Sarbanes Oxley Act SOX Essay

The factor that plays the greatest role in determining auditor independence is independence in mind. Auditors may or may not appear to be independent, but if the auditor is truly independent in mind, then the auditor can remain objective and unbiased. The profession should consider tightening the Code of Professional Conduct to address the issue of an audit team member knowing a close friend that holds any position at the audit client. If this scenario arises, the firm can still audit the client, but the audit member with the close relationship won’t be able to be on the audit team.

The Sarbanes-Oxley is a U.S. federal law that has generated much controversy, and involved the response to the financial scandals of some large corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, WorldCom and Peregrine Systems. These scandals brought down the public confidence in auditing and accounting firms. The law is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes Democratic Party and GOP Congressman Michael G. Oxley. It was passed by large majorities in both Congress and the Senate and covers and sets new performance standards for boards of directors and managers of companies and accounting mechanisms of all publicly traded companies in America. It also introduces criminal liability for the board of directors and a requirement by

The Sarbanes Oxley Act is an act passed by the United States Congress to protect investors from the possibility of fraudulent accounting activities by corporation. The Sarbanes Oxley Act has strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and accounting fraud. The acts goals are designed to ensure that publicly traded corporations document what financial controls they are using and they are certified in doing so. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets the highest level and most general requirements but it imposes the possibility of criminal penalties for corporate financial officers. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets provisions that are used throughout numerous amounts of corporations. It holds companies to a larger responsibility and a higher standard with accounting principles and the accuracy of financial statements.

Exceptions can be approved by the Board and are made in cases where the revenue paid for such services contributes less than 5% of revenues paid to the auditing firm. Also, a public accounting firm may provide these non-audit services along with audit services if it is pre-approved by the audit committee of the public company. The audit committee will disclose to investors in periodic reports its decision to approve the performance of non-audit services and audit services by the same accounting firm. This requirement to disclose to investors is likely to inhibit auditing committees from approving the performance of auditing and non-auditing services by the same accounting firm. Other sections outline audit partner rotations, accounting firm reporting procedures, and executive officer independence. Specifically, subsection 206 states that the CEO, Controller, CFO, Chief Accounting Officer or similarly positioned employees cannot have been employed by the company's audit firm for one year prior to the audit.

          Title III of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is Corporate Responsibility. It creates many new obligations for CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives. Title III requires that CEOs and CFOs must certify that they have reviewed annual as well as quarterly reports and that they contain no untrue information, material omissions, or misleading information. CEOs and CFOs are now responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, plus reviewing their effectiveness within 90 days prior to financial reports. They must disclose any deficiencies or possible fraud. The CEO and CFO are required to give back any bonuses or sale of company securities, if the company must restate financial statements due to material noncompliance or misconduct. High-ranking executives are also now banned from trading company securities during pension fund blackout periods. Lawyers are now required to report any evidence of violations of securities law or obligations to either the CEO of the company or chief legal counsel. If a person violates the law and their conduct demonstrates an unfitness to serve, he or she can be banned from being an executive of a company (Sarbanes-Oxley).

The Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 is the most important piece of legislation since the 1933 and 34 securities exchange act, affecting everything from corporate governance to the accounting industry and much more. This law was in direct response to the failure of corporate governance at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The Sarbanes - Oxley seeks to bring back the confidence in all publicly held corporations to the shareholders, while placing more responsibility on CEOs and CFOs for the actions of the corporation. "Sarbanes - Oxley is more than just another piece of legislation - it has become synonymous with a new culture of corporate accountability and reform1." The SOX, as it has come to be known, covers a myriad amount of corporate

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was passed by U.S congress in 2002 to protect investors from fraudulent accounting activities by corporations. Whether the organization is big or small, the act mandates strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations, helping to prevent accounting fraud. It is a federal law that established new and expanded requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management, public accounting firm's, as well as privately held companies. SOX requires top management individually certify the accuracy of financial information, and includes penalties for fraudulent financial activity. The bill was enacted in response to a large number of major corporate and accounting scandals the cost of investors

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed by Congress in 2002, and is administered by the SEC. The SEC checks for compliance and creates rules and requirements. The Act was created to restore investor confidence in financial statements after major accounting frauds, such as Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. In addition, SOX aimed to prevent future accounting fraud through improving the accuracy of disclosures and through increasing corporate governance, accountability, and reliability.

There used to be a time in the United States when there were no regulations in place to protect the public from corporate greed and deceit. Publically traded companies used the auditors they had on retainer to audit their financial statements. There was no reason to believe that such large corporations would allow their share holders to fall. That fairytale came to an end with the discovery of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These nightmares made the public “wake up” and realize that nothing was required of these companies to prove their statements or protect their shareholders. Regulation was

According to Jennings (2015), the Sarbanes Oxley Act’s purpose is “An Act to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes” (p. 246). This act was enacted because of several major accounting scandals. One company with such a scandal was Enron.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is also known as the Public Company Accounting and Investor Protection Act or the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act and then more commonly called Sarbanes-Oxley, or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or enhanced standards for all of the United States public company boards, management and public accounting firms.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a game changer for corporations all across the United States. Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley Act, big name companies such as Enron, Kmart and Tyco were more inclined to have fraudulent activities happen internally. Having all these issues arise during the last decades, Congress was anxious to act and create Sarbanes-Oxley Act with the intentions to protect investors and have strict reforms to deter internal financial frauds from occurring again. Although, this reform has had a great amount of success in achieving its goals, it also has some holes that were not well though out, when it comes to the entirety of it. The main problem with Sarbanes-Oxley is the cost it has on smaller companies, which shifted the power from the investors and into the auditors. (Prince, 2005)

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passes in 2002 in response to a handful of large corporate scandals that occurred between the years 2000 to 2002, resulting in the losses of billions of dollars by investors. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco are probably the most well known companies that were involved in these scandals, but there were a number of other companies guilty of such things as well. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed as a way to crackdown on corporations by setting new and improved standards that all United States’ public companies and accounting firms were and are required to abide by. It also works to hold top level executives accountable for the company, and if fraudulent behaviors are discovered then the executives could find themselves in hot water. The punishments for such fraudulence could be as serious as 20 years jail time. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The primary motivation for the act was to prevent future scandals from happening, or at least, make it much more difficult for them to happen. The act was also passed largely to protect the people—the shareholders—from corporations, their executives, and their boards of directors. Critics tend to argue that the act is to complicated, and costs to much to abide by, leading to the United States losing its “competitive edge” in the global marketplace (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The Sarbanes-Oxley act, like most things, has its pros and cons. It is costly; studies have shown that this act has cost companies millions of

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.

There are three main ways in which the auditor’s independence can manifest itself. Programming independence is essentially protects the auditor’s ability to select the most appropriate strategy to conduct an audit. Auditors must be free to approach a piece of work in whatever manner they consider best. As a client company grows and conducts new activities, the auditor’s approach will likely have to adapt the account for these. In addition, the auditing profession is a dynamic one, with new techniques which is constantly being developed and upgraded which the auditor may decide to use. The strategy methods which the auditors intend to implement cannot be inhibited in any way. While programming independence protects auditors’ ability to select an appropriate strategy, investigative independence protects the auditor’s ability to implement the strategy in whatever manner they consider it necessary. Basically, auditors must have unlimited access to all company information. Any queries regarding a company business and accounting treatment must be answered by the company. The collection of audit evidence is an essential process, and cannot be restricted in any way by Client Company. Reporting independence protects the auditors’ ability to choose to reveal to the public any information that they believe should be disclosed. If company directors have been