What in the name of the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?
"Communications between predecessor and successor accountants."
The situation that you describe involves an accountant and an auditor, not "predecessor and successor accountants".
"If, Mr. Peterson knew there was an audit being conducted by Mr. Briones, he had an obligation to contact Mr. Briones and to note such contact."
Not true.
"Actually, Mr. Peterson didn't have to make such a note, due to, there wasn't an audit being prepared by Mr. Briones."
It wouldn't matter if Briones was auditing statements prepared by Peterson, there's no requirement for an accountant to contact the auditor and hence there's obviously no requirement to note such contact in the financials.
This sentence goes nowhere. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not a sentence:
"The original prohibition from merely typing or reproducing client-prepared financial statements by the accountant as an accommodation to a client."
This makes sense to me:
"There's not an audit being performed."
The rest of it seems wacky.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
