ACT 450 Colorado State University Week 4 Sarbanes Oxley Act Homework This professor is very tough in grading, and I need this by this Sunday. Either option

ACT 450 Colorado State University Week 4 Sarbanes Oxley Act Homework This professor is very tough in grading, and I need this by this Sunday. Either option 1 or 2 works for me.

Other Requirements from the frist 3 weeks of feedback:

APA 7th Edition

Error free grammar/mechanical paper

AS # (Auditing Standard # from PCAOB site must be correctly sited and title noted when applicable)

It says 2 minimum sources, but she wants more than 2 peer reviewed articles (not textbooks) within last 5 years & available on web.

OPTION #1: PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE COMPANY CONTROLS STANDARDS

CEO Billy Jean has heard that due to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, costs have increased significantly when operating a public company. Jean is especially apprehensive with reports that he can anticipate double the audit fees due to the internal control provisions of the Act and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2201. Jean has asked you to explain how the Sarbanes–Oxley requirements may affect the audit.

Required:

Organize and share your thoughts if the company decides to go public. How would complying with the Sarbanes–Oxley and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2201 change the company’s responsibilities for internal control? Then use your thoughts to:

Describes the changes in internal controls (due to PCAOB and Sarbanes-Oxley standards) needed once they become a public company.

Your deliverable should be 3-4 pages in length. Please type your response in a Word document and follow APA format, according to CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA (Links to an external site.). Include a title page and reference page. Use two (2) outside academic sources other than the textbook, course materials, or other information provided as part of the course materials.

OPTION #2: TESTS OF CONTROLS: PROCESSING AND OUTPUT CONTROLS

Matt’s Company’s audit team is evaluating the internal controls that for the automated processing of payroll transactions. The following controls have been identified as being important in this processing as part of the understanding and assessment stages:

A system log is generated and reviewed on a weekly basis to identify an unauthorized access to payroll programs and processing. The report shows programs accessed during the past week, the individual(s) who accessed those programs, and the time(s) the programs have been accessed. Any inconsistency is investigated immediately.
Controls numbers are determined and then compared to the actuals following transaction processing.
Jim’s highest paid employee processed through the system earns $360,000 per year so any gross pay calculations in excess of $30,000 per month are identified and written to a rejected transaction file for further investigation.
An error/unusual report is generating through processing. The report is then reviewed, investigation, and the solutions documented.
To ensure payroll is properly authorized by the appropriate personnel, any changes to employee master file information are evaluated.
The output is examined for rationality prior to distribution to users.

Required:

Inquiry, observation, document examination, and re-performance are all used to test the operating effectiveness of controls. Provide an example of how Jim’s audit team could use each of the testing methods to test operating effective.

Note: Not all methods are appropriate for all controls.

Imagine that you will be presenting to your audit partner on how you will conduct the audit of this section of controls. Prepare the following deliverable:

A Word document with your analysis of the case and controls.

Your deliverable should be 3-4 pages in length. Please type your response in a Word document and follow APA format, according to CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA (Links to an external site.). Include a title page and reference page. Use two (2) outside academic sources other than the textbook, course materials, or other information provided as part of the course materials.

Rubric

ACT450 Mod 4 CT

ACT450 Mod 4 CT

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements

20.0 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

16.0 to >12.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

12.0 to >8.0 pts

Below Expectation

Includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

8.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent

20.0 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Demonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of internal controls; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources.

16.0 to >12.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

12.0 to >8.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

8.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis

10.0 to >8.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Provides strong or adequate thought, insight and analysis of concepts and applications.

8.0 to >6.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in thought, insight and analysis.

6.0 to >4.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major errors or omissions in thought, insight and analysis.

4.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Fails to demonstrate thought, insight and analysis.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSources / Examples

5.0 to >4.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Sources or examples meet required criteria and are well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.

4.0 to >3.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Sources or examples meet required criteria but are less‐than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.

3.0 to >2.0 pts

Below Expectation

Sources or examples meet required criteria and are poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.

2.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Source or example selection and integration of knowledge from the course is clearly deficient.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates college-level proficiency in organization, grammar and style.

5.0 to >4.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Project is clearly organized, well written, and in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few errors in grammar and spelling.

4.0 to >3.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Project is fairly well organized and written, and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure; significant number of errors in grammar and spelling.

3.0 to >2.0 pts

Below Expectation

Project is poorly organized; does not follow proper paper format. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; numerous errors in grammar and spelling.

2.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Project is not organized or well written, and is not in proper paper format. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar and spelling.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style

5.0 to >4.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Project contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than one significant error.

4.0 to >3.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Few errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than two to three significant errors.

3.0 to >2.0 pts

Below Expectation

Significant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with four to five significant errors.

2.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Numerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with more than five significant errors.