It was the final day of a two-week-long audit of Van Buren Company，a longstanding client of Fillmore Pierce Auditors. In the afternoon，Anne Hayes，a recently qualified accountant and member of the audit team，was following an audit trail on some cash payments when she discovered what she described to the audit partner， Zachary Lincoln，as an ‘irregularity’。A large and material cash payment had been recorded with no recipient named. The corresponding invoice was handwritten on a scrap of paper and the signature was illegible.

Zachary， the audit partner，was under pressure to finish the audit that afternoon. He advised Anne to seek an explanation from Frank Monroe，the client‘s finance director. Zachary told her that Van Buren was a longstanding client of Fillmore Pierce and he would be surprised if there was anything unethical or illegal about the payment. He said that he had personally been involved in the Van Buren audit for the last eight years and that it had always been without incident. He also said that Frank Monroe was an old friend of his from university days and that he was certain that he wouldn‘t approve anything unethical or illegal. Zachary said that Fillmore Pierce had also done some consultancy for Van Buren so it was a very important client that he didn‘t want Anne to upset with unwelcome and uncomfortable questioning.

Required：

(i) Compare and contrast her duties and responsibilities in the two roles of employee and professional accountant. (6 marks)

(ii) Explain the ethical tensions between these roles that Anne is now experiencing. (4 marks)

(c) Explain how absolutist (dogmatic) and relativist (pragmatic) ethical assumptions would affect the outcome of Anne’s decision. (6 marks)