2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106820
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of disclosing audit quality control deficiencies on non-audit tax services: Evidence from Deloitte’s 2007 PCAOB Part II inspection report

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, Albring et al (2014) find just the opposite in the post-SOX period, indicating that directors and/or audit committee members behaved more conservatively because of the increase in SOX-induced litigation and reputation risks. Finley and Stekelberg (2016) and Ahn et al (2021) investigate the impact of reputation concerns related to two Big 4 auditors (i.e. KPMG and Deloitte) on their clients' decisions to retain them (or not) as tax service providers.…”
Section: Auditor-provided Tax Services (Apts)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, Albring et al (2014) find just the opposite in the post-SOX period, indicating that directors and/or audit committee members behaved more conservatively because of the increase in SOX-induced litigation and reputation risks. Finley and Stekelberg (2016) and Ahn et al (2021) investigate the impact of reputation concerns related to two Big 4 auditors (i.e. KPMG and Deloitte) on their clients' decisions to retain them (or not) as tax service providers.…”
Section: Auditor-provided Tax Services (Apts)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead of examining the determinants of purchasing APTS directly, another stream of studies provides some evidence about the reasons audit clients decide to dismiss or retain their incumbent auditors as their tax services providers (Ahn et al, 2021;Albring et al, 2014;Finley & Stekelberg, 2016;Lassila et al, 2010). Because SOX (2002) and SEC (2000SEC ( , 2003SEC ( , 2006 prohibited certain types of NAS and required more granular classifications of fees disclosure, public firms substantially reduced or terminated the purchase of some NAS, including tax services, from their auditors, to reduce negative reactions from investors and regulators (Abbott et al, 2011;Finley & Stekelberg, 2016;Lennox, 2016;Maydew & Shackelford, 2007) Furthermore, the ex-ante independence risk will increase the costs of retaining decisions.…”
Section: Retaining or Dismissing Incumbent Auditors As Tax Service Providersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because SOX (2002) and SEC (2000SEC ( , 2003SEC ( , 2006 prohibited certain types of NAS and required more granular classifications of fees disclosure, public firms substantially reduced or terminated the purchase of some NAS, including tax services, from their auditors, to reduce negative reactions from investors and regulators (Abbott et al, 2011;Finley & Stekelberg, 2016;Lennox, 2016;Maydew & Shackelford, 2007) Furthermore, the ex-ante independence risk will increase the costs of retaining decisions. Both Ahn et al (2021) and Lassila et al (2010) posit and find evidence that auditors will be perceived as lacking independence if they provide high nontax NAS relative to audit fees to their audit clients and have a long relationship with them;…”
Section: Retaining or Dismissing Incumbent Auditors As Tax Service Providersmentioning
confidence: 99%