Audit Partners’ Judgments and Challenges in the Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Jeffrey R. Cohen, Jennifer R. Joe, J. Thibodeau, Gregory M. Trompeter
{"title":"Audit Partners’ Judgments and Challenges in the Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting","authors":"Jeffrey R. Cohen, Jennifer R. Joe, J. Thibodeau, Gregory M. Trompeter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3551763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) audits have been the subject of intensive examination by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and researchers but the process through which auditors make ICFR judgments is largely a “black box.” To understand ICFR judgments, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 audit partners. Common themes in our interviews suggest that the subjectivity inherent in the ICFR evaluation task contributes to resistance against ICFR audit findings and cougnterarguments from management. Moreover, auditors perceive that their judgments are being second-guessed by PCAOB inspectors. Auditors believe that managers have difficulty accepting that material weaknesses can exist without a detected error, that management's reflexive reaction is to deny/avoid a material weakness finding, and managers routinely claim that management review controls (MRCs) would have caught the detected control deficiency. Auditors cope with management's defenses by consulting with their national office and leveraging support from strong audit committees.\n Data Availability: Requests for the data should be accompanied by a description of intended uses.","PeriodicalId":8737,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) audits have been the subject of intensive examination by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and researchers but the process through which auditors make ICFR judgments is largely a “black box.” To understand ICFR judgments, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 audit partners. Common themes in our interviews suggest that the subjectivity inherent in the ICFR evaluation task contributes to resistance against ICFR audit findings and cougnterarguments from management. Moreover, auditors perceive that their judgments are being second-guessed by PCAOB inspectors. Auditors believe that managers have difficulty accepting that material weaknesses can exist without a detected error, that management's reflexive reaction is to deny/avoid a material weakness finding, and managers routinely claim that management review controls (MRCs) would have caught the detected control deficiency. Auditors cope with management's defenses by consulting with their national office and leveraging support from strong audit committees. Data Availability: Requests for the data should be accompanied by a description of intended uses.
审计合伙人在财务报告内部控制审计中的判断与挑战
财务报告内部控制(ICFR)审计一直是上市公司会计监督委员会(PCAOB)和研究人员深入审查的主题,但审计师做出ICFR判断的过程在很大程度上是一个“黑箱”。为了理解ICFR的判断,我们对20位审计合伙人进行了半结构化访谈。我们访谈中的共同主题表明,ICFR评估任务固有的主观性导致了对ICFR审计结果的抵制和管理层的反驳。此外,审计人员认为,他们的判断正受到PCAOB检查员的质疑。审核员认为,管理者很难接受在没有发现错误的情况下存在重大缺陷,管理层的反射性反应是否认/避免发现重大缺陷,管理者通常声称管理评审控制(MRCs)会发现已发现的控制缺陷。审计人员通过咨询其国家办事处并利用强大的审计委员会的支持来应对管理层的抗辩。数据可用性:对数据的请求应附有预期用途的描述。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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