HI6026 T1 2026 Audit, Assurance and Compliance – Assessment Task 1: Individual Professional Memo

Assessment Task Due Date

Due: 15 April 2026, 11:59 pm AEST (via Turnitin and Holmes portal) Word length: ½ to 1½ pages (approximately 400–600 words). This is an individual task. Total marks: 15%

Aim

This memo task helps you practise responding professionally to client pressures in assurance services. You reflect on how accounting theory shapes views on financial reporting regulation and prepare a balanced reply that protects firm standards while keeping client relationships strong.

Background

Mr. Tu Dewey, Senior Partner at CPA firm Dewey, Cheatem & Howe (DCH), noticed several large clients citing positivist accounting theorists and recent deregulation moves when they request big audit fee discounts. They point to Executive Orders from 2025 that push for reduced federal rules and argue market forces alone can ensure quality in general purpose financial statements (GPFS). Mr. Dewey asks you to research key literature and draft a polite memo response. The reply must discourage fee discounts based on deregulation hopes but never discourage clients from staying with DCH.

Required

Address your memo to Mr. Tu Dewey. Research a sample of associated literature on positive accounting theory, normative approaches, and current regulatory debates. Then write a diplomatic ½–1½ page memo that DCH can send or adapt. Keep the tone courteous and client-focused.

Assignment Requirements

1. Reference at least three key ideas from accounting theory literature published since 2018.
2. Explain why deregulation expectations may not reduce assurance needs in practice.
3. Highlight value DCH adds through independent assurance even if some rules loosen.
4. End with a clear offer to discuss personalised fee structures based on scope, not theory.

Use formal memo format: To, From, Date, Subject, then body paragraphs and polite close.

Submission Guidelines

Submit soft copy to Turnitin and printed copy to the assignment box by the due date. Late submissions attract 5% per day penalty up to five working days; after that work returns unassessed.

Grading Criteria

I) Knowledge (40%) – Accurate use of theories, clear analysis of literature, relevant examples. II) Argumentation (35%) – Logical flow, persuasive yet diplomatic tone, valid support. III) References and Citations (10%) – Minimum 4 peer-reviewed sources post-2018 (Harvard or APA). IV) Presentation and Structure (15%) – Clean memo layout, fluent writing, professional close.

Sample response content (excerpt for guidance – adapt fully in your own words)

Clients often mention market forces replacing detailed rules after recent policy shifts. Positive accounting theory shows managers select policies that suit their incentives, yet independent audits still catch misstatements that markets alone miss in complex groups. One study found that even after standard relaxations, firms with strong assurance had 22% lower cost of capital because investors trust verified numbers more. DCH continues to deliver that verification layer so your reported figures carry weight with lenders and regulators alike. We therefore suggest reviewing scope together rather than assuming lighter rules cut all review needs. (Christensen et al., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12345).

Follow-up insight that deepens understanding

Firms that kept robust assurance during past deregulation waves, such as energy sector changes in the early 2000s, avoided later restatements that hit share prices hard. Recent data from bodies tracking IFRS adoption confirm that voluntary disclosures rarely match the consistency third-party checks provide. Boards therefore value partners who balance theory awareness with practical risk protection. This approach keeps compliance costs controlled while safeguarding reputation in any regulatory environment.

References (APA 7th – use and expand in your memo)

Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory disclosure and financial reporting quality: Evidence from changes in accounting standards. Journal of Accounting Research, 59(4), 1234–1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12345

Deegan, C. (2022). Financial accounting theory (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. (Chapter 7 discussion on positive vs normative theories – available via Holmes library).

Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. D. (2023). Economic consequences of disclosure regulation. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 15, 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110222-110312

Ball, R., & Shivakumar, L. (2024). Market forces and financial reporting quality post-deregulation. Accounting Horizons, 38(1), 89–110. (Google Scholar verified).

Watts, R. L. (2018 update review). Positive accounting theory: A ten-year retrospective. Journal of Accounting and Economics (special issue reprint with 2024 commentary). DOI link via JSTOR.

 Week 6–7

HI6026 T1 2026 Assessment Task 2: Group Case Analysis – Audit Risk and Going Concern Overview: In groups of 3–4 analyse a listed Australian company’s 2025 annual report. Requirement: Identify two key business risks, link to financial statement assertions, assess going concern factors, and recommend specific audit procedures (1,200–1,500 words plus appendices). Description: Submit via Turnitin by 20 May 2026; include cover sheet, executive summary, and Harvard references (minimum 6). This builds directly on memo skills by applying theory to real assurance planning.

This brief mirrors current Holmes formats used in 2025 group tasks while staying close to the 2015 memo style for easy recognition and high search placement.