Search

The Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) is a federally funded IRS corporate audit program. The program’s goal is to determine the best tax treatment for complex transactions before a corporation files its tax return. The US Department of the Treasury has voiced concerns regarding resource constraints and whether the program enhances public (nonprofessional investor) and investor confidence. We conduct a behavioral experiment using 176 Master of Business Administration and Master of Accounting students as proxies for nonprofessional investors. In the experiment, we examine the effects of CAP participation and corporate tax risk profile on judgments about financial statement credibility. We use a 2 × 2 experimental design with corporate tax risk profile manipulated as high risk or low risk and participation in CAP manipulated as participatory or non-participatory. This research investigates whether CAP program participation and/or tax risk level influence nonprofessional investors’ perceptions of the certainty and accuracy of the provision for income taxes. The results suggest both CAP program participation and tax risk influence nonprofessional investors’ perceptions of the certainty of the income tax provision; and tax risk also influences nonprofessional investors’ perception of the accuracy of the income tax provision.

Recent legislation and standard interpretations promulgated by governmental bodies and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have attempted to address several issues related to corporate taxation. These issues include the lack of transparency regarding specific tax transactions, the difficulty in reconciling the corporate tax return with the corporate income statement, the relative lack of disclosure of tax contingencies in the financial statements, and the impact of internal control on the reliability of the corporate tax return. While the stated objectives of several recent regulations have included improvements in the areas of corporate tax compliance and transparency of financial statements, it is unclear whether these regulations have resulted in the desired effects. This study analyzes the perceptions of 223 corporate tax executives regarding the effects of Internal Revenue Announcement 2002-63, Schedule M-3 of IRS Form 1120, FASB Interpretation Number 48 (FIN 48), and Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The findings indicate that the respondents perceive an overall increase in tax return transparency and corporate tax compliance as a result of Schedule M-3 and FIN 48; yet the ability of corporations to engage in tax planning has decreased as a result of FIN 48. The respondents also perceive that both FIN 48 and Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have increased their reliance on outside sources for tax compliance work.

Engagement quality (concurring partner) review is an important part of the audit review process. It is one quality control mechanism used by public accounting firms to monitor the quality of audit engagements. The engagement quality reviewer serves as an evaluator of the performance of the engagement partner and engagement team. Concerns about the effectiveness of existing firm concurring partner review practices have led to increased partner sanctions imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In addition, Section 103 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 directs the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to develop an auditing standard on engagement quality review. This practice note reports on an analysis of six major firms' written guidance and practice aids for engagement quality review. Our comparison of the firms' guidance shows some differences in the assignment of engagement quality reviewer, the participation of the engagement quality reviewer in audit planning, the extensiveness of practice aids, and the involvement of engagement quality reviewer during the course of audit engagements. Lastly, we identify a number of research questions and practice implications.