{"title":"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*","authors":"Jean Bédard, 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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"title\":\"Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Auditor-Provided Tax Services*\",\"authors\":\"Jean Bédard, 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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Auditor-Provided Tax Services*
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.
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.