請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20008
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林嬋娟 | |
dc.contributor.author | Wei-Gang Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃偉綱 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T02:38:43Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-15 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-07-15 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 金融監督管理委員會.(2018).106年度檢查會計師事務所檢查報告.附件3
陳銘賢. (2008). 從美國 PCAOB 及我國會計師法修正談會計師之監理改革. 金融監督管理委員會證券期貨局 Accountants, C. I. o. C. (1993). Guide for developing quality control systems in public accounting: Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. AICPA. (1983) Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit. Statement in auditing standards No.47. New York, NY:AICPA. AICPA. (1997) Consideration of fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on auditing standards NO.82 New York, NY: AICPA. Awadallah, A. A., & El-Said, H. M. (2016). Implications of financial and non-financial measures on the refinement of the assessments of audit risk: An empirical investigation. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 12(7), 365-378. Bedard, J. C., Deis, D. R., Curtis, M. B., & Jenkins, J. G. (2008). Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(1), 187-218. Bell, T. B., Bedard, J. C., Johnstone, K. M., & Smith, E. F. (2002). KRiskSM: A computerized decision aid for client acceptance and continuance risk assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(2), 97-113. Eilifsen, A., Knechel, W. R., & Wallage, P. (2001). Application of the business risk audit model: A field study. Accounting Horizons, 15(3), 193-207. Gendron, Y. (2001). The difficult client‐acceptance decision in Canadian audit firms: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(2), 283-310. Gendron, Y. (2002). On the role of the organization in auditors’ client-acceptance decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 659-684. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00017-X. Hogan, C. E., and R. D. Martin. 2009. Risk shifts in the market for audits: An examination of changes in risk for ‘‘second tier’’ audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 26 (2): 57–68. Hsieh, Y.-T., & Lin, C.-J. (2016). Audit firms' client acceptance decisions: Does partner-level industry expertise matter? AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 35(2), 97-120. Johnstone, K. M. (2000). Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, audit risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 1-25. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2001). Engagement planning, bid pricing, and client response in the market for initial attest engagements. The Accounting Review, 76(2), 199-220. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2003). Risk management in client acceptance decisions. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1003-1025. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2004). Audit firm portfolio management decisions. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(4), 659-690. Jones, F. L., & Raghunandan, K. (1998). Client risk and recent changes in the market for audit services. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17(2), 169-181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(97)10002-3. Kaplan, S. E., & Williams, D. D. (2012). The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(5), 322-341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.05.002. Kuo, L.-C. (2013). The effect of audit firms’ organizational form change in China: An examination of client acceptance decisions. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: National Taiwan University, 1-47. Landsman, W. R., K. K. Nelson, and B. R. Rountree. 2009. Auditors switches in the pre- and post-Enron eras: Risk or realignment? The Accounting Review 84 (2): 531–558. Libby, R., & Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), 425-450. MacDonald, E. (1997). More accounting firms are dumping risky clients. Wall Street Journal, 2. Miller, G. S., and D. J. Skinner. 1998. Determinants of the valuation allowance for deferred tax assets under SFAS No. 109. The Accounting Review 73 (2): 213–233. Myers, L. A., Schmidt, J., & Wilkins, M. (2014). An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 43(1), 155-172. Parlier, J. (2017). The client acceptance and retention process: How policies and procedures are developed and implemented within audit firms. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: Pamplin College of BusinessVirginia Tech PCAOB. (2003a). Relationship of Auditing Standards to Quality Control Standards. In General Concepts. (AS 1110). Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/AS1110.aspx. PCAOB. (2003b). System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm’s Accounting and Auditing Practice. In Quality Control Standards. (QC Section 20). Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Standards/QC/Pages/QC20.aspx. PCAOB. (2014). Certain terms used in auditing and related professional practice standards. In rules of the board, Section 3: Auditing and related professional practice standards. (Rule 3101). Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Rules/Pages/Section_3.aspx. PCAOB. (2017a). PCAOB Announces $1 Million Settlement with Indonesian Member of Ernst & Young Network for Audit Failure, Noncooperation, and Violations of Quality Control Standards. Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/EY-Indonesia-enforcement-2-9-16.aspx. PCAOB. (2017b). Report on 2016 Inspection of Ernst & Young(Headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan). PCAOB RELEASE NO. 104-2017-148.Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Inspections/Reports/Documents/104-2017-148-Ernst-Young-Taiwan.pdf. PCAOB. (2017c). Report on 2016 Inspection of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Taiwan(Headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan). PCAOB RELEASE NO. 104-2017-135.Retrieved from https://pcaobus.org/Inspections/Reports/Documents/104-2017-135-PwC-Taiwan.pdf. Schroeder, J. H., and C. E. Hogan. 2013. The impact of PCAOB AS5 and the economic recession on client portfolio characteristics of the Big 4 audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 32 (4): 95–127. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20008 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究之目的係為了瞭解 台灣之會計師 事務所依據審計準則公報及法規 所訂 定之客戶承接與續任政策及 實務 為何 ,以及會計師 於承接與續任審計案件客戶時 如何 執行 該政策 。本研究主要以訪談之方式搜集資料,藉由後續分析中回 覆驗證過去文獻之發現,並探討會計師實際執行 時所面臨之問題 。
研究結果發現 ,不同特質 之會計師在執行事務所客戶承接與續任政策有不 同,且不規模事務所間也有差異。資歷較淺之會計師可能因為對市場的敏感度較不高,以及對所內複雜之程序尚未熟悉因此 在執行過程中可能受到較多限 制。大型事務所與中的會計師 於實際執行政策時注重之風險也不同, 本 篇個案 大型事所之會計師較注重審風險及客戶誠信,而 個案 中型事務所偏向重 視客戶之繼續經營風險。 面對高風險之客戶, 大型事務所先區分風險再運用不同 策略 使風險降低至可容忍範圍, 中型事務所偏向拒絕承接高風險之客戶而不採用積極策略降低客戶風險。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study aims to better understand the policies and procedures on client acceptance and retention decisions of Taiwanese CPA firms which are established according to auditing standards and related regulations. With the data collected from multiple interviews, this study corroborates findings in previous literature on how CPAs carry out such policies in practice.
CPAs make decisions on client acceptance and retention differently, depending on their characteristics and the size of their firms. Those with lesser experience tend to restrict from the firm’s policies more, due to a relatively weaker sensitivity to market risks and unfamiliarity to such procedures. When assessing client risks, those in the Big 4 Firms regard audit risk and client integrity as the most significant factors, while those in medium-sized firms focus on going concern risks. When it comes to high-risk clients, the former tend to first distinguish reasons that give rise to the high risks, and then attempt to lower them with appropriate strategies whereas the latter tend to simply reject high-risk clients with little proactive measures deployed. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T02:38:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05722014-1.pdf: 2239884 bytes, checksum: 03fd119d420441f1c9dc900b946683c7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 I
ABSTRACT II 圖與表目錄 IV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 4 第三節 研究架構 4 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 客戶承接與續任政策之設計 6 第二節 客戶承接與續任政策之執行 7 第三節 客戶承接與續任政策執行之結果 10 第四節 事務所規模之影響 11 第五節 對客戶之後續風險追蹤 12 第三章 研究方法 13 第四章 個案事務所客戶承接與續任政策之實務 17 第一節 A大型事務所客戶承接與續任政策及程序 17 第二節 B中型事務所客戶承接與續任政策及實際程序 22 第五章 訪談結果 26 第一節 A大型事務所訪談結果 26 第二節 B中型事務所訪談結果與A大型事務所之比較 34 第六章 研究限制與結論 37 第一節 研究限制與建議 37 第二節 結論 38 參考文獻 40 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 會計師事務所客戶承接與續任實務探討-以台灣事務所為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Investigating Taiwanese Accounting Firms’ Practice on Client Acceptance and Retention | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 楊炎杰,郭俐君 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 品質管制,客戶承接與續任,風險管理,大型事務所,中型事務所, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | quality control,client acceptance and retention,Big N firms,medium-sized firms, | en |
dc.relation.page | 43 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201801552 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-07-16 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.19 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。