Investigating CPA Signature Regulation on Audit Reports: Perspectives from Supervisory and Judicial Authorities, Investors, and Audit Partners

[[abstract]]This paper investigated the regulation of the signature of CPA in audit reports proposed by PCAOB on July 28, 2009, and provided empirical evidences based upon the Taiwanese environment using a questionnaire survey. Taiwan required the signature of two CPAs in audit reports, in addition to the signature of the audit firm from 1983. Recently, Taiwan CPAs hope to change the double CPA signatures regulation into the single CPA signature regulation; therefore, this study discussed the differences of CPA signature responsibilities between the US current regulation, Taiwan current regulation, and the single CPA signature regulation. The findings show that CPA (one or two) putting his signature in audit reports is liable for higher signature responsibilities than no signature in audit reports. Names of reputable CPAs can affect the decision of users of report information. This revealed that the presence of the names of CPAs has information content. The participants of this study considered that the CPA whose name is disclosed should be liable for heavier responsibilities if a company has financial crisis. This empirical results support the proposal of the US PCAOB: the signature of CPA in audit reports can increase the signature responsibility of CPAs. This is also consistent with Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that requests the CFO and CEO to put their signatures on the financial statements for taking responsibility.[[notice]]補正完畢[[conferencetype]]國際[[conferencedate]]20110704~20110706[[booktype]]紙本[[iscallforpapers]]Y[[conferencelocation]]Bangkok, Thailan