The Impact of Tax Services on Auditors' Fraud-Risk Assessment

Advances in Accounting

Volumn 22, Issue , 2006, Pages 149-165

  Favere Marchesi, Michael ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744546792     PISSN: 08826110     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0882-6110(06)22007-8     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1999). Practice Alert No.94-4: Acceptance and Continuance of Audit Clients. New York, NY: AICPA (SEC Practice Section Detection and Prevention of Fraud Task Force).
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Chairs corner: December 2002 (2002), AICPA, New York, NY
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2003). Rule 101-103: Performance of Nonattest Services. AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Antle, R., Gordon, E. A., Narayanamoorthy, G., & Zhou, L. (2002). The Joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals. Working paper, Yale University.
5. Byrnes N., and Symonds W.C. Is the avalanche headed for pricewaterhouse?. Business Week 14 October (2002) 45-46
6. COSO. Fraudulent financial reporting: 1987-1997 - An analysis of U.S. public companies (1998), Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York, NY
7. DeFond M.L., Raghunandan K., and Subramanyam K.R. Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 40 4 (2002) 1247-1274
8. Emby C., and Davidson R.A. The effects of engagement factors on auditor independence: Canadian evidence. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation 7 2 (1998) 163-179
9. Ernst & Young. (2003). Comments on File No. S7-49-02 proposed rule: Strengthening the commission's requirements regarding auditor independence. New York.
10. Firth M. Auditor-provided consultancy services and their associations with audit fees and audit opinions. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 29 5 & 6 (2002) 661-693
11. Frankel R.M., Johnson M.F., and Nelson K.K. The relation between auditors' fees for nonaudit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review 77 Supplement (2002) 71-105
12. Goldman A., and Barlev B. The auditor-firm conflict of interests: Its implications for independence. The Accounting Review 49 4 (1974) 707-718
13. Kinney Jr. W.R., Palmrose Z.-V., and Scholtz S. Auditor independence, non-audit services, and restatements: Was the U.S. government right?. Journal of Accounting Research 42 3 (2004) 561-588
14. Lundelius Jr. C.R. Financial reporting fraud: A practical guide to detection and internal control (2003), AICPA, New York, NY
15. Mautz R.K., and Sharaf H.A. The philosophy of auditing (1961), American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL
16. Mid-size CA Firms Forum of BC. (2002). Comments on exposure draft of the Canadian institute of chartered accountants (CICA): Proposed independence standards. Ontario, TO: CICA.
17. Primoff W.M. Year-end accounting and auditing advantage. The CPA Journal Online. January (1992), The New York State Society of CPA, New York, NY
18. Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS). (2000). "Trickle-down effect" Of New SEC Rules could soak small firms too. The Practicing CPA 24 (6). The AICPA Alliance for CPA Firms. New York, NY: AICPA.
19. Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS). PCPS/TSCPA National MAP Survey for 2003. The AICPA alliance for CPA firms (2003), AICPA, New York, NY
20. Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS). PCPS Update January. The AICPA alliance for CPA firms (2004), AICPA, New York, NY
21. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Ethics and independence rules concerning independence, tax services, and contingent fees. PCAOB File No. 2005-02 (2005), PCAOB, Washington, DC
22. Public Oversight Board (POB). In the public interest: A special report by the public oversight board of the SEC practice section (1993), POB, Stamford, CT
23. Public Oversight Board (POB). The panel on audit effectiveness report and recommendations (2000), POB, Stamford, CT
24. Reynolds J.K., Deis D.R., and Francis J.R. Professional service fees and auditor objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23 1 (2004) 29-52
25. Sharma D.S., and Sidhu J. Professionalism vs. commercialism: The association between non-audit services (NAS) and audit independence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 28 5 & 6 (2001) 595-629
26. Small Business Administration (2003). Comments on File No. S7-49-02 proposed rule: Strengthening the commission's requirements regarding auditor independence. Washington, DC.
27. Temple R.M. Auditors as business advisors: Logical extension of SAS 55. The CPA Journal Online. January (1992), The New York State Society of CPA, New York, NY
28. Tschopp D.J., Wells S.C., and Barney D.K. Financial debacles and state regulation: Boards of public accountancy and the 'cascade effect' of Sarbanes-Oxley. The CPA Journal Online. July (2004), The New York State Society of CPA, New York, NY
29. U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2003). Comments on File No. S7-49-02 proposed rule: Strengthening the commission's requirements regarding auditor independence. Washington, D.C.
30. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2001). Final Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements. 17 CFR Parts 210 and 240 [Release Nos. 33-7919; 34-43602; 35-27279; IC-24744; IA-1911; FR-56; File No. S7-13-00]. Washington, DC: Securities and Exchange Commission.
31. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2003). Final Rule: Strengthening the Commission's Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence. 17 CFR PARTS 210, 240, 249 and 274 [Release Nos. 33-8183; 34-47265; 35-27642; IC-25915; IA-2103, FR-68, File No. S7-49-02]. Washington, DC: Securities and Exchange Commission.
32. U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (2003). The implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley act and restoring investor confidence. Washington, DC: United States Senate.