Proper Level Of Segregation Between Audit And Non Audit Services

The factor that plays the greatest role in determining auditor independence is independence in mind. Auditors may or may not appear to be independent, but if the auditor is truly independent in mind, then the auditor can remain objective and unbiased. The profession should consider tightening the Code of Professional Conduct to address the issue of an audit team member knowing a close friend that holds any position at the audit client. If this scenario arises, the firm can still audit the client, but the audit member with the close relationship won’t be able to be on the audit team.

“ In order to prevent fraudulent financial reports and statements, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants(AICPA) has created ethical standards” (Ethical standards in a financial statement, 2011). These standards aim to make financial professionals accountable for their accounting practices. This includes the integrity of financial reporting and ensuring financial reporting is done fairly and factually. Financial accountants and professionals should maintain professional integrity, objectivity, and independence to reduce the risk of resulting legal action, loss of profits, and a poor reputation if improper financial reporting is done (Ethical standards in a financial statement, 2011).

Auditor Independence contains 9 parts which stablish standards for external auditor independence, so it will have limit conflicts of interest, also contains that an approval requirements for new auditor, audit partner rotation, and auditor reporting requirements. Also restrict auditing organization from providing non audit services for the same clients they audit.

If You Need Love, Get a Puppy: A Case Study on Professional Skepticism and Auditor Independence

Auditor independence and a prohibition on audit firms offering value-added (read "conflict of interest") services

Legitimacy in accounting practices is ensured by the check and balance of having independent auditors from registered public accountant firms reviewing financial practices. The report features eleven sections and these sections pertain to accounting overview, independence of auditors to reduce interest conflicts, corporate responsibility, financial disclosures, tax returns, criminal fraud and various elements of white collar criminal activity (107th Congress

This research paper analyzes the degree of an auditor's liability to clients and third parties under applicable law.

In October 2001, Enron Corporation which was one of the world major energy, commodities and service companies with claimed revenues of nearly 111 billion dollars during 2000 collapsed under the weight of massive fraud in that it has become largest bankruptcy recognition in the US economy. Enron’s earning report was extremely skewed that losses were not represented in their entirety, prompting more and more wishing to participate in what seemed like a profitable company. After collapse of Enron, Auditor independence has become a social issue that weather auditor has to be independent or not. In addition, while auditing must consider matters objectively with dispassion, there were still doubts whether it implemented well. Further, there has been much speculation about the need for the mandatory rotation of auditors or audit firm rotation to warn false accounting between audit firm and client. By examining Enron case, this essay will discuss about advantages and drawbacks of the mandatory rotation of

Title II of Sarbanes-Oxley covers Auditor independence, it contains nine sections all covering different aspects of auditors’ independence. Section 201, Services outside the Scope of Practice of Auditors, details what activities are not allowed to be performed by auditors for a client if they are to be performing an audit for that client. Detailed in section 201 as prohibited in order to maintain auditor independence are legal and expert services unrelated to the audit, any investment advisement, investment banking services, management or human resource functions, internal audit outsourcing services, actuarial services, appraisal or valuation services, financial

Each of them is significant for public accounting companies to develop effective control environment, provide reliable financial information, and set policies complying with applicable laws and regulations.

The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct provide guidance and rules for certified public accountants’ professional and ethical responsibilities. The code establishes standards for auditor independence, integrity and objectivity, responsibilities to clients and colleagues and acts discreditable to the accounting profession. The AICPA has established a conceptual framework for issues and threats that are not otherwise address in the code. The AICPA Conceptual Framework is a four-step approach consisting of identifying threats to compliance with the rules, evaluating the significance of the identified threats, identifying new and existing safeguards, and evaluating safeguards to determine if threats are reduced to an acceptable level.

Abstract: On October 11, 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) proposed a new rule. The rule is meant to name the engagement partner and other key participants who play a role in preparing audit reports. PCAOB believes that new rule would help to get more information and would be useful to investors, creditors and other financial statements users. After six years of debate over the intended and unintended consequences the PCAOB concluded and issued the rule on December 15, 2015.The objective of my research was to reflect my expectations for the consequences, both intended and unintended of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the new rule. The PCAOB’s final article “Improving the transparency of audits: Rules to require disclosure of certain audit participates on a new PCAOB form and related amendments to auditing standards” release No. 2015-008 issued on December 15, 2015 was very crucial for my research because it gives first hand perspective of the new rule.

The complete destruction of companies including Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, and Enron, revealed a significant weakness in the United States audit system. The significant weakness is the failure to deliver true independence between the auditors and their clients. In each of these companies there was deviation from professional rules of conduct resulting from the pressures of clients placed upon their auditors (Goldman, and Barlev 857-859). Over the years, client and auditor relationships were intertwined tightly putting aside the unbiased function of auditors. Auditor careers depended on the success of their client (Kaplan 363-383). Auditors found themselves in situations that put their profession in a questionable time driving them to

Another threat to the independence of the auditors is a phenomenon which took place around 3 or 4 decades ago. During that time the number of firms which required audits stopped expanding, the codes that prohibited advertising accounting firms were abolished, which enabled all these firms to steal market from each other. Furthermore, a lot of audit bodies engaged into consulting, bookkeeping assistance, investigation and tax advices. This trend resulted in

The lack of independence for external auditors will lead to the neglect of auditing risks (William R.K., 2003), which are the main reasons for the failure of certified accountants and professional accounting organizations. The consequence of the external auditors deprived of independence would be very serious. And there are many cases, which aroused by the failure of external auditors and most are related to the lack of independence. One famous example is the bankruptcy of Enron and the role played by its external auditor, Arthur Andersen (Todd, S., 2003). Arthur Andersen was once one of the biggest accounting companies in the world, and was canceled for the involvement in the Enron bankruptcy scandal.