How the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Will Impact the Audit Function

Scoping and Evaluation Judgments in the Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 12.1 EyeMax Corporation . . Evaluation of Audit Differences

Stage 2: Test of internal controls - By testing the effectiveness of the internal controls the auditor can determine the control risk that lies within the company. The audit team can perform tests of controls by making inquiries of appropriate client personnel, examining documents, records, and reports maintained by Smackey, observing control-related activities such as the one done for the inventory procedures for returned Best Boy Gourmet dog food, and re-perform the client procedures.

The Sarbanes-Oxley is a U.S. federal law that has generated much controversy, and involved the response to the financial scandals of some large corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, WorldCom and Peregrine Systems. These scandals brought down the public confidence in auditing and accounting firms. The law is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes Democratic Party and GOP Congressman Michael G. Oxley. It was passed by large majorities in both Congress and the Senate and covers and sets new performance standards for boards of directors and managers of companies and accounting mechanisms of all publicly traded companies in America. It also introduces criminal liability for the board of directors and a requirement by

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was implemented and designed to “protect the interests of the investing public” and the “mission is to set and enforce practice standards for a new class of firms registered to audit publicly held companies” (Verschoor, 2012). During the early 2000 's, the world saw an alarming number of accounting scandals take place resulting in many corporations going bankrupt. Some of the major companies involved in these scandals were from Enron, WorldCom, and one of the top five accounting and auditing firms, Arthur Andersen. These companies were dishonest with their financial statements, assuring the public the company was very successful, when in reality they were not. This became a problem because if the public believes a company is doing well, they are more likely to invest in it. That is to say, once these companies were exposed, it caused a number of companies going bankrupt and a major mistrust between the public and the capital market. Consequently, the federal government quickly took action and enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, also known as SOX, which was created by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Many have questioned what Norman Bowie (2004) had questioned,

The act is an exhaustive piece of legislation that contains eleven major section and some of the most important titles outline requirements on auditor independence, analyst conflict of interests, corporate responsibility, enhanced financial disclosures, internal controls assessment, and corporate fraud accountability (Bainbridge, 2007). One of the main benefits of the legislation is to establish auditor independence requirements and rules for the prevention of conflicts of interest in particular by prohibiting auditing firms from offering other services. Prior to Sarbanes–Oxley, the auditing professionals were self-regulated and the decisions that controlled the industry, such as violation of ethical standards, were made largely by auditors themselves (Verschoor, 2012). In order to prevent conflict of interests, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act grants the PCAOB authority to oversee and regulate auditing firms, conduct investigations, and impose disciplinary sanctions against accounting firms (McDonough, 2004). Another provision of the Act is requiring senior executives to be personally accountable and responsible for the financial information reports by certifying that the information is correct.(Welch, 2006). A byproduct of the law implementation is a significant quality improvement on accounting practices;

The swath of change brought about by Sarbanes-Oxley is wide and deep. The primary changes resulted in the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the assessment of personal liability to auditors, executives and board members and creation of the Section 404. That section refers to required internal control procedures, which did not exist before Sarbanes-Oxley. Public companies are now required to include an internal control report with their annual audit. The oversight board is responsible for monitoring public accounting companies, and works with the SEC. Based on size, accounting forms undergo reviews every one to three years. In addition to the board reviews, public accounting firms now carry personal liability for their

The time frame is early 2002, and the news breaks worldwide. The collapse of corporate giants in America amidst fraud and stock manipulations surfaces. Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth and later Adelphia are all suspected of the highest level of fraud, accounting manipulation, and unethical behavior. This is a dark time in history of Corporate America. The FBI and the CIA are doing investigations on all of these companies as it relates to unethical account practices, and fraud emerges. Investigations found that Enron, arguably the most well-known, had long shredding sessions of important documents and gross manipulation of stocks and bonds. This company alone caused one of the biggest economic

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 as a response to a wave of corporate accounting scandals that damaged public trust in the controls of the US financial system. SOX therefore was created in order to create the framework for better control over accounting information and better accountability among members of senior management. Damianides (2006) notes that much of the burden of providing these tighter controls has fallen to IT departments. The Act not only sets out prescriptions for tighter internal controls, but effectively mandates that senior IT managers will need to communicate those controls to their CFO and CEO, as well as to external auditors.

The goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was to deter and prevent corporations from committing financial fraud, protect shareholders and regain the confidence the public had in financial statements that the released (Ferrell, Hirt, Ferrell, 2009). The act did put additional duties on the corporate accounting departments as well as the auditing firms that monitored these corporations. Prior to the law’s enactment, corporations largely had auditors and financial monitors on staff. The law requires that an external auditing firm review not affected by conflict of interest, audit and monitor the financial records of the corporation. While audits are largely seen in a negative manner, having an annual audit done by an outside firm will allow for

Auditors have the responsibilities as well as management to report internal controls. The auditors must examine closely management’s claim of effectiveness and also physically test the controls. After the examination, the auditors should express their opinion and any recommendations to fix any internal control weaknesses.

Auditors should always evaluate the design and test the operating effectiveness of a company’s internal control. The key procedures of the evaluation of design are fulfilled by inquires, observations, and inspections. The same procedures can be used to test the operating effectiveness as well.

Performing internal tests of controls is intended to assess the operating effectiveness of those internal controls. Here the staff would select an area of control to test, perhaps inventory management and return policy. They would then look at the procedures that help prevent fraud or error, talk to management, and observe activities. They would notice there is very little control in place for this area. There is no management oversight or dock security measures, no direct recording of sales receipts, shipping labels, or matching to accounts receivable. This would be noted as an area of additional concern. The next stage is to perform substantive testing procedures, where the purpose is to collect audit evidence that the management assertions made in the financial statements are reliable and in accordance with GAAP. Since my staff is good, they would have noticed the company’s sales projections are weak in control and are overstated by around 11%. They would perform a substantive test of detail in this area by selecting a sample of items from the account balances and finding bank statements, invoices, and test of details of balances. They would likely see specifically where the over-projections are being made. Lastly, in finalization, they would compile a report to management detailing any important matters, evaluating the audit evidence, and considering the type of audit opinion that should be reported. Specifically here, they would

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.

The final responsibility for the integrity of an SEC registrant’s internal controls lies on the management team. U.S. companies need to refer to a comprehensive framework of internal control when assessing the quality of financial reporting to determine that financial statements are being presented under General Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP. The widely used framework is referred as COSO, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, sponsored by the following organizations American Accounting Association, the American Institute of CPA’s, Financial Executives International, the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the Institute of Management Accountants. COSO’s defines internal control as: