National Commission On Fraudulent Financial Reporting (SOX)

Furthermore, when the internal control is fixed, the outside auditor can rely on the clients system and less audit testing can be conducted. When everything is improved, the management letter is given to the organization’s top management and not disclosed to the public, (Finkler, S. A., Ward, D. M., & Calabrese, T. D., 2013). Next, is the auditor’s report that entails the opinion letter usually written in three paragraphs and given to the board of trustees. Then, the opinion paragraph is added on to state the organizations financial statements are in accordance of the financial position and followed through with (GAAP). The clean opinion addresses the opinion of the auditor and the overall exercising of professionalism. Also, the complete opinion of the financial statements is to give a representation of the organization. All other opinions may be included and can be addressed by adverse opinions if (GAAP) was not in accordance. A qualified opinion can be added if a specific area wasn’t included in the financial statement when needed. Finally, the management reports are conducted by the management team and not the auditors. The management report is the annual report the topics included in the report are the internal control system and the responsibility of the audit committee.

Corporate Responsibility contains 8 sections which senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and transparency of the organization financial statements. In other words the executives cannot longer bounce responsibility for the inaccuracies of their financial reports, and it describes the communication between organization audit committees and external auditors.

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

Having internal controls is one thing, but how the company evaluates that control is a matter all by itself. Being an independent auditor, it is our job to understand an entity and

First, Congress saw the need to create an independent body to oversee the audit of public companies that are subject to the securities laws. PCAOB was established to protect the investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports for public companies. Before the SOX, The

● Monitoring — Internal control systems need to be monitored–a process that assesses the quality of the system’s performance over time. This is accomplished through ongoing monitoring activities, separate evaluations or a combination of the two. Ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of operations. It includes regular management and supervisory activities, and other actions personnel take in performing their duties. The scope and frequency of separate evaluations will depend primarily on an assessment of risks and the effectiveness of ongoing monitoring procedures. Internal control deficiencies should be reported upstream, with serious matters reported to top management and the board.

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;

On July 30, 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was signed into law by President Bush. "The Act mandated some reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud" (SEC.Gov. 2013 P. 1). The SOX Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in response to numerous failures of the profession to fulfill its trusted role; to oversee the activities of the auditing profession (SEC.Gov, 2013. The auditing of financial statements is required for the protection of public investors; however the question that arises is whether or not all PCAOB members should be taken from the investments communities that use audited financial statements. The remaining of this

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.

“Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002” mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession” (U.S. Securities and Exchange Comissions).

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.

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:

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).