Audit planning details change from client to client, no matter the complications presented. Each evolution of society’s business world prompts rule makers to update authoritative accounting standards in order to allow for changes, auditors are then responsible to certify their client’s financial reports adhere within compliance according to current authoritative standards. Many cite the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 as being legislation that has had the most profound impact on the auditing profession; incidentally, an auditor’s job is to certify financial statements are a fair representation of a company’s financial position, at a given point in time, using current acceptable standards. Society deems auditors as gatekeepers and expects the auditing profession to find and report fraud, prevent fraud, and make certain financial statements are true, fair representation of a company’s financial position. Even though the rules, regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles can sometimes be difficult to find and translate, the public expects auditors to prevent events such as those that sparked SOX. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) developed the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) that became the authoritative source July 2009 (FASB, 2009). Perhaps the hardest impact auditors experience with FASB ASC is attempting to ascertain clients’ FASB ASC references in disclosures on financial statements; “management cannot delegate this function to the
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 was implemented to deter fraudulent activities amongst companies by monitoring and auditing financial activities as well as set up internal controls to aid in the safeguard of company funds and investor’s interest. SOX also regulates the non-audit tax services (NATS) that can be performed by an auditing firm. SOX was passed by Congress in 2002 in an attempt to address the unethical behaviors of corporate firms such as Enron, WorldCom, Sunbeam, and others (Raabe, Whittenburg, Sanders, & Sawyers, 2015). Raabe et al. (2015) continues explaining that SOX was created in response to the inadequacies
The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act was passed by Congress in 2002 to address issues in auditing, corporate governance and capital markets that Congress believed existed. These deficiencies let to several cases of accounting irregularities and securities fraud. According to the Student Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act many changes were made to securities law. A new federal agency was created, the entire accounting industry was restructured, Wall Street practices were reformed, corporate governance procedures were changed and stiffer penalties were given for insider trading and obstruction of justice (Prentice & Bredeson, 2010). Tenet Healthcare Corporation, one of the largest publicly traded healthcare companies in the US at the time, was accused
White collar crime has been around for ages. Today more and more news stories can be found where the elite, the top executives of fortune 500 companies, are being prosecuted for participating in illegal activities. It was hoped that the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2001 after the Enron debacle would reduce the amount of illegal acts being committed in corporate America. The Sarbanes Oxley act makes executives personally responsible for their activities requiring top management to sign off on financial statements stating they are true and accurate and these executives can face jail time for committing fraudulent acts. Unfortunately, immorality in business is still running rampant. One illegal practice we see happening in
Based on the video "Bigger Than Enron," discuss at least five features of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) that are the result of events related to corporate fraud.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 as a response to a wave of corporate accounting scandals that damaged public trust in the controls of the US financial system. SOX therefore was created in order to create the framework for better control over accounting information and better accountability among members of senior management. Damianides (2006) notes that much of the burden of providing these tighter controls has fallen to IT departments. The Act not only sets out prescriptions for tighter internal controls, but effectively mandates that senior IT managers will need to communicate those controls to their CFO and CEO, as well as to external auditors.
However, SOX was not the end of the story. 2008 ushered in, what is now
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) requires the financial reporting to be accurate within a business. This act does not currently affect the public health systems but the current system is beginning a flux towards applying this to non-profits. In an attempt to plan for the future it would be in the hospitals best interest to become SOX compliant. This will allow the hospital to be compliant when these changes finally do affect non-profit and public healthcare institutions. Sox is regulated and audited by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). This organization was created specifically for SOX compliance and currently has no other mission.
The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 was legislated by Congress to restore reliability of financial statements with the objectives to raise standards of corporate accountability, to not only improve detection, but to also prevent fraud and abuse (Terando & Kurtenbach, 2009). Additionally, SOX was the response to general failure of business ethics such as the propagation of abusive tax shelters and greater aggressive tax avoidance strategies (Raabe, Whittenburg, Sanders, & Sawyers, 2015).
When revisiting some history where scandals have taken place such as Enron or WorldCom, it became necessary for stronger controls to be put in place and have all people involved held accountable for their actions. It is for this reason that Sarbanes-Oxley Act is in place. It has not stopped fraud from occurring; however, it does create a deterrent. In reading about the Societe Generale fiasco poor IT security is the focal point in this fraud. Stronger security controls will be the only way fraud of this magnitude will not take place again.
Drawbaugh and Aubin (2012) took the opportunity with the ten year anniversary of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to analyze whether the act has been effective. Passed in 2002 amid a wave of accounting scandals, Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) was intended to strengthen the accounting, auditing and reporting of public companies and boost investor confidence in the US financial system.
For this assignment I am going to try to describe the cost and benefits of implementing the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) for a company. I will then move on to describe what it is, how to go about it, and what a company may need to properly implement it.
For this assignment I am going to try to describe the cost and benefits of implementing the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) for a company. I will then move on to describe what it is, how to go about it, and what a company may need to properly implement it.
After the quick demise of Enron, governing and regulating businesses had to modify so that such an event like this would never happen again. Once Enron was exposed, a new federal law came into place known as the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) . This law aims to public accounting firms that participate in audits for other corporations to ensure corporations are following accurate accounting practices and reliability of appropriate disclosures. SOX also strengthens corporate governance rules, requirements needed to report to shareholders, strengthening whistleblowers, increasing penalties for any dishonesty and holding executives accountable.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence. In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting. Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a