Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: due date for vat payment
 
 
« Auditing »
 Time Limit For Completion Of Assessment From The Date Of Special Auditor’s Report Under Income Tax Act, 1961
 Provisioning pertaining to Fraud Accounts
 Tax Audit Report (TAR) Certain exceptions and increased limits according to number of partners and considering nature of activity are desirable
 Cost Auditing Standards [ Cost Audit Documentation (102)] – Part-II
 Conference on Companies Act gets under way
 New bureau to dissolve state-run banks' power to choose auditors
 Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2015
 ICAI forms 'prima facie' view on NSEL auditor
 Firms appoint new auditors in shift to meet new standards
 Cadre restructuring in I-T dept may open scrutiny of closed cases
 RBI issues new guidelines on concurrent auditing at branches

Mandatory rotation of audit firms need not enhance corporate governance
September, 15th 2010

Familiarity rarely breeds contempt between companies and their auditors. More often than not, it results in a level of comfort that weakens auditor independence and reduces audit quality. The price of that closeness is then borne by the non-promoter shareholders, investors, employees and other stakeholders in the company. Sometimes, it threatens the survival of the company. Such relationships are believed to be the cause for the multi-crore financial fraud at Satyam Computer Services as well as for the collapse of Lehman Brothers in recent years and for the demise of Enron and WorldCom in the early part of this decade.

The US administration responded to the many instances of corporate fraud with Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which, among other things, required mandatory rotation of the lead audit partner and the concurring partner every five years, and cooling off period of five years before that partner could audit the same company. Other partners of the audit team are to be rotated after seven years, with two-year time-out from that account. The Act did not seek mandatory rotation of the audit firm.

For that matter, very few countries such as Italy, Brazil and South Korea have stipulated mandatory rotation of the audit firm, most others have stipulated only rotation of audit partners.

Cross over to India. The fraud at Satyam, no doubt a bolt out of blue, appears to have had a deep impact on our lawmakers. So, the ministry of corporate affairs is now planning to make rotation of not just the audit partners but also of the firms mandatory. The proposal came up during the review of the Companies Bill of 2009 by the standing committee on finance, chaired by former finance minister Yashwant Sinha. The committee wanted such provisions in the Act to prevent recurrence of frauds perpetrated by promoters and managements in connivance with the auditors of the company. If the proposal does find its way into the Act, the companies will need to find themselves a new audit firm every five years.

Thats not all. Individual auditors cannot hope to continue their association with the client after they have completed 3-5 years of consecutive term by hopping to another firm. A time-out stipulation would make him ineligible for such reappointment for three years. For the audit firm, the cooling off period is proposed to be five years. Also, firms will need to rotate audit engagement partner after three years.

Such proposals to ensure auditor independence would without doubt sound good on paper and are well intentioned. But the feasibility of implementing such proposals is debatable, particularly when the audit business is highly fragmented and the firms are small. A majority of audit firms in the country are small setups with a handful of partners. Most of them would not have the capacity or the capability to audit accounts of large firms. Besides, most companies would prefer to work with established names in the business. So, more likely than not, mandatory rotation of firms would result in audit mandates circulating among the same set of firms. That will defeat the purpose of trying to break the cosy relationship between company managements and auditors.

The economic benefits of mandatory rotation of audit firms have yet to be established globally. Proponents of mandatory rotation feel that new auditors will bring in fresh points of view that the outgoing auditor may not have. Opponents, however, would disagree: they feel that an incoming auditor would take time to understand the business of the client, and during that period, the quality of audit may be impaired. And, it is not necessarily true that rotation would prevent auditors from getting very comfortable with the company or turning a blind eye to non-compliance with law.

India Inc has all along been opposed to the mandatory rotation of audit firms. Almost all the committees on corporate governance set up in the past few years have favoured rotation of audit partners rather than rotation of audit firms. The last one, a CII taskforce on corporate governance chaired by Naresh Chandra, too in its report of November 2009 recommended rotation of audit partners every six years, with a three-year cooling period before the partner could resume the audit assignment. The Naresh Chandra committee of 2002 and JJ Irani committee of 2003 too had favoured rotation of partners rather than firms.

The wisdom of the legislating mandatory rotation of audit firms, when mandatory rotation of audit partners is not yet required under law, needs to be questioned, even though it is well intentioned. It may make more sense to begin with mandatory audit partner rotation and then consider moving to firm rotation. Alongside, the government could also stipulate that joint audit by two firms to improve corporate governance.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Bath SEO Company Birmingham SEO Company Bradford SEO Company Brighton and Hove SEO Company Bristol SEO Company Cambridge SEO Company Canterbury SEO Company Carlisle SEO Company Chester SEO Company Chichester SEO Company Coventry SEO Compan

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions