The Congressional Ban on Nonaudit Services: “Reasoned and Reasonable” or “Quack Corporate Governance”

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting Accounting and the Public Interest Pub Date : 2009-12-01 DOI:10.2308/API.2009.9.1.73
D. Caplan, Diane J. Janvrin, J. Kurtenbach
{"title":"The Congressional Ban on Nonaudit Services: “Reasoned and Reasonable” or “Quack Corporate Governance”","authors":"D. Caplan, Diane J. Janvrin, J. Kurtenbach","doi":"10.2308/API.2009.9.1.73","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT: Accounting professionals, researchers, business leaders, and government officials have called for reform of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002. Critics question both the substance of the law and the legislative process by which it was enacted. Criticism of the process challenges whether the congressional hearings and other legislative steps that led to enactment of the bill were balanced and thorough, or whether political drivers made quick passage an imperative for lawmakers regardless of the merits of the legislation. This paper examines the congressional hearings in the context of a single provision of the Act: the ban that prohibits accounting firms from providing internal audit services to their external audit clients. We identify the arguments for and against the ban, and we examine the role these arguments played in the testimony that witnesses provided to the House and Senate committees most responsible for the legislation. We find that witnesses offered strong arguments both for and against...","PeriodicalId":38883,"journal":{"name":"Accounting and the Public Interest","volume":"117 1","pages":"73-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting and the Public Interest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/API.2009.9.1.73","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Accounting professionals, researchers, business leaders, and government officials have called for reform of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002. Critics question both the substance of the law and the legislative process by which it was enacted. Criticism of the process challenges whether the congressional hearings and other legislative steps that led to enactment of the bill were balanced and thorough, or whether political drivers made quick passage an imperative for lawmakers regardless of the merits of the legislation. This paper examines the congressional hearings in the context of a single provision of the Act: the ban that prohibits accounting firms from providing internal audit services to their external audit clients. We identify the arguments for and against the ban, and we examine the role these arguments played in the testimony that witnesses provided to the House and Senate committees most responsible for the legislation. We find that witnesses offered strong arguments both for and against...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国会对非审计服务的禁令:“理性合理”或“庸医公司治理”
摘要:会计专业人士、研究人员、商界领袖和政府官员呼吁对2002年的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》进行改革。批评人士对该法案的实质内容和立法程序都提出了质疑。对这一程序的批评质疑导致法案通过的国会听证会和其他立法步骤是否平衡和彻底,或者政治驱动是否使立法者不顾立法的优点迅速通过法案。本文在该法案的单一条款的背景下考察了国会听证会:禁止会计师事务所向其外部审计客户提供内部审计服务。我们找出支持和反对该禁令的理由,并研究这些理由在证人向众议院和参议院委员会提供的证词中所起的作用,这些委员会对该立法负有最大责任。我们发现证人提供了支持和反对……的有力论据。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting and the Public Interest
Accounting and the Public Interest Business, Management and Accounting-Accounting
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Self-Concept Priming and Message Framing As Strategies for Improving Individuals’ Compliance: A Case Study of Bicultural Taxpayers’ Tip Reporting Editorial Policy The Impact of the Global Pandemic on Ethics, Professionalism, and Judgment in Accounting and Financial Reporting Data Breach Severity and Debt Market Responses Covers and Front Matter
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1