Regulation of Accounting in U.S.
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The purpose of this research is to summarize contemporary issues concerning the regulation of professional accounting practice in the United States. The very fact that the general public has demonstrated an interest in the practice of professional accounting speaks volumes with respect to the troubles besetting the profession. Under ordinary circumstances, it would surprise most people both within and external to the profession that the public had any interest at all in public accounting. It is, after all, one discipline, which in the public mind, can compete with economics for the title of the most arcane, and is probably perceived as dull. In spite of such public perceptions, however, there is a public interest in the professional practice of accounting in the 1980s. The public interest in the professional practice of accounting has stemmed from charges of fraudulent actions on the part of individual public accountants (Dingell, 1988). This public interest has been translated into demands for both greater professionalism within the profession and greater accountability by the profession (National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting [NCFFR], 1987). Effectively addressing these public concerns is essential to the future of the profession (Sims, 1987). It is also essential for the economic health of the country and the fiscal integrity of its institutions (Cook, 1987). ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
. . .
that the operations and policies of every member firm of the AICPA will be subjected to peer review. The emphasis in the program will be on education and corrective action, as opposed to discipline, although disciplinary actions under the program are possible. Opposition to peer review was based on (1) increased costs, which would impact smaller firms to a greater extent than larger firms, and (2) an objection to review by a national body, as opposed to local associations.
An additional facet of the peer review change requires that member firms refusing such review be stripped of their membership in the AICPA. Further, individual AICPA members will not be permitted to retain their membership, and continue to work for a firm which has refused peer review (Cottle, 1988).
The third proposed change involved reform of the Joint Trial Board, by combining the existing 12 regional boards into a single national board (Kaberline, 1987). The 36 members of the new national board will be selected on the basis of three from each of the 12 regions, and hearings will involve five board members, which will be selected from either the region from which the case is being heard, or from the adjacent region (Cottle, 1988). This proposal was
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Trial Board, Professional Ethics, Siegel Siegel, , PUBLIC ACCOUNTING, AICAP December, Reporting NCFFR, REGULATORY ISSUES, cottle 1988, Practical Accountant, LIV6 June, public accountants, public accounting, percent aicpa, presence role, peer review, kaberline 1987, instruction cottle 1988, public practice, continuing professional, commission fraudulent financial, aicpa voting, fraudulent financial reporting, percent aicpa voting, continuing professional education,
Approximate Word count = 1459
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Regulation of Accounting in U.S.
|