scholarly journals Misreporting Trade: Tariff Evasion, Corruption, and Auditing Standards

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Kellenberg ◽  
Arik Levinson
Keyword(s):  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Tariff Evasion

scholarly journals Misreporting trade: Tariff evasion, corruption, and auditing standards

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Kellenberg ◽  
Arik Levinson
Keyword(s):  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Tariff Evasion

Audit Practices of PricewaterhouseCoopers

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry N. Winograd ◽  
James S. Gerson ◽  
Barbara L. Berlin
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
International Federation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Certified Public Accountants ◽  
American Institute ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
International Firms ◽  
New Development ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Approach

This paper discusses the development of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit Approach (PwCAA), identifies distinctive features of this approach, and provides information on new development areas. The discussion will provide a summary of each of these items and will focus on the distinctive features of the PwCAA. The article will not cover elements that appear to be consistent with other firm methodologies. Significant consistencies exist since all of the major international firms essentially operate under generally accepted auditing standards, i.e., the International Standards on Auditing (ISA) as established by the International Federation of Accountants. In the United States, they also comply with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

The Mismatch between Expectations and Realities of AS4 Audits: A Post-Implementation Research Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanaz Aghazadeh ◽  
Marietta Peytcheva
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Risk Premium ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Equilibrium Market ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Research Analysis

SUMMARY We conduct a post-implementation research analysis of AS4, a standard guiding voluntary audits of material weakness (MW) remediation disclosures, to understand the reasons for the scarcity of AS4 audits in practice. We use multiple methods (experiments, comment letter analysis, and surveys) to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders. We find that regulators' expectations of the use of the standard did not come to fruition because an equilibrium market for active use of the standard could not be achieved; that managers desire to engage in AS4 audits for the riskier MWs but do not expect the associated costs to be high; and that auditors are reluctant to audit riskier MWs and would charge a considerable risk premium. Finally, we find that investors value AS4 audits, especially for riskier MWs, and find value in an AS4 audit for those risky MWs beyond that of the year-end audit. The overall findings of our study indicate that a mismatch in the cost-benefit functions of the key stakeholders led to a lack of AS4 audits. Our findings are important given the high costs associated with auditing standards development and approval.

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 Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on IIA’s Exposure Draft of 2010 International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. C1-C4 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Bierstaker ◽  
Lawrence Abbott ◽  
Susan Parker
Keyword(s):  
Professional Practice ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Internal Auditing ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Standards

SUMMARY: Recently, the Institute of Internal Auditor’s (IIA) Internal Audit Standards Board (IASB) conducted a comprehensive review of the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards). The IIA proposed changes to some of the Standards and also recommended new Standards. The IIA provided for a 90-day exposure period (from February 15, 2010, to May 14, 2010) for interested parties to examine and provide comments on the proposed changes and new Standards. The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the IIA on the 2010 International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing exposure draft.

Design and Application Research of Audit Risk Control Program

2013 ◽  
Vol 310 ◽  
pp. 718-721
Author(s):  
Li Ya Ma ◽  
Shu Feng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Model ◽  
Risk Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Independent Auditing ◽  
And Control

Strict procedures for prevention and control of audit risk is one of the most effective measures, so the research on design of audit risk control standardization program has very great practical application value. Combined with the research needs, the CPA practices respectively utilize means of summarizing method, for example, analysis method and enumeration method. The CPA practice also revealing the audit risk and audit report risk associated with different basis, combining with the traditional audit risk model. The specific content concludes the report of audit risk and then designs including audit reports preparation, audit draft, final review report to track a feedback of visit to the control standard operating requirements, and then puts forward the independent auditing standards. The auditing standards should be added to the proposal of audit report program.

Tariff evasion with endogenous enforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 207 ◽  
pp. 110046
Author(s):  
Adrien Bussy
Keyword(s):  
Tariff Evasion

Not all experts are equal in the eyes of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board: On the application of ISA510 and ISA620 by South African registered auditors

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne Kok ◽  
Warren Maroun
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
Technical Application ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Testing Complex ◽  
African Context

Background: The article focuses on inconsistencies in audit approaches when auditors place reliance on the work performed by others. It examines differences in the approach followed by auditors when relying on the work of a predecessor versus the work of an auditor’s expert.Setting: The study contributes to the limited body of auditing research focusing on the technical application of International Auditing Standards and the functioning of actual audit practice in a South African context. It outlines how auditors apply their professional judgement when using technical auditing standards when comparing the work of a similarly trained expert in the field of accounting and auditing (per ISA510) versus the work of an expert in a field other than accounting and auditing (per ISA620).Aim: The purpose of this article is to examine and identify inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of ISA510 and ISA620 by a purposefully selected number of registered auditors in South Africa. It considers how inconsistencies in the approach followed when an auditor places reliance on the work of another auditor or an auditor’s expert points to underlying efforts to seek legitimacy and manage legal liability.Method: Detailed interviews are used to explore auditors’ experiences and challenges with the application of these two ISAs.Results: Audit quality is not necessarily a function of compliance with professional standards. While ISA510 and ISA620 deal with a situation where an auditor places reliance on the work of a third party, they are interpreted and applied very differently.Conclusion: The application of ISA510 is part of a rules-based approach to auditing aimed at reducing an auditor’s legal liability rather than enhancing audit quality. The same logic applies to ISA620 except that auditors perceive that their risk exposure is lower because the standard is limited to a single transaction or balance rather than to the entire audit engagement. The application of ISA620 is also useful for convincing internal reviewers, external regulators or audit committees that sufficient appropriate evidence for a complex line item has been obtained. The need to ensure a more robust process for testing complex balances and transactions is not, however, the primary consideration. Regulators and standard setters should not assume that compliance with auditing standards results in better quality audits. At the operational level, the need to manage legal liability and to signal the credibility of test procedures may be more relevant for the execution of audits than ensuring that audit opinions are supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. As only two standards, applied in a single jurisdiction, are used to illustrate this point, additional research will be required to determine the extent of inconsistency in the application of auditing standards and how this can result in lower levels of audit quality.

Co-Regulation of Fraud — Detection and Reporting by Auditors in Australia: Criminology's Lessons for Non-Compliance

1995 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Kapardis ◽  
A Kapardis
Keyword(s):  
Economic Recession ◽  
Fraud Detection ◽  
White Collar ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditing Standards

All companies (other than exempt proprietary ones) are required by the Corporations Law to have their books audited. For about 150 years there has been a controversy surrounding the auditors' role — whether they should be functioning as a ‘watchdog’ or a ‘bloodhound’. In recent years the auditing profession in Australia has been experiencing a credibility crisis. A spate of much publicised corporate collapses in the late 1980s at a time of economic recession has been instrumental in: (i) the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) adopting more heavy-handed ways of policing auditing standards; (ii) rocketing audit fees; and (iii) the accounting bodies redefining their role and revising auditing standards. This paper focuses on current approaches to regulating the auditing profession, and discusses their effectiveness, drawing on the criminological literature relevant to professional advisers, white collar illegality, and deterrence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document