Search results

Prior research finds evidence that audit quality is positively associated with the joint purchase of tax nonaudit services (NAS) and concludes that jointly provided tax services result in audit-related knowledge spillovers that lead to improved audit quality. We extend this line of research. We examine the relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements and determine whether this relation differs when the auditor is a small or large accounting firm. We also examine whether the Securities Exchange Commission’s restrictions on certain tax consulting practices (SEC, 2006) altered this relation. Specifically, we measure whether the probability of financial statement restatements varies with (1) variation in accounting firm size (measured as PCAOB annually inspected firms versus PCAOB triennially inspected firms), and (2) the joint provision of audit and tax services. We find a negative relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements which is consistent with prior research. We also find that this relation is significantly more negative when the auditor is a small accounting firm. Finally, we find that the lower probability of a restatement associated with the joint provision of audit and tax services persists regardless of auditor size after the SEC-imposed restrictions on certain tax consulting services in 2006. Our study provides evidence that accounting firms, and particularly small accounting firms, benefit from knowledge spillovers when jointly providing audit and tax services and these benefits lead to improved audit quality. Prior research concludes that large auditors provide higher audit quality and that the provision of tax services improves audit quality. Our results provide evidence that audit quality improvements are greater for small auditors and their clients. This improvement narrows that audit quality gap between large and small auditors. We do not find evidence that the SEC’s restrictions on certain tax consulting services altered the relation between audit quality and tax services.

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence on the extent and the consequences of the provision of non-audit services (NAS) by statutory auditors to German family firms.

The study analyzes hand collected fee data of 368 listed and private family firms in Germany. It employs univariate tests, ordinary least squares and two-stage least squares regressions to investigate potential threats to perceived auditor independence and knowledge spillovers between jointly provided NAS and audit services.

Incumbent auditors are shown to be a significant source of various types of NAS to family firms. There is weak evidence on threats to perceived auditor independence and support for reciprocal knowledge spillovers between the services. While listed and private family firms do not differ in regard to the proportion of NAS fees, comparative findings suggest that key threats and benefits of jointly provided services are more prevalent among private than among listed family firms.

The study suffers from limited data availability and is restricted to the initial year of mandatory audit fee disclosure of private firms in Germany. Particularities of family firms and the German setting, as well as differential results for listed and private family firms, suggest fruitful avenues for future research.

The study addresses the current issues in audit regulation. Regulatory bodies should consider that key threats and benefits of auditor-provided NAS decrease with stronger exogenous restrictions. Attempts to restrict jointly provided services in the EU suggest family firms to reconsider their reliance on auditors as a trusted source of NAS.

This study is the first to provide evidence on the extent and consequences of auditor-provided NAS in family firms based on fee disclosure. It is also among the few studies that investigate private firms in a code law country and complements prior evidence from Germany that is restricted to listed firms. More generally, it contributes to limited evidence at the intersection of audit and family business research.

This study aims to examine the impact of different levels of required book-tax conformity (BTC) on audit clients' demand for auditor-provided tax services (APTS). In addition, the authors also investigate the effects of the European Union (EU) Regulation (2014).

This study utilizes a sample of listed companies from 10 EU countries between 2010 and 2019. The final sample consists of 16,049 firm-year observations from 2,515 unique firms, and the authors use both probit and ordinary least square (OLS) regression models in this study.

The main finding of this paper is that companies listed in countries with a higher level of BTC are less likely to purchase tax services from incumbent auditors and pay fewer auditor-provided tax service fees. Results from further analyses confirm that firms substantially reduced their purchase of APTS after the EU Regulation (2014) was implemented, but these reduced purchases were found to be more pronounced for firms located in countries with low BTC.

This study advances the understanding of the determinants of APTS and the consequences of BTC. Specifically, the authors report that variation in a country-specific feature (i.e. BTC) also affects firms' decision to purchase APTS. Moreover, this paper provides some preliminary evidence of the new regulation and contributes to the literature on APTS regulation. The findings of this study have important policy implications for regulators and are also relevant for various capital market participants.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the association between auditor-provided tax services (APTS) and long-term corporate tax rates.

The paper uses empirical data and multivariate regression models to explore the relationship between a firm’s use of APTS and their long-term effective tax rate.

An economically and statistically significant long-term negative relationship was found between firm levels of APTS and taxes paid. Further, a portion of this benefit is lost for some firms when returning to their auditor for tax services even after a short break.

This paper contributes to the debate regarding the value of APTS by providing evidence of the apparent long-term negative consequences to firms who reduce their reliance on APTS, perhaps even through the engagement of separate accounting firms for their audit and tax functions, although these consequences may be mitigated upon return with a significant increase in APTS. However, this is the first study, to our knowledge, to explore, in a long-term setting, the consequences of a firm’s return to their auditors for a non-audit service previously reduced or terminated. Additionally, further incremental contributions are made to other studies that look at APTS and tax avoidance by studying the long-term relationship which allows firms to consider the cumulative cost/benefit relationship between independence and knowledge spillover.

The purpose of this research is to determine whether the type of tax services provided by a public accounting firm to its audit client and the consequence severity of an audit failure impact jurors' assessment of audit quality and auditor liability.

The authors administer a court case to 168 jurors manipulating three levels of tax services provided to an audit client (none, tax preparation, and aggressive tax planning services); two levels of consequence severity of the alleged audit failure, observing the impact on jurors' assessment of audit quality, auditor responsibility for audit failure; and damages awarded the plaintiff.

Consistent with recent US regulations, jurors perceive the quality of the audit to be lower when auditors provide aggressive tax planning services, but not for tax preparation services. Damages are greater when auditors provide aggressive tax planning services across both levels of consequence severity.

The results indicate that the type of tax services provided may impact jurors' views of audit quality and damage assessments against auditors. The questionnaire uses previously validated measures, but the results may not be generalizable to jurors in all jurisdictions.

Though empirical evidence is mixed at best about the impact of auditors providing non-audit services on auditor independence in fact, auditor independence in appearance, and thus audit quality, such impacts may affect the way jurors perceive the situation.

The study directly tests the implications for auditor liability of new restrictions on tax services and more accurately measures the impact of consequence severity, using actual jurors.

This synthesis covers academic research on the use of valuation, tax, information technology (IT), and forensic specialists on audit engagements. The importance and role of specialists on audit engagements have recently increased, and specialist use has garnered significant attention from regulators and academics. Given the PCAOB’s (2017b) recent proposal to revise auditing standards regarding specialists’ involvement, it is important to review the specialist literature as a whole. By integrating research across these four domains, I identify commonalities and differences related to: (1) factors associated with the use of specialists on audit engagements (including the nature, timing, and extent of use); (2) factors impacting auditors’ interactions with specialists (including specialists contracted by the auditor or management); and (3) outcomes associated with the use of specialists. This integrated analysis of the specialist literatures shows variation in the use of specialists, and various factors affecting both if and how they are involved and whether auditors use specialists internal or external to the audit firm. Additionally, research has sometimes (but not always) linked specialist involvement to higher audit quality. The commonalities and areas of variation identified are informative to audit research and practice, particularly as regulators and audit firms look to improve the quality of audits using specialists. Throughout the synthesis, I also provide a number of directions for future research.

For more than 25 years auditing research has examined whether knowledge spillovers or synergies exist from the joint provision of audit and non‐audit services as well as whether the audit client benefits from knowledge spillovers. However, empirical evidence on knowledge spillover remains mixed and elusive. This article seeks to contribute to this debate, using a large sample covering both the pre‐ and the post‐Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) era. A post‐SOX focus can be potentially informative because SOX has fundamentally changed the mix of audit and non‐audit services that can be offered to audit clients.

A two‐stage least squares regression model is used to control for simultaneous bias due to the joint determination of audit and non‐audit fees. A panel dataset is also used.

A strong and significant negative relationship is found between audit fees and non‐audit fees. The results suggest that knowledge spillover flows from non‐audit to the audit side, as well as from the audit side to the non‐audit side. For the overall sample, a 1 percent increase in non‐audit fees is associated with a 0.59 percent decrease in audit fees. Similarly, a 1 percent increase in audit fees is associated with a 0.49 percent decrease in non‐audit fees.

Though a comprehensive set of determinants of audit and non‐audit fees is used, it is possible that the model may not include some other unknown determinants of fees paid to auditors.

The study contributes to the debate on whether regulators should ban all non‐audit services. It is found that when the same audit firm performs both audit and non‐audit services, there are synergies, i.e. insight learned from performing one function helps the other.

At the economy level, the findings suggest that cost savings, due to knowledge spillover, are partly passed on to the clients, particularly by Big 4 auditors.

The findings on the existence of knowledge spillover in the post‐SOX era are potentially informative to regulators, auditors, audit clients, and audit committee members.

The purchase of non-audit services from incumbent auditors has generated considerable attention. This study aims to examine the relationship between characteristics of non-audit services, namely, the recurrence and types of services, and accruals quality in Malaysia.

This study analyzed hand-collected audit and non-audit fees of 1,117 observations from Malaysian firms from 2009 to 2011. This study used descriptive analysis, univariate tests and multivariate regression to investigate the potential effect of non-audit services on accruals quality.

Non-audit services are associated with lower accruals quality. Recurring and non-recurring non-audit service fees are detrimental to the quality of accruals, as are all types of recurring non-audit services. Only non-recurring audit-related services decrease accruals quality. The results demonstrate that provisions of non-audit services create economic bonding, and thus a threat to auditor independence. Results remain robust with the inclusion of corporate governance and institutional variables.

The sample period might represent a limitation as it only covers three years of data. This limitation is mainly because of the nature of data collection of the non-audit services fees.

The findings could suggest a refinement on the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) by-laws focusing on auditor independence, and it could assist other regulative bodies such as the Securities Commission, the stock exchange (Bursa Malaysia) in ensuring better governance on the provision of non-audit services.

This study is the first that provides evidence on the relationship between non-audit services, types, and recurring and non-recurring non-audit services and accruals quality in Malaysia.

Typical accounting firms offer three types of accounting services to their clients: accounting and auditing (AA), tax (TAX) and management advisory services (MAS). Each accounting service has a different revenue persistence. Moreover, revenue persistence is affected by exogenous events such as new regulations (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley Act [SOX] in 2002) and market conditions (e.g. the financial crisis of 2008). This paper aims to examine the revenue persistence of accounting services and how it is affected by SOX and the financial crisis.

Using 742 firm-year observations from 100 of the largest US accounting firms from 1999 to 2015, this paper examines whether revenue from AA, TAX and MAS has different degrees of persistence and how SOX and the financial crisis in 2008 change the revenue persistence of each accounting service.

This paper finds that MAS generates more persistent revenue than AA and TAX. SOX enhances the revenue persistence of MAS. The financial crisis makes revenue from AA less persistent than during the pre-financial crisis period.

This paper contributes to the understanding of the revenue persistence of accounting services and the impact of exogenous events such as SOX and the financial crisis of 2008.

This study seeks to examine whether there are differences between companies that purchase either recurring or non‐recurring audit services and those that do not, and whether auditors discount their audit fees for either type of non‐audit service.

The study examines associations between audit and non‐audit fees in New Zealand, for the period 1995 to 2001. The advantage of this setting is that data on non‐audit services was disclosed in this period and that the period pre‐dates more recent controversies over whether non‐audit services are permissible.

Companies that purchase any type of non‐audit services from their auditors are larger and more complex than companies that purchase auditing only. Companies that obtain tax services from their auditors usually do so on a recurring basis. In contrast, consulting services do not tend to occur every year. Auditors do not discount their fees for either recurring or non‐recurring non‐audit services.

While useful data is available about the type of non‐audit services provided, there are limitations to the extent to which this information provides a precise measure of whether the services were recurring or not.

The research contributes to understanding the issues regarding auditors providing non‐audit services by providing evidence that neither recurring nor non‐recurring services are associated with a reduction in audit fees. This finding is relevant when considering whether regulation of non‐audit services should permit certain types of services, or should prohibit all non‐audit services.