Audit Partner Rotation - Issue Brief

5. The audit client should be allowed to "follow" its engagement audit partner to another accounting firm because it obviously breach the independence of the auditor after forging a relationship with the clients. SOX specified the "cooling-off" period for the auditor from entering the client management, this serves the same purpose as well.

Preliminary analysis to understand the client‘s business and risk - Understanding the auditee’s business, environment, and risks

Arthur Andersen (AA) contributed to the Enron disaster when it has failed to the management by failing to have Enron establish and enforce its own internal control. There has been flaws to AA‘s internal control. There has been assumption that AA partners were too motivated by revenue recognition thus, overlooking several criteria when providing their services to Enron. Additionally, AA also recognised the retention of audit clients as vital and a loss of any clients would be disadvantaged to an auditor’s career. In AA internal control, the person who is able to make most of the decisions is the person who is most concerned about the revenue or losses of the client’s company.

Auditing firms are no longer able to focus primarily on selling additional services. Instead, they are now concerned with providing excellent service to the client. This has resulted in additional tax and financial reporting

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

Exceptions can be approved by the Board and are made in cases where the revenue paid for such services contributes less than 5% of revenues paid to the auditing firm. Also, a public accounting firm may provide these non-audit services along with audit services if it is pre-approved by the audit committee of the public company. The audit committee will disclose to investors in periodic reports its decision to approve the performance of non-audit services and audit services by the same accounting firm. This requirement to disclose to investors is likely to inhibit auditing committees from approving the performance of auditing and non-auditing services by the same accounting firm. Other sections outline audit partner rotations, accounting firm reporting procedures, and executive officer independence. Specifically, subsection 206 states that the CEO, Controller, CFO, Chief Accounting Officer or similarly positioned employees cannot have been employed by the company's audit firm for one year prior to the audit.

Section 201 prohibits any registered public accounting firm from providing the following non-audit services to audit clients: “bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records, financial info systems design or implementation, appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, actuarial services, internal audit outsourcing services, management functions or human resources, broker or dealer investment advisor or investment banking services, legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit, any other service the board determines impermissible” (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002). Section 202 requires the issuer’s audit committee to preapprove all auditing and non-auditing services that will be provided to the issuer (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 203 establishes mandatory and substantive rotation of audit partner and partner responsible for review of the audit every 5 years (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 204 needs the public accounting firm to report to the audit committee such as “critical accounting policies and practices, alternative accounting treatments within GAAP discussed with management and material written communications between auditor’s firm and management of the issuer” (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 206 prohibits the public accounting firm from providing audit services for the issuer if the CEO, CFO, CAO or any person serving in the equivalent capacity of

WUCHUN CHI, National Chengchi University HUICHI HUANG, Syracuse University YICHUN LIAO, National Taiwan University HONG XIE, University of Kentucky 1. Introduction Mandatory audit partner rotation has existed in the United States since the 1970s, when the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) required that audit partners in charge of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) audits be rotated at least once every seven years. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) further strengthens this requirement by mandating a five-year rotation for the lead and concurring partners. An implicit assumption in a policy of mandatory partner

6. This article was written before the accounting laws were changed because of problems encountered by ex-auditors working at the client, and having connections with the new auditors. This caused many problems exemplified by Enron and WorldCom. That is why it is no longer allowed to take a job with the client. I agree with the law at present, based on the fact that before the law was present, major fraud occurred that could’ve been prevented had hiring their old auditors been illegal and of course many

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

Audit planning details change from client to client, no matter the complications presented. Each evolution of society’s business world prompts rule makers to update authoritative accounting standards in order to allow for changes, auditors are then responsible to certify their client’s financial reports adhere within compliance according to current authoritative standards. Many cite the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 as being legislation that has had the most profound impact on the auditing profession; incidentally, an auditor’s job is to certify financial statements are a fair representation of a company’s financial position, at a given point in time, using current acceptable standards. Society deems auditors as gatekeepers and expects the auditing profession to find and report fraud, prevent fraud, and make certain financial statements are true, fair representation of a company’s financial position. Even though the rules, regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles can sometimes be difficult to find and translate, the public expects auditors to prevent events such as those that sparked SOX. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) developed the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) that became the authoritative source July 2009 (FASB, 2009). Perhaps the hardest impact auditors experience with FASB ASC is attempting to ascertain clients’ FASB ASC references in disclosures on financial statements; “management cannot delegate this function to the

Before the congress enacted this act, there were dozens cases of auditor conflicts of interest. SOX gives public companies new, exact and limited derectives. Prior to SOX auditing companies, accounting profession, chief financial supervisors from investors side were largly self-regulated. They also performed essential consultancy or not related to audit work for the companies they performed to audit. All consulting services were based on agreements many of which were far more profitable for auditors than that of the auditing services provided. This is factual representation of the conflict of interest.

Auditors should plan the audit so that the engagement is conducted in an effective manner.

Lastly Views on the audit report were discussed these included views from some of ‘the big four’. Price Waterhouse Cooper states that “MFR reduces the quality of an audit” (PWC, 2013) whilst midsized firm (Grant Thornton, 2009) stated that “partner rotation is an appropriate and necessary” BDO Binder Hamlin agreed with some of the reform however disagree with the application of EU audit reforms to smaller entities.

Partner Rotation: Required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC independence rules require the lead and concurring audit partner to rotate off the audit engagement after five years. Additionally, the SEC also requires that there be a five year “cooling off” period before the partner can return to that audit.