American Accounting Association - Current Issues in Auditing
AAA Digital Library

Current Issues in Auditing

Previous Article
The Value of Faculty Internships in Auditing
SYNOPSIS: Professions such as law, medicine, and engineering have long used faculty internships as a means for educators in these professions to remain current on developments and practices in their r...
Next Article
Audit Quality in the Post-SOX Audit Environment: What Your Auditing Students Must Know about the PCAOB Inspection Process
SUMMARY: At the American Accounting Association's (AAA) Auditing Section Midyear Meeting in January 2007, the Education Committee organized a panel to discuss the educational issues that have surfaced...

You are logged in to this journal.

Deficiencies in Auditing Related-Party Transactions: Insights from AAERs

Current Issues in Auditing 2 (2), A10 (2008);
doi: 10.2308/ciia.2008.2.2.A10

FULL TEXT OPTIONS   (FREE)
Download PDF (61 kB) View Cart
SUMMARY: After several high-profile frauds involving related-party transactions, regulators have raised questions as to whether current auditing standards remain appropriate. In this study, we examine 43 SEC enforcement actions against auditors related to the examination of related-party transactions. We conclude that the audit failures in these fraud cases were more the result of a lack of auditor professional skepticism and due professional care than any deficiency in current auditing standards. In other words, revised auditing standards would likely not have prevented these auditing failures, raising questions about the need for auditing standard revision for related-party transactions at this time. Despite this finding, we conclude with some suggestions to improve the auditing of related-party transactions, such as including the discussion of related-party transaction abuse during SAS No. 99 mandated fraud awareness “brainstorming” sessions. ©2008 American Accounting Association
History: Submitted 1 March 2008; accepted 14 April 2008; published 27 August 2008
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/CIAXXX/v2/i2/pA10/s1

KEYWORDS

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
1936-1270 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef American Accounting Association

REFERENCES (15)
View in Separate Window/Tab
  1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1983. Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—1983. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 45. New York, NY: AICPA.
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2001. Accounting and Auditing for Related-Party Transactions: A Toolkit for Accountants and Auditors. New York, NY: AICPA.
  3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
  4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 107. New York, NY: AICPA.
  5. Beasley, M. S., J. V. Carcello, and D. R. Hermanson . 1999. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987–1997: An Analysis of U.S. Public Companies. New York, NY: Committee of Sponsoring Organizations.
  6. Beasley, M. S., J. V. Carcello, and D. R. Hermanson. 2001. Top 10 audit deficiencies: SEC sanctions. Journal of Accountancy 191 (4): 63–67.
  7. Bonner, S., Z-V. Palmrose, and S. Young. 1998. Fraud type and auditor litigation: An analysis of SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases. The Accounting Review 73 (October): 503–532.
  8. Emshwiller, J. 2003. Business ties: Many companies report transactions with top officers. Wall Street Journal(December 29): A1.
  9. Gordon, E. A., E. Henry, and D. Palia. 2004. Related party transactions and corporate governance. Advances in Financial Economics 9: 1–28.
  10. Henry, E., E. Gordon, B. Reed, and T. Louwers . 2007. The role of related-party transactions in fraudulent financial reporting. Working paper, University of Miami.
  11. Kadous, K. 2000. The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review 75 (3): 327–341.
  12. Lev, B. 2003. Corporate earnings: Fact and fiction. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (2): 27–50.
  13. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2006. Prepared Statement By Chief Auditor Thomas Ray on 2007 Standards-Setting Priorities. Standing Advisory Group Meeting. October 5. Available at: http://pcaobus.org/standards/standing_advisory_group/meetings/2006/10-05/standards_setting.pdf.
  14. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2003. Report Pursuant to Section 704 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Washington, D.C.: SEC. Available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/sox704report.pdf.
  15. Shapiro, S. 1984. Wayward Capitalists: Targets of the Securities and Exchange Commission. New Haven, CT and London, U.K.: Yale University Press.
RSS Library Card Alerts