded that a $257,000 payment to retain Worthington’s business was too large to make economic sense.

The credit memos indicated that the credits were for damaged merchandise, volume rebates, and advertising allowances. The audit firm requested a confirmation of the credits. In response, Tom Seymore, the president of Worthington Stores, placed a call to Martin Leary, the president of HealthLock, and handed the phone to the staff auditor. In fact, the call had been placed to an officer of Worthington. The Worthington officer, posing as Seagal, orally confirmed the credits. Worthington refused to allow Hepple & Ramsey to obtain written confirmations supporting the credits. Although the staff auditor doubted the validity of the credits, the audit partner, Michael Jennings, accepted the credits based on the credit memoranda, telephone confirmation of the credits, and oral representations of Worthington officers.

Ringet Credits—$130,000 in credits based on 35 credit memoranda from Ringet, Inc., were purportedly for the return of overstocked goods from several Worthington stores. A Hepple & Ramsey staff auditor noted the size of the credit and that the credit memos were dated subsequent to year-end. He further noticed that a sentence on the credit memos from Ringet had been obliterated by a felt-tip marker. When held to the light, the accountant could read that the marked-out sentence read, “Do not post until merchandise received.” The staff auditor thereafter called Harold Ringet, treasurer of Ringet, Inc., and was informed that the $130,000 in goods had not been returned and the money was not owed to Worthington by Ringet. Seymore advised Jennings, the audit partner, that he had talked to Harold Ringet, who claimed he had been misunderstood by the staff auditor. Seymore told Jennings not to have anyone call Ringet to verify the amount because of pending litigation between Worthington and Ringet, Inc.

Accounts Payable Accrual—Hepple & Ramsey assigned a senior with experience in the retail area to audit accounts payable. Although Worthington had poor internal controls, Hepple & Ramsey selected a sample of 50 for confirmation of the several thousand vendors who did business with Worthington. Twenty-seven responses were received, and 21 were reconciled to Worthington’s records. These tests indicated an unrecorded liability of approximately $290,000 when projected to the population of accounts payable. However, the investigation disclosed that Worthington’s president made telephone calls to some suppliers who had received confirmation requests from Hepple & Ramsey and told them how to respond to the request.

Cut-Off —Hepple & Ramsey also performed a purchases cutoff test by vouching accounts payable invoices received for nine weeks after year-end. The purpose of this test was to identify invoices received after year-end that should have been recorded in accounts payable. Thirty percent of the sample ($160,000) was found to relate to the prior year, indicating a potential unrecorded liability of approximately $500,000. The audit firm and Worthington eventually agreed on an adjustment to increase accounts payable by $260,000.

Required

Identify deficiencies in the sufficiency and appropriateness of the evidence gathered in the audit of accounts payable of Worthington Stores.

Answer 1

The accounts payable audit:

The accounts payable of an organization is one of the most important element of financial statements and an auditor requires to use appropriate audit procedures to gather necessary information and evidence to verify the accounts payable and its appropriateness. In this case the audit procedure used to verify the correctness and appropriateness of accounts payable balance stated in the financial statements of the Worthington Stores is full of deficiencies. Let us explain the deficiencies in the audit procedure to allow the readers to understand the deficiencies in accounts payable audit procedure.

Firstly, the company has more than thousand vendors with whom the company has transacted over the years. However, the auditor has only chosen 50 vendors for confirmation purpose which is very less compare to the number of vendors. Secondly, the auditor has only received confirmation from 29 out of the 50 confirmation requests. This shows that the balance 21 confirmation requests which have not been kept by the vendors must either disagree with the auditor’s confirmation or there is something seriously wrong. Thus, at this stage the auditor should have extended his audit procedures to verify the accounts payable balances. Further the information that the president of the company has called the vendors to influence the confirmation requests of the vendors should have aroused significant suspicion about the correctness of the accounts payable and accordingly, the accounts payable audit procedures should have been expanded. If possible most of the large vendors with whom the company has transacted should have been verified with supporting documents and if possible confirmation requests should have also been sent to these large vendors to assess whether the accounts payable balances in respect of their accounts are correct or not.