scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the International Monitoring Group Consultation, Strengthening the Governance and Oversight of the International Audit-Related Standard-Setting Boards in the Public Interest

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Dickins ◽  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Christine Nolder ◽  
Pamela B. Roush
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
International Accounting ◽  
International Ethics ◽  
The Public ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Monitoring Group ◽  
International Audit

SUMMARY On November 9, 2017, the Monitoring Group (MG) overseeing international auditing standards issued a request for comment on its consultation paper (CP), Strengthening the Governance and Oversight of the International Audit-Related Standard-Setting Boards in the Public Interest. The CP presents a broad array of proposals to reform and restructure the three current auditing standard-setting groups it oversees (International Accounting and Assurance Standards Board [IAASB], International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants [IESBA], and International Accounting Education Standards Board [IAESB]). The CP suggests combining the three boards into a single board, and solicited public comment on the following areas: (1) key areas of overall concern, (2) guiding principles, (3) options for reform of the standard-setting boards, (4) options for the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), (5) role of the monitoring group, (6) administration, including Standard-Setting Board staff, (7) process considerations, and (8) funding. The comment period ended on February 9, 2018. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions for respondents posed by the MG. Data Availability: The concept release, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD586.pdf

Importance of Ethics and Education to Understand the Audit Mission

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Melinda Timea Fülöp ◽  
George Silviu Cordoș ◽  
Nicolae Măgdaș
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
International Accounting ◽  
Technical Competence ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Education Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Expectation Gap

The chapter brings forward the discussion of how the level of accounting and audit knowledge has an impact on how stakeholders understand the audit mission, the auditor's responsibilities, and the message conveyed by the audit report, even when considering the new and extended reports. The preliminary results of this analysis indicate that audit education influences the audit expectation gap (the reasonableness gap), and if measures would be taken to upsurge the stakeholder's levels of education in auditing and accounting, combined with new and revised standards, the audit expectation gap can be reduced. In this sense, the International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB) is an independent standard-setting body that serves the public interest by establishing standards in the field of professional accounting education that prescribe technical competence and professional skills, values, ethics, and attitudes.

scholarly journals The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association's Response to the International Auditing and Assurance Standard's Board's Invitation to Comment: Enhancing Audit Quality in the Public Interest

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine E. Earley ◽  
Karen L. Hooks ◽  
Jenifer R. Joe ◽  
Paul W. Polinski ◽  
Zabihollah Rezaee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY: On December 17, 2015, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued an Invitation to Comment entitled Enhancing Audit Quality in the Public Interest: A Focus on Professional Skepticism, Quality Control and Group Audits (hereafter, the ITC). The ITC highlights the IAASB's discussions regarding the three separate, but related, topics: professional skepticism, quality control, and group audits, in order to solicit feedback on these topics from various stakeholders. The ITC also discusses potential standard-setting activities the IAASB could participate in to enhance audit quality. The comment period ended on May 16, 2016. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on selected questions posed in the ITC. Data Availability: The invitation to comment (as of May 23, 2016) is available at: https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IAASB-Invitation-to-Comment-Enhancing-Audit-Quality.pdf

Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the IESBA ED Release (August 14, 2014), Proposed Changes to Certain Provisions of the Code Addressing the Long Association of Personnel with an Audit or Assurance Client

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. C18-C22
Author(s):  
Willie E. Gist ◽  
Urton L. Anderson ◽  
Diane J. Janvrin ◽  
Marshall K. Pitman
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
International Ethics ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY On August 14, 2014 the International Ethics Standard Board for Accountants (IESBA) requested public comments to its Exposure Draft (ED) (IFAC 2014a) on proposed changes to the 2014 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (IFAC 2014b). The proposal aims to enhance the independence provisions of the Code to respond to threats that may be created by using the same audit firm personnel for audit or assurance engagements over an extended period of time. Among other things, the amendments would require (1) strengthened general provisions for all audits threatened by a long association of firm personnel, and (2) an increase in the mandatory “cooling-off” period, from two to five years, for the engagement partner on the audit of a public interest entity. The comment period ended November 12, 2014. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on selected proposals in the ED. Data Availability: The Exposure Draft and related request for specific comments are available at: http://www.ethicsboard.org. Paragraph referencing in the ED is extracted from the Code, set out in the 2014 Handbook of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, available at: https://www.ifac.org/ethics/iesba-code/.

The Development of Auditing Standards at the PCAOB and Related Audit Practitioner Input

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
W. Mark Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Standard ◽  
Comment Letters ◽  
Feedback Responses

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB; Board) maintains that constituent feedback plays an essential and dynamic role in its audit standard-setting process. We examine a major source of constituent feedback, responses to standard-setting questions, using a sample drawn from the original proposals of fourteen PCAOB auditing standards. We find that after receiving comment letter feedback to the standard-setting questions, the Board revises approximately half of its guidance tied to those questions before it finalizes auditing standards-a finding consistent with the Board's assertion that it carefully considers constituent perspectives as it develops new regulation. We also explore the related comment letters of eight professional auditing firms subject to the PCAOB's annual inspection program and discover varying levels of opposition to and support for the PCAOB's proposed authoritative guidance. We observe PCAOB revision to authoritative guidance highly contested by the firms in more than three-fourths of cases of standard-setting questions and PCAOB non-revision to guidance highly supported by the firms in more than ninety percent of cases.

scholarly journals Profiling Membership in the PCAOB's Standing Advisory Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. A30-A41
Author(s):  
Kelsey Brasel ◽  
L. Tyler Williams
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Group Members

SUMMARY The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) appoints an advisory group known as the Standing Advisory Group (SAG) to provide input on the relevance and appropriateness of its standard-setting agenda. Throughout the year, the PCAOB convenes meetings where the SAG opines on the direction of authoritative guidance on behalf of constituent groups. Our descriptive study provides an overview of the SAG's composition and role in standard-setting and succinctly describes the group members' professional experience since its inception in 2004. Specifically, we examine to what extent the PCAOB assembles the advisory group in consideration of the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), which mandates appropriate constituent representation on governmental advisory boards. We find that although the PCAOB is not required to meet the requirements of the FACA, the SAG appears to represent an appropriate level and variety of professional experience consistent with other governmental advisory boards. Data Availability: Publicly available.

Why SEPs have been involved in Antitrust Cases – From A Chinese Scholar’s Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoye Wang
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Technical Standard ◽  
The Public ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Standard Essential Patents ◽  
Antimonopoly Law

AbstractIf patents have been included in a technical standard and thus have become standard essential patents (SEPs), the SEP holders normally have to commit to the Standard Setting Organization (SSO) to license their SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Although the FRAND commitments already put constraints on the patentees, more and more disputes over FRAND licensing fees involving SEPs are reaching antitrust enforcement agencies and courts, perhaps due to the fact that the FRAND commitments are often not workable. As demonstrated in the case Huawei v. IDC in Chinese courts, SEPs have special characteristics compared to non-SEPs, i.e. the licensing of SEPs relates more to the public interest, the holders of the SEPs may be thought to have dominant positions in the licensing market of their SEPs, the holder of the SEPs often have made commitments to license on the FRAND terms, and the holder of the SEPs should be allowed to use the injunctive relief only in limited circumstances. This article also proposes that Article 55 of the Chinese Antimonopoly Law (AML) should be reconsidered because it exempts the undertakings who exercise their IPRs in accordance with the laws and administrative regulations on IPRs from the application of the AML. However, as this article shows, the excessive royalty requested or the injunction sought by the holder of SEPs may not violate the patent law, but nonetheless may violate the antitrust law.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith L. Jones ◽  
Jagadison K. Aier ◽  
Duane M. Brandon ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Period ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY In October 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB or Board) issued a release to solicit public comment on amendments to its standards that would improve the transparency of pubic company audits. The objective of the release was to solicit public comments on a proposed standard that would (1) require registered public accounting firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner in the audit report, (2) amend the Board's Annual Report Form to require registered firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner for each audit report already required to be reported on the form, and (3) require disclosure in the audit report of other independent public accounting firms and other persons that took part in the audit. The PCAOB provided for a 91-day exposure period (from October 11, 2011, to January 9, 2012) for interested parties to examine the release and provide comments. The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits. Data Availability: Information about and access to the release is available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket029/PCAOB_Release_2011-007.pdf

Implications of a Stakeholder View on Corporate Reporting

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Financial Accounting ◽  
International Accounting ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
The Public ◽  
Corporate Reporting ◽  
Stakeholder View

While the stakeholder view is increasingly being seen as an integral part of corporate governance, a corresponding view has not emerged in corporate reporting. This paper explores the possibility of a normative stakeholder view of corporate reporting by addressing the foundation of financial reports, the underlying mission of the conceptual framework contained in Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1. Specifically, the paper contrasts mission concepts to find a suitable foundation for the stakeholder view that would sufficiently project the ideas, and particularly the public interest perspective contained in that view. The paper also illustrates how the mission of corporate reporting extends to other areas in the conceptual framework and international accounting, and critically reviews the current trajectory of corporate reporting in the light of the implications of the stakeholder view.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document