John Williams is our director of tax services and recently was published on this topic.

Northern Nevada Weekly

This was an intentional fraud. Neither financial statement nor internal control audits are designed to guarantee the detection of fraud.  Yes, an internal control audit would have disclosed the existence of significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. An expanded internal control review might have even stumbled across the defalcation. More likely it would have only resulted in an adverse opinion on the internal control systems by the company’s auditor. This could have been an alert to investors, but more likely it would have been ignored as the SEC’s own studies have indicated. Integrated audits have not resulted in a higher level of confidence by investors. Fraud audits for all issuers require a lower level of materiality that can not be justified economically.

If in this particular case the amount embezzled was material for any of the five years effected it would seem that it should have been detected under normal financial statement audit procedures in at least one year. A failure by the audit firm  to properly complete an audit is not justification for adding another layer of regulation on small issuers under SOX.

The company had retained the same national audit firm for the past five years. Based on the professional fees disclosed in the proxy statement it is possible that Koss was a small fish in the big pond of this national firm and may or may not have gotten the service it needed and deserved. Some large national firms have been known to ‘rank’ their clients. If you are not the big dog on the porch you are not likely to get the same level of expertise, experience and service as the bigger clients.

Cost. Certainly for Koss  the cost of an ICFR program – including both the external audit fees and the internal program costs -  would have been less expensive than the amount embezzled, but requiring all firms to bear a cost to ‘potentially’ prevent an occasional fraud loss of this type is ridiculous. Theoretically, 404(b) would cost a firm similar in size to Koss, $250,000 annually (ballpark WAG).  One-third to one-half of that being for the external auditors. So the investors in Koss would have been out something in excess of a million dollars. The cost/benefit equation for requiring this universally just wouldn’t seem to balance, unless you subscribe to the premise that something graeter than 10% of all statements are fraudulent.

There are already criminal and civil penalties in place to protect the investor from this type of malfeasance as we’ve discussed in our prior posts. Another in the form of 404(b)  is not needed. The responsibility to the shareholders rightfully lies with the Audit Committe of the Board, the Board of Directors and management. If more company oversight is needed and beneficial those charged with governance are ostensibly sophisticated enough and in the best analytical position to know and provide it.

I still view the cost of 404(b) as an ineffective unsupportable dissipation of investors equity. We’ve had some great dialog on this topic in the past.  Did I change anyone’s mind?

Currently, US GAAP is a rules based set of standards. While the end result of their application frequently results in worthless unsupportable financial reporting, the issuer and their auditor have but to point to the ‘rules’ in defense. On the other hand, IFRS is principles based, and simpler to apply.  But it can and frequently does require the issuer and his auditor to exercise judgment.  Judgment that can be questioned, criticized and  litigated.

Please don’t misunderstand.  Professionally in my opinion the quality of financial reporting will be significantly improved by the application of sound principles. IFRS is long overdue. Without liability reform, however, I fear financial reporting and assurance services will quickly follow the health care industry in terms of cost to the providers.

Maybe I’m just paranoid in my advancing years.

First, as a rule of thumb, do not hold appreciable assets, such as real estate or passive investments in an S Corporation. Why not? You probably know that there is generally no resulting tax when cash is distributed from S Corporation earnings. What many people fail to realize is that the distribution of appreciated property will result in a taxable transaction. When property is distributed from any type of Corporation (S Corporation or C Corporation) the distribution is made at the property’s Fair Market Value. This means that there is a realized taxable gain on the difference between the Fair Market Value at the date of distribution and the tax basis. You will pay tax on the transaction, and your resulting tax basis in the asset after distribution will be its Fair Market Value at the date of distribution.

This problem is most commonly avoided by distributing cash from the S Corporation to the owners, who then use the funds to purchase real estate, or other passive investments.  These assets are frequently purchased through a limited liability company (LLC) to preserve pass through treatment of the income.  If the real property is used by the S Corporation in its business, the property is then rented back to the S Corporation. The difference is that distributions from LLC’s (and partnerships) are made at the asset’s tax basis, with no gain or loss recognized on the distribution (resulting in a deferral of tax until the property is actually disposed of). Your basis in the distributed asset will be the same as it was in the hands of the LLC.

Placing appreciable assets into LLC’s instead of S Corporations will provide greater flexibility for future tax planning, and possibly defer the payment of income tax.

For the most part SAB 113 is pretty straight forward, however, as is the case with many of the SABs, hidden in the minutiae are land mines for the unwary or uninformed.  Correspondingly you would be well served to skim through it for any matters that might affect your company, and then discuss them with your audit firm.

Additionally, on October 26, 2009 additional Oil and Gas Rules were released.  These compliance and disclosure interpretations (C & DIs) relate to Regs S-X and S-K.  There is some important information here which is very relevant and brief!