spilt transaction 2939

  • Hi all
    i have statement within one procedure for signature authorizations, saying the following: it is totally forbidden to spilt a transaction to avoid the authoriz sign value limit to xx boxes .
    i was reviewing two sample of to entries in GL relating to trip expenses and i notify that the second entrees is just a part of the first one. these entries was recorded in the GL in the same date. i’ve arguied with the account that it is looked as spilting transactions, he replied that the statement was relating to auth sign blabla
    even it can be the case, is it considering in compliance stuff and financial ethic, correct to have 2 entries for rembursement in the same date and in 2 time while the second is just additional expense to the first entree?
    please advice

  • it is totally forbidden to spilt a transaction to avoid the authoriz sign value limit to xx boxes
    Hi Selena – While this is more of an internal control than something stipulated directly in SOX, it does appear that you have a legitimate finding that is in violation of established procedures.
    If the split was done for business needs in appropriating costs to 2 different budget centers that might a better expection to your established rule. However, it would be more unacceptable to divide up expenses so that they don’t violate autonomy limits or other controls.
    I feel it’s worth writing up and while it’s probably an acceptable transaction overall, highlighting it might discourage further violations of this control.

  • Helo Harry
    sorry for delay
    actually, this is as i’ve said, additional expense, arrived late as they argued to me, so they make it as this, while it is just additional expense of the whole transaction , occured in the same time and for the same purpose. my feeling is more lazy person or such of stuff. most of the finding that i’ve find was kind of this stuff, error while taping, put the wrong amount in the stamp while it is correct in the GL and the final total of invoice, kind of stuff
    as you said, reminder of rule and also notification to the boss ( he is good to stop bad willing from people) to correct that.
    just as remark, even it is not up than the value limit established, i do not see the adding value to spilt a transaction, don’t you?
    thanks for feedback

Log in to reply