Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Auditor-Provided Tax Services*

IF 1.6 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Jean Bédard, Suzanne M. Paquette
{"title":"Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Auditor-Provided Tax Services*","authors":"Jean Bédard,&nbsp;Suzanne M. Paquette","doi":"10.1111/1911-3838.12236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) greatly expanded audit committees' oversight responsibilities by requiring that they preapprove all non-prohibited non-audit services (NAS). Using data from 2003 to 2011, we find that tax NAS are significantly lower when accounting financial experts (ACT-FEs) serve on the audit committee, suggesting that ACT-FEs consider auditor independence risk, perceived and/or real, more than other members, including supervisory experts, to the point of not accepting <i>any</i> tax NAS, not even compliance. However, in firms with higher ex ante litigation risk, ACT-FEs approve relatively more tax NAS than other members, suggesting that they accept the costs of a perceived lack of auditor independence from tax NAS in return for the potential benefits of increased financial reporting quality arising from tax NAS. Our analysis by subperiod (2003–2006 vs. 2007–2011) shows that this result is significant only in the second period. ACT-FEs' differential evaluation of the trade-off between the benefits and costs of joint audit and tax NAS provision between the two periods suggests the need for additional research in later post-SOX years.</p>","PeriodicalId":43435,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Perspectives","volume":"20 1","pages":"7-48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1911-3838.12236","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1911-3838.12236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) greatly expanded audit committees' oversight responsibilities by requiring that they preapprove all non-prohibited non-audit services (NAS). Using data from 2003 to 2011, we find that tax NAS are significantly lower when accounting financial experts (ACT-FEs) serve on the audit committee, suggesting that ACT-FEs consider auditor independence risk, perceived and/or real, more than other members, including supervisory experts, to the point of not accepting any tax NAS, not even compliance. However, in firms with higher ex ante litigation risk, ACT-FEs approve relatively more tax NAS than other members, suggesting that they accept the costs of a perceived lack of auditor independence from tax NAS in return for the potential benefits of increased financial reporting quality arising from tax NAS. Our analysis by subperiod (2003–2006 vs. 2007–2011) shows that this result is significant only in the second period. ACT-FEs' differential evaluation of the trade-off between the benefits and costs of joint audit and tax NAS provision between the two periods suggests the need for additional research in later post-SOX years.

审计委员会财务专业知识、诉讼风险和审计师提供的税务服务*
萨班斯-奥克斯利法案(SOX)通过要求审计委员会预先批准所有非禁止的非审计服务(NAS),极大地扩展了审计委员会的监督责任。利用2003年至2011年的数据,我们发现会计财务专家(ACT-FEs)在审计委员会任职时,税务NAS显著降低,这表明ACT-FEs比其他成员(包括监管专家)更考虑审计师独立性风险(感知和/或真实),以至于不接受任何税务NAS,甚至不接受合规性。然而,在事前诉讼风险较高的公司中,act - fe比其他成员批准了相对更多的税务NAS,这表明他们接受了审计人员缺乏独立性的成本,以换取税务NAS带来的财务报告质量提高的潜在好处。我们对子时期(2003-2006年与2007-2011年)的分析表明,这一结果仅在第二个时期具有重要意义。ACT-FEs对两个时期之间联合审计和税收NAS提供的收益和成本之间权衡的差异评估表明,有必要在sox法案后的后期进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounting Perspectives
Accounting Perspectives BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Accounting Perspectives provides a forum for peer-reviewed applied research, analysis, synthesis and commentary on issues of interest to academics, practitioners, financial analysts, financial executives, regulators, accounting policy makers and accounting students. Articles are sought from academics and practitioners that address relevant issues in any and all areas of accounting and related fields, including financial accounting and reporting, auditing and other assurance services, management accounting and performance measurement, information systems and related technologies, tax policy and practice, professional ethics, accounting education, and related topics. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信