Please reply of at least 200 words to the discussion below.
Support your assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format.any sources cited must have been published within the last five years.
Regarding the case study, there are several ethical issues with the way Mark handled his relationship with his clients and his accounting firm. When comparing his behavior against the Six Pillars of Character, Mark failed in every single category. From being untrustworthy and dismissing his responsibilities and duties to his clients, to being unfair and taking advantage of the trust his clients placed on him, to making choices that would hurt his clients and their businesses. In addition, Mark also had a duty as an accountant and to the state to act in an ethical manner especially as a member of the AICPA. As per the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, Mark violated the principles of public interest, integrity, and due care. As per the code, members are to demonstrate professional commitment and follow through on commitments they make to their clients (AICPA, 2021). This was clearly not the case with Mark as he disregarded the business commitments, he had with Pure Water Company and Fitzgerald Flooring as he did not file their taxes as previously agreed upon. Mark also violated the integrity rule. One of the points listed in the integrity section is that as per the AICPA code, members are required to be honest with their dealings and their service should not be disregarded on the basis of personal gain (AICPA, 2021). Also, regarding the principle of due care, the code requires members to discharge their professional responsibilities with the utmost competence and diligence (AICPA, 2021). It also states that members are to render said services promptly and this was not the case with Mark.
Based on Mark’s behavior, he should be banned from practicing in the state. As per the SEC Rule 102(e), the SEC has the right to prevent a professional from practicing either long term or short term if they have committed highly unreasonable conduct or if they repeated instances of unreasonable conduct. In the case of Mark, his situation seems to be more closely related to the repeated instances of unethical conduct and based on that conduct and the SEC ruling, I believe he should be banned. It is important to realize that this unreasonable conduct did not occur just once but for several consecutive years and for two different clients.
Lastly, viewing the situation from a biblical perspective, it is clear that Mark did not act in accordance with Scripture. One verse that ties into this situation is Proverbs 12:22. It states that those who lie and are dishonest are an abomination to God while those who are acting faithfully are a delight to Him. In addition, the Bible also states that you reap what you sow. Mark’s actions got him into trouble and he could risk his ability to practice and his reputation because of these decisions.
