Answer:
a Description of tests performed to search for material weaknesses.
Explanation:
When reporting on conditions relating to an entity's internal control observed during an audit of the financial statements, the auditor should include a Description of tests performed to search for material weaknesses.
Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that auditors consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the financial statements, <u>thereafter a management report must be issued to the audit committee for any deficiencies in controls to be addressed.</u> The management letter describes the tests performed and the results in each category
Answer:
Timeliness principle.
Explanation:
Industry best practices can be used by various organizations as common core security principles to manage and control most, if not all of their assets and resources. These security principles can be adopted during the process of developing organizational policies, standards, baselines, procedures, and guidelines to effectively and efficiently manage the organization.
Timeliness principle can be defined as a principle which states that all stakeholders involved in the securitization of an organization and assets must act in a timely manner for the constant monitoring of the current and future state of the organization's assets, so as to avoid the integrity of its security being breached or compromised.
Hence, the principle which typically specifies that all personnel, assigned agents, and third-party providers should act in a timely manner to prevent and to respond to security breaches is known as the timeliness principle.
Answer:
C. $737,500
Explanation:
The formula to compute the ending balance of retained earning is shown below:
The ending balance of retained earning = Beginning balance of retained earnings + net income - dividend paid
= $659,000 + $220,000 - $141,500
= $737,500
The net income is calculated below:
= Sales revenues - expenses
$600,000 - $380,000
= $220,000
Answer:
This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.
The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.
Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.
Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.
The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.
Answer:
Kind of goods that by increasing the income of a person the consumption of goods increases.
Explanation:
On a legal level, those goods that comply with the Normal law of demand are called normal goods, citing that by increasing the income of a person the consumption of goods increases. That is to say, everything normal is that kind of good or service in which demand increases as income increases. Most goods and services usually belong to this category.
Done