Literature Review on Internal Audit

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

In the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the audit committee is responsible for adequate supervision and reporting and for responding to:

According to the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Act, it is the responsibility of the management to establish and maintain internal controls required for financial reporting. The company’s latest year assessment of

In a recent article in the New York Times, Sarbanes-Oxley, Bemoaned as a Burden, Is an Investor’s Ally, by Gretchen Morgenson, is about some challenging the requirements that were put in place and the cost to the company’s. According to Morgenson, Tom Farley is one that is an outspoken critic of the law requiring outside auditor to attest on the management’s internal controls on the financial statements. He attributes the decline in corporations in the Unites States.

The Sarbanes-Oxley can into play when the SEC conducted an investigation to determine if fraud exists in major corporations. The SEC request CEO’s and CFO's of the publicly-traded corporations file a sworn statement ensuring that the organization used integrity when it came to their financial statements and other documentation they file with the SEC that year. There

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

New levels of auditor independence and personal accountability for CEOs and CFOs are provided by the Act. Additional accountability for corporate Boards, as well as increased criminal and civil penalties for securities violations, increased disclosure regarding executive compensation, insider trading and financial statements are also presented under SOX. (The Institute of Internal Auditors: “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Effect on Audit Committees at Organization Not Publicly Traded.” January 2004. Accessed May 31, 2012 from: http://www.itaudit.org/)

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

Internal controls represent an organization’s processes and procedures used to meet its goals and objectives and serve as a defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors, fraud, and abuse. Effective internal controls provide reasonable assurance that an organization’s objectives are achieved through (1) reliable financial reporting, (2) compliance with laws and regulations, and (3) effective and efficient operations. The passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as the numerous corporate frauds and bankruptcies over the past decade—including some

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

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:

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, reports on internal control are required. Did the company’s management acknowledge its responsibility for establishing and

Does the Board or audit committee understands and exercises oversight responsibility over financial reporting and internal control?

These changes were outlined in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX completely revolutionized financial reporting, requiring senior management of firms to sign off on each financial statement that the company issues. It also stipulated that wrongful doing can result in not only termination but also imprisonment. SOX amplified the requirement for companies, requiring firms to maintain proper levels of internal controls when it comes to operating activities. SOX also established the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) which implemented stricter auditing standards for public accounting firms. Not only were accounting firms required to consider internal controls, but they were also required report any significant deficiency directly to the board of directors. SOX stressed the importance of internal controls, and within internal controls it established the need for segregation of duties. Since this time, there have been many additions to accounting policies regards segregations of duties, and many functions of the business process dedicated to it.

Section 404 requires public companies to establish internal controls and report annually on their effectiveness over financial reporting. The CFO and CEO are held personally responsible for the internal controls via the requirement to sign a statement certifying the adequacy of the internal control system (Moffett and Grant, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the company’s independent auditor must issue an attestation regarding management’s assessment of the internal structure as part of the company’s annual report (Bloch, 2003, p. 68).