Search results

Multiple stakeholders in the financial reporting process have articulated concerns over the rules-based orientation that U.S. accounting standards have adopted. Many argue that a more principles-based approach to standards setting, typified by international accounting standards, would improve the quality of financial reporting and strengthen the auditor's position when dealing with client pressure, thereby enabling a focus on transparency and fairness of financial reports. In early 2009, the U.S. appeared poised to transition U.S. accounting standards to international accounting standards. The transition decision was made after the recommendations of the SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting (i.e., SEC Pozen Committee) publicly expressed strong support in its final report (SEC, 2008a). The SEC in turn issued its “Roadmap for the Potential Use of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards by U.S. Issuers on November 14, 2008” (SEC, 2008b) outlining the transition procedures. However, with Shapiro taking over as chairperson of the SEC, this move now appears less likely pending a stronger review of how principles-based international standards may impact the strength of financial regulatory oversight – a potential delay met with disdain by the pro principles-based European regulatory community (Doran, 2009). While transition to international standards continues to progress, little research examining whether principles-based standards affect auditor decision-making has been conducted. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of principles- vs. rules-based standards on auditors' willingness to allow preparers leeway in reporting practices and to consider how auditors' decision behavior is influenced by potential client pressure and/or opposing pressure from the SEC. Based on a sample of 114 experienced auditors, the results show that auditors are more willing to allow clients to manage earnings under rules-based standards; and, these results are persistent even under external pressure. Results also indicate that more experienced auditors are less willing to allow clients who exert high pressure to report earnings aggressively, while SEC pressure has more affect on less experienced auditors. These results provide important insights to the FASB, SEC, and IASB as they weigh arguments underlying the principles- vs. rules-based debate.

The change of production methods, the industrial revolutions, technological developments, and digital transformation have affected almost all functions in the enterprises. Accounting and auditing areas are also quite affected by this transformation. Another important result of technology and digitalization is the rapid increase in errors, frauds, and irregularities. Enterprises are looking for new solutions and investigations against irregularities and frauds. Audits for errors, frauds, or irregularities are among the interests of forensic accounting. Many methods are used to identify errors and frauds in the forensic accounting. However, it is inevitable that digital technologies should be utilized in forensic accounting applications as a result of the rapid spread of automation and computer programs in enterprises within the framework of digitalized business activities. Hence, enterprises will be able to get more effective results through computer programs and artificial intelligence in terms of fraud audit in forensic accounting. Expert system applications use artificial intelligence to enable computer programs to behave just like people. One of the most widely used, most easily applicable, and most understandable types of expert system is rule-based expert system. The aim of this study is to determine the accounting fraud that may occur in enterprises within the framework of forensic accounting through rule-based expert systems. For this purpose, various applications have been implemented in a large-scale production enterprise through the use of rule-based expert systems for the determination of accounting fraud. Benford’s Law, risk levels, and various other criteria were used in the creation of expert systems. According to the results obtained from the study, it has been seen that by means of rule-based expert system applications, enterprises can better detect existing frauds and prevent further irregularities in the future. The study is important and it is expected that the study will contribute to the literature because it is shown in the study that the rule-based expert systems, applied in many fields under the title of social sciences, can also be applied in the field of forensic accounting and auditing.

According to the SEC, the proposed roadmap for adopting principles-based International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is still a priority. The adoption of IFRS will ultimately demand greater emphasis on practitioner judgment (Mintz, 2010). This chapter focuses on the need for building the judgment skills of the practitioner. Our methodology follows a three-step process. We start with accounting standards, reviewing similarities and differences between “rules-based” and “principles-based” standards and conclude that, while applying any standard requires judgment, applying principles-based standards requires more judgment. We then focus on preparer incentives that can influence this requisite judgment. We use the “fraud triangle” to analyze the influence of incentives on judgment under each standards setting approach. Our third and most important step involves equipping practitioners to make judgments in the presence of incentives. We present and discuss a model that considers economic, social (legal), and ethical dimensions for making principled judgments in the presence of incentives and advocate-improved education for accountants in implementing that model.

This chapter explores the link between virtue and representational faithfulness in making judgments in a principles-based environment. The motivation for the chapter is the impending adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the United States and its principles-based approach to accounting. Even in a rules-based system, there are principles that provide a foundation for making decisions about the selection and implementation of accounting standards, financial statement presentation, estimates, and the sufficiency of evidence. A model is presented that reflects these judgments informed by virtue considerations that support substance over form decisions and a true and fair view. Implications for accounting education are discussed including the readiness of faculty to incorporate IFRS into the curriculum.

This chapter investigates whether jurors, in their attribution of auditor responsibility, may be inappropriately influenced by the client use of a principles-based accounting standard, even if this standard is properly applied. Following prior research on questionable auditor conduct and its subsequent evaluation by juries, which is often subject to hindsight and outcome bias, this chapter examines whether an auditor's legal liability increases when its client uses principles-based accounting standards, by conducting a controlled experiment with 124 qualified jurors serving a county circuit court. Each juror is properly instructed and provided one of four different cases, obtained by manipulating two levels of an accounting standard, one principles-based and one rules-based, and by manipulating two subsequent client-loss outcomes, one moderately negative and one severely negative. This study finds jurors evaluate auditors more negatively if auditors have relied on a principles-based accounting standard. This attribution is influenced by hindsight bias and the perceived risk-taking responsibility of the investor, but independent of the client-loss outcome severity. These results contribute to the discussion of adopting or converting to the principles-based International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by the United States.

This study documents that an outcome-favorable bias is greater when the quantity of information describing a balanced tax-decision context is substantially increased. Second, the study demonstrates that an outcome-favorable bias can be offset by the use of principles-based ethical standards. Specifically, we examine the effect of AICPA Code of Conduct Section 54 for integrity and Rule 102-6 for advocacy. Students volunteered to participate in this study examining the manner in which accounting novices initially process principles-based standards. Prior studies using student subjects in an audit setting have found that principles-based standards were effective only when students had high levels of moral reasoning (Herron & Gilbertson, 2004), and rules-based technical standards had no impact on student subjects when making financial adjustments (Pflugrath, Martinov-Bennie, & Chen, 2007). If professional standards increasingly rely on principles-based standards, then understanding the impact of such standards on future entrants into the profession would provide guidance in the creation and implementation of future standards, as well as assist educators in the development of accounting curricula. We extend the pattern of past research to a tax setting and show that tax-saving recommendations are a function of the presence of a professional standard and the level of contextual detail.

Purpose – The paper presents a content analysis of the 2009 Exposure Draft of Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants in China. It aims to investigate how equivalently the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) adopts the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Code with certain adjustments due to specific national circumstances. The investigation is intended to highlight the principles-based conceptual framework approach to settlement of ethical standards and regulation for professional conduct.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Regarding the codes of ethics for professional accountants as a genre of discourse text, this paper applies a content analysis method to the investigation of how the newly revised Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants in China adopts the IFAC Code of the same type. Both semantic content and presentation format are considered in the content analysis.

Findings – This study puts forward the argument that even though CICPA claims to have equivalently adopted the principles-based conceptual framework of the IFAC ethical codification, the rigid legalistic presentation format might, however, deviate from the newly revised codification of CICPA from ethical principles to regulatory rules. Our findings prove a practical and nation-specific form of combining direct import and legal enhancement at a time when the Chinese accounting profession is on its way to converging with the IFAC Code of Ethics.

Research limitations/Implications – One limitation of the current study is the lack of information about the motivation of CICPA in adopting the principles-based conceptual framework approach to ethical codification, besides the pragmatic needs of global economic and business environments. Also, the current study focuses its comparison on IFAC and CICPA, without limited consideration of differences in cultural traits.

Practical implications – Content analysis results and conclusions of the study might render pragmatic the implications for future adoptions of the IFAC Code by various national or regional professional bodies.

Originality/Value – This paper proposes a content analysis, in terms of semantic units and legislative formats in ethical codification documents, to identify the principles-based conceptual framework approach in the IFAC and CICPA codes of ethics.

We investigate the social and legal blame that investors assign to auditors following unfavorable outcomes using the precision of accounting guidance described as principles-based (i.e., less-precise) or rules-based (i.e., more precise), and why investors assign blame at differing levels. We also examine how the precision of accounting guidance is related to perceptions of auditors’ ethical characteristics. We posit that blame assigned to auditors differs based on auditors’ perceived decision-making control. Results indicate a significant association between the precision of accounting guidance and social blame, and a positive association between social blame and legal blame under standards described as less-precise. Investors are also more likely to make negative evaluations of the auditor’s ethical characteristics under less-precise accounting following an unfavorable outcome, which helps explain the association between social and legal blame. Our findings suggest that auditors could face additional blame as a result of a trend toward less-precise accounting guidance, with investors being more likely to question the auditors’ ethical characteristics following unfavorable outcomes.

There has been much discussion regarding the necessity of moving away from precise (rules-based) standards toward less precise (principles-based) standards. This study examines the impact of the proposed shift by using a controlled experiment to evaluate the influence of rule precision and information ambiguity on reporting decisions in the presence of monetary incentives to report aggressively. Using motivated reasoning theory as a framework, we predict that the malleability inherent in both rule precision and information ambiguity amplify biased reasoning in a manner that is consistent with individuals’ pecuniary incentives. In contrast, consistent with research exploring ambiguity aversion we predict that high levels of ambiguity will actually attenuate aggressive reporting. Our results support these predictions. Specifically, we find an interactive effect between rule precision and information ambiguity on self-interested reporting decisions at moderate levels of ambiguity. However, consistent with ambiguity aversion, we find decreased self-interested reporting decisions at high levels of ambiguity relative to moderate ambiguity. This study should be of interest to preparers, auditors, and regulators who are interested in identifying situations which amplify and diminish aggressive reporting.