The Oversight And Authority Over Public Accounting Firms

Also in section 301 of The SOX Act, internal reporting of potential financial misappropriation of funds via anonymous whistleblowers is mandated. SOX 301 requires that audit committees of issuers listed on U.S. exchanges “establish procedures” for (i) receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters; and (ii) confidential, anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.  SOX 301 was codified as

History of SOX - the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is legislation in response to the high profile financial scandals, such as seen with Enron and WorldCom. The purpose of this act is to protect shareholders and the general

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the SEC’s influence on auditing a private company and the essential activities involved in the initial planning of an audit. Next the discussion will delve into four stages of the audit and tasks performed by the auditors as well as internal control findings and various aspects of the audit.

The act requires management to disclose all material information or changes within their accounting processes. By requiring senior management to review the reports they are held accountable for the financial accounting of the firm, and procedures to prevent employees and other members within an organization from committing fraud or theft and management is legally responsible if material misstatements have been made. By making management accountable then they are less likely to commit fraud if faced with jail time. Management and stockholders frequently have different goals. Management often wishes to expand and use the company’s assets in different ways than a stockholder. Management’s accountability of the financial reports often helps encourage management to use company assets in appropriate ways. Disclosures were also a reduction in risk of fraud because all material information must be disclosed. By requiring this disclosure if a company’s net income increased this year due to a

However, the application of SOX has brought on regulations that public companies must put in place and follow to prohibit these unethical occurrences. One major advantage for associated with SOX is that more thorough audits are being conducted by auditing firms. Audits being conducted more thoroughly will provide accuracy and an increased reliability of financial data. This will affect taxes in a positive way and provide firms with an advantage. Causholli, Chambers, and Payne (2014) suggest that prior to the implementation of SOX in 2002, “an auditor’s opportunity to sell additional non-audit services in the subsequent year, coupled with the client’s willingness to buy services, intensified the economic bond between auditor and client, in turn reducing auditor independence and the quality of financial reporting” (p.681). The regulation of auditor provided non-audit tax services has increased the reliability of tax and financial reporting within companies. Seetharaman, Sun, and Wang (2011) explain that “in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, the benefits of auditor-provided non-audit tax services (NATS) seem to manifest themselves in higher quality tax-related financial statement management assertions” (p. 677).

          Title III of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is Corporate Responsibility. It creates many new obligations for CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives. Title III requires that CEOs and CFOs must certify that they have reviewed annual as well as quarterly reports and that they contain no untrue information, material omissions, or misleading information. CEOs and CFOs are now responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, plus reviewing their effectiveness within 90 days prior to financial reports. They must disclose any deficiencies or possible fraud. The CEO and CFO are required to give back any bonuses or sale of company securities, if the company must restate financial statements due to material noncompliance or misconduct. High-ranking executives are also now banned from trading company securities during pension fund blackout periods. Lawyers are now required to report any evidence of violations of securities law or obligations to either the CEO of the company or chief legal counsel. If a person violates the law and their conduct demonstrates an unfitness to serve, he or she can be banned from being an executive of a company (Sarbanes-Oxley).

To execute this plan, it sets requirements for Executive Officers, guidelines for tipsters and procedures for all employees. Specifically, section 404 of SOX works towards fraud prevention by enforcing procedures. This section holds company management and their external audits accountable for regulating the internal controls, and ensuring any material weaknesses or deficiencies are disclosed. The requirements for proper disclosure includes reporting any material change that could change the mind of investor. The company should provide reasonable assurance that details accurately and fairly reflect actual transactions in the business, they comply with GAAP and they are finding unauthorized transactions in a timely manner. Keeping in mind, the primary purpose of the implementation and continual regulation of the internal controls is to prevent fraud. Without the presence of effective and reliable internal controls, companies are susceptible to fraudulent activities. The punishment for failing to provide of the required disclosures includes $5 million fine and up to 20 years in prison. In addition to the increase in severity of punishment, businesses have also felt the raising costs associated with section 404

Section 105 gives PCAOB authority to conduct investigations and obtain all relevant information. PCAOB also has the power to suspend auditors, revoke the registration of the accounting firms and impose penalties for violations or unwilling to corporate with an investigation (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 106 regulates foreign public accounting firms providing an audit report to an issuer and requires them to comply with PCAOB requests (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 107 gives SEC oversight and enforcement authority over the PCAOB and its decisions (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). This prevents PCAOB from gaining too much power over accounting regulation. Section 108 amends the Securities Act of 1933 to allow the SEC to have the authority to establish accounting standards, to adopt accounting standards established by a standard setting body that meets certain qualifications, such as the FASB. Section 109 calls for funding of the PCAOB and the designated accounting standard-setting body (FASB) to be funded from fees imposed upon public companies (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA,

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has many provisions. A few of the major provisions include the creation of the Public Company Oversight Board (PCAOB), Section 201, 203, 204, 302, 404, 809, 902, and 906. The PCAOB was the first true oversight of the accounting industry. It oversees and creates regulations, and it will monitor and investigate audits and auditors of public companies. The PCAOB has the authority to sanction firms and individuals for violations of laws, regulations, and rules. Section 302 requires the CEO and CFO to certify that they reviewed the financial statements, and that they are presented fairly. Section 404 requires management to state whether internal control procedures are adequate and effective, and requires an auditor to attest to the accuracy of the statement. Section 902 states that “It is a crime for any person to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal any document with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official

Though a plus for auditors, this required the development of two different sets of auditing standards, one for the public accounting sector and one for the private sector. In a 2010 study of SOX, the Institute of Management Accountants Foundation for Applied Research, (IMA), confirmed the following benefits when complying with SOX legislation: 1.) Companies that are SOX compliant have realized and achieved strategic goals, 2.) SOX compliance has led to effective and efficient analysis of performance, 3.) Companies have achieved comprehensive improvements in performance by standardizing and upgrading processes, 4.) Duplicative processes have been identified and eliminated, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, 5.) Transparency of reported information has increased, 6.) Financial reporting has improved as a result of stronger, effective and efficient internal controls over financial reporting, 7.) Increased improvement in the efficiency of both internal and external audits, thereby decreasing audit costs, and 8.) Automating manual controls increasing time efficiency” (Basile, Handy, & Fret,

After major corporate and accounting scandals like those that affected Tyco, Worldcom and Enron the Federal government passed a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This law was passed in hopes of thwarting illegal and misleading acts by financial reporters and putting a stop to the decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two important topics covered in Sarbanes-Oxley are auditor independence and the reporting and assessment of internal controls under section 404.

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

According to ICAEW, auditor independence mainly refers to the independence of the external auditor from parties that have an interest in the financial statements of the business being audited. It requires having both integrity and an objective manner to the auditing process. In order for the concept to be deemed effective the auditor needs to carry out their work freely. One of the main purposes of auditing is to increase credibility of the entity’s’ financial statements, as they have expressed their own professional opinion on the truth and fair view in accordance with the proper accounting standards used. This is only possible if the audit is made with reasonable assurance that it has come from an independent source and has not been influenced by other parties, such as managers, directors or by conflict of interest.

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.

Sarbanes Oxley (also known as SOX) is legislation passed by the United States Congress in 2002, in the wake of a number of major corporate accounting scandals. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and others cost investors billions when their stock prices collapsed. As a result of SOX, top management must separately certify the accuracy of financial Furthermore, consequences for fraudulent financial activity are much more severe. Also, SOX intensified the management role of boards of directors and the independence of the external auditors who review the accuracy of corporate financial statements. The primary changes caused the formation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the assessment of personal liability to auditors, executives and board members and creation of the Section 404, which recognized internal control events that had not existed before the legislation.