The Following Situations Involve a Possible Violation of the AICPA's

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is a.Violation of the rule on Form of Organization and Name (Rule 505).Non-CPA ownership of firms is allowable, however, non-CPA owners must actively provide services to the firm's clients as their principal occupation.
b.No violation of the Commissions and Referral Fees rule (Rule 503).A CPA may pay a referral fee to a non-CPA as long as the payment is disclosed to the client.
c.Violation of the Contingent Fees rule (Rule 302).This is a contingent fee agreement and is prohibited by Rule 302.
d.Violation of the Independence rule (Rule 101).Don is a covered member for purposes of Rule 101.Because his daughter is a dependent, her ownership interest in Shaw is treated as a direct financial interest of her father.
e.No violation of the Independence rule (Rule 101).According to the Code a close relative is defined as a parent, sibling, or nondependent child.Thus, a sister-in-law is not considered to be a close relative.

The Following Situations Involve a Possible Violation of the AICPA's

Definitions: