【摘要】： 20世紀60年代中期以來，西方民間審計人員的訴訟案件不斷涌現(xiàn)，形成“訴訟爆炸”的局面。隨著大量公司破產(chǎn)倒閉事件的發(fā)生，會計師事務(wù)所及其注冊會計師們被紛紛的告上法庭，審計報告的使用者往往將大部分責(zé)任歸結(jié)于注冊會計師專業(yè)勝任能力不夠，執(zhí)業(yè)缺乏獨立性，希望從注冊會計師方面得到賠償，但他們卻從來沒有真正探究責(zé)任歸屬問題以及產(chǎn)生這些問題的真正原因。誠然，由于注冊會計師的舞弊或失職，確實可能導(dǎo)致審計報告的失實，從而誤導(dǎo)廣大公眾。但是，在這些訴訟事件中也存在著一些注冊會計師已經(jīng)按照現(xiàn)存準(zhǔn)則進行了合理審計但仍受到牽連的案例。通過研究我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，造成這一現(xiàn)象的原因就在于“審計期望差距”的存在。正是由于公眾沒有對其進行深入地研究，對這一概念尚存在模糊的認識和不清晰的界定才造成了這一奇怪的現(xiàn)象。因此，為了遏制注冊會計師受到不公平的指控，探明造成這些訴訟案件的真正原因，同時也為了弄清社會公眾的“期望”，使注冊會計師的工作不斷地向公眾要求靠近，深入研究“審計期望差距”就成為一個非常緊迫和重要的問題。 “審計期望差距”即指：社會對審計的期望和審計師實際業(yè)績的公眾看法之間的差距。研究審計期望差距，要涉及到三個要素：即審計師、社會公眾以及現(xiàn)實中規(guī)范審計師工作的審計準(zhǔn)則。弄清這三方面之間存在的差距，，以及形成這些差距的原因，是本文討論的重點。在抓住了這些問題之后，因地制宜找出解決之道，從而減少審計期望差距造成的危害是本文的目的所在。在文章中，同時還探討了審計期望差距的未來動態(tài)發(fā)展趨勢及其只能減少而不能最終消除的本質(zhì)所在。 “審計期望差距”是一個在更廣的范圍中討論了與審計職能和審計責(zé)任相關(guān)的一個重要問題。自20世紀70年代AICPA提出審計期望差距以來，審計期望差距被認為是當(dāng)前審計執(zhí)業(yè)界和監(jiān)管機構(gòu)面臨的最棘手的問題之一(Humphrey et al.1992)。通過對它的研究，一方面，可以更加明確注冊會計師的法律責(zé)任，使其免受不合理的指控，加強對他們的保護。另一方面，能使注冊會計師加強其執(zhí)業(yè)能力，將審計結(jié)果向公眾的期望靠近，從而達成一個雙贏的結(jié)果。再次，明確了審計期望差距的成因也可以促成審計準(zhǔn)則的修訂，為我們營造一個穩(wěn)定和諧的社會環(huán)境提供了一個根本保障。最后，通過再深一層的分析，我們還可以得出這樣的結(jié)論：正是由于審計期望差距的存在，才引起了審計目標(biāo)的演變。因此可以說，審計期望差距是審計范圍中的一個最基本的概念，對它進行研究對我國甚至世界都具有重大意義。
[Abstract]:Since the middle of 1960's, the litigation cases of western folk auditors have been constantly emerging, forming the situation of "lawsuit explosion". With the occurrence of a large number of corporate bankruptcy and bankruptcy, accounting firms and their certified public accountants have been sued in court. Users of audit reports often attribute most of the responsibility to the lack of professional competence of certified public accountants. The practice lacks independence and expects compensation from certified public accountants, but they have never really explored the attribution of responsibility and the real causes of these problems. To be sure, CPA fraud or dereliction of duty may lead to false audit reports and mislead the public. However, there are some cases in which CPA has carried out reasonable audit according to the existing standards. Through the research, we find that the reason of this phenomenon lies in the existence of "audit expectation gap". It is precisely because the public has not deeply studied the concept that there is still a vague understanding and unclear definition which causes this strange phenomenon. Therefore, in order to curb the unfair charges against CPAs, to find out the real causes of these litigation cases, and to clarify the "expectations" of the public, the work of CPAs is constantly approaching the public. It becomes a very urgent and important problem to study the audit expectation gap in depth. "Audit expectation gap" refers to the gap between the expectation of audit and the public opinion of auditor's actual performance. There are three factors involved in the study of audit expectation gap: auditor, public and the auditing standards that regulate auditor's work in reality. It is the focus of this paper to make clear the gap between the three aspects and the reasons for the gap. After grasping these problems, the purpose of this paper is to find out solutions according to local conditions and reduce the harm caused by audit expectation gap. At the same time, the paper also discusses the future trends of the audit expectation gap and its essence that can only be reduced but not eventually eliminated. "Audit expectation gap" is an important issue related to audit function and audit responsibility. Since AICPA put forward the audit expectation gap in 1970s, the audit expectation gap has been considered as one of the most difficult problems faced by the auditing practitioners and regulators. On the one hand, the legal liability of CPAs can be clarified, and their protection from unreasonable charges can be strengthened. On the other hand, it can strengthen the CPA's practice ability and bring the audit result to the public's expectation, so as to achieve a win-win result. Thirdly, the causes of audit expectation gap can also lead to the revision of auditing standards, which provides a fundamental guarantee for us to build a stable and harmonious social environment. Finally, through a further analysis, we can draw such a conclusion: it is because of the existence of audit expectation gap that the audit objective evolves. Therefore, it can be said that the audit expectation gap is the most basic concept in the scope of audit, and it is of great significance to our country and even the world to study it.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：F239.4

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李雪;張帆;;審計期望差距的成因及校正路徑的探討[J];南京財經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年04期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 李雪;張帆;;對審計期望差距的成因及縮小路徑的探討[A];中國會計學(xué)會財務(wù)成本分會2011年年會暨第二十四次理論研討會論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 崔婧;基于審計準(zhǔn)則視角的審計期望差距研究[D];沈陽大學(xué);2011年

2 王國君;審計期望差距及其控制研究[D];北京林業(yè)大學(xué);2011年

3 張曉曼;基于審計重要性的審計期望差距研究[D];東北大學(xué);2009年

4 李碧波;審計期望差距及其控制研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

5 尹健;基于經(jīng)濟學(xué)視角的審計期望差距研究[D];山東財經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

6 朱偉;我國審計期望差距的構(gòu)成要素及縮小對策之研究[D];浙江工商大學(xué);2013年

本文編號：2317109