THE POSTULATE SYSTEMS OF AUDITING IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN THOUGHT: A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH

Autores/as

  • Bruno Almeida Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração de Coimbra - Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18028/rgfc.v5i4.1163

Resumen

From all the authors who most distinguished themselves in the development of the task of providing auditing with an adequate theoretical framework, Mautz and Sharaf (1961) and Tom Lee (1993) are considered to be the most important. The purpose of this study is to examine, the evolution of the American thought. To do so, we have used an appropriate methodology, based on a normative, interpretive and empirical basis, where we include the formulation of hypotheses which, duly contrasted, allow us to conclude that the postulate systems proposed follow a logic evolution and have a strong theoretical consistence and reflect the practices existing in the USA.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

AGRAWAL, S.P. On Conceptual Framework of Accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, v. 6, p. 165-178, 1987.

ALMEIDA, B. J. M. Auditoria e Sociedade: diferenças de expectativas. Portugal: Publisher Team, 2005.

ALMEIDA, B. J. M. Manual de Auditoria Financeira: Uma análise Integrada Baseada no risco. Portugal: Escolar Editora, 2014.

ARCHER, S. The ASB’s exposure draft of principles: a comment. Accounting and Business Research, v. 27, n. 3, p. 224-249, 1997.

ARENS, A. A.; ELDER, R. L.; BEASLEY, M.S. Auditing and Assurance Services: an integrated approach. New Jersey Prentice Hall, 2010.

ASARE, S.; WRIGTH, A., 2012, Investors’, auditors’, and lenders’ understanding of the message conveyed by the standard audit report on the financial statements. Accounting Horizons, v. 26, n. 2, p. 193-217, 2012.

BARON, C.; JOHNSON, D. A.; SEARFOSS, D. G.; SMITH, C. H. Uncovering corporate irregularities: are we closing the expectation gap? Journal of Accountancy, v. 144, p. 243-250, 1977.

BELL, T.; MCALLISTER, P. Expanded Information in the Audit Report. CPA Journal, v. 82, n. 1, p. 22, 2011.

CARCELLO, V. What do investors want from de standard audit report? CPA Journal, v. 82, n. 1, p. 22, 2012.

CEE - Comunidade Económica Europeia. Livro Verde da Comissão: Papel, Estatuto e Responsabilidade do Revisor Oficial de Contas na União Europeia. COM (96), 338 final (Jornal Oficial C 321 de 28/10/1996), 1996.

CHAMBERS, R.J. Why Bother with Postulates? Journal of Accounting Research, v. 1, n. 1, p. 3-15, 1963.

CHANDLER, R.; EDWARDS, J. R.; ANDERSON, M. Changing perceptions of the role of the company auditor, 1840-1940. Accounting and Business Research, v. 23, n. 92, p. 443-459, 1993.

CIESIELSKI, J.; WEIRICH, R. A new audit report. The CPA Journal, v. 82, n. 2, p. 11-14, 2012.

COLASSE, B. Cadres Comptables Conceptuels. Paris Ed. Economica, 2000.

FLINT, D. Philosophy and principles of auditing – an introduction. London: The Macmillan Press, 1988.

GUY, D.; SULLIVAN, D. The Expectation Gap Auditing Standards. Journal of Accountancy, v. 165, April, p. 36-46, 1988.

GWILLIAM, D. A survey of auditing research. ICAEW/Prentice Hall, 1987.

HARRIS, S.; MARXEN, D. The Auditor Expectation and Performance Gaps: Views from Auditors and their Clients. Research in Accounting Regulation, v. 11, p. 159-176, 1997.

HUMPHREY, C.; MOIZER, P.; TURLEY, W. S. The audit expectation gap – plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Critical Perspectives in Accounting, v. 3, May, p. 137-161, 1992.

ICAS – Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Making Corporate Reports Valuable. Research Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, 1988.

JENNINGS, M.; RECKERS, M. J.; KNEER, D. C. The significance of audit decisions aids and precise jurists’ attitudes on perceptions of audit firm culpability and liability. Contemporary Accounting Research, v. 9, Spring, p. 489-507, 1993.

JOHNSTONE, K.; GRAMLING, A.; RITTENBERG, L. Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach to Conducting a Quality Audit. 10. Ed. United States of America: Cengage Learning, 2015.

KNECHEL, W. Auditing: Assurance & Risk. 2. Ed. Florida: South-Western College Publishing, 2001.

KRIPKE, H. Reflections on FASB’s Conceptual Framework for Auditing and on Auditing. Journal of Accountancy, Auditing and Finance, p. 83-105, 1996.

LAKATOS, Eva Maria. Sociologia geral. 4. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 1981.

LEE, T. Corporate Audit Theory. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993.

LIGGIO, C. The expectation gap: the accountant’s legal waterloo. Journal of Contemporary Business, v. 3, n. 3, p. 27-44, 1974.

LOUWERS, T.; RAMSAY, R.; SINASON, D.; THIBODEAU, J. Auditing & Assurance Services. 5. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2013.

MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw. Argonautas do Pacífico Ocidental. Coleção os Pensadores, Abril, 1978.

MAUTZ, R.; SHARAF, H. The philosophy of auditing. Florida: American Accounting Association, Sarasota, 1961.

MCENROE, J.; MARTENS, S. Auditors’ and Investors’ Perceptions of the Expectation Gap. Accounting Horizons, v. 15, n. 4, p. 345-358, 2001.

MESSIER, W.; GLOVER, S.; PRAWITT, D. Auditing & Assurance Services. 8. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2012.

MOLINA, G. J. S.; PÉREZ, M. O. Teoría de la auditoría financiera. McGraw-Hill, 1996.

MOONITZ, M. The basic postulates of accounting. 1. ed. New York: Accounting Research Study, American Institute of CPA’s, 1961.

PATERSON, J.C. Lean Auditing: Driving Added Value and Efficiency in Internal Audit. 1. Ed. Wiley, 2015.

PCAOB. Release No. 2011-003. Washington: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2011.

PORTER, B.; GOWTHORPE, C. Audit expectation-performance gap in the United Kingdom in 1999 and comparison with the Gap in New Zealand in 1989 and in 1999. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and Edinburgh, 2004.

PORTER, B.; SIMON, J.; HATHERLY, D. Principles of External Auditing. 3. Ed. England: Wiley, 2008.

POWER, M. The idea of a conceptual framework. In MUMFORD, M. J. e PEASNELL, K. V. (ed.). Philosophical Perspectives on Accounting: Essays in honour of Edward Stamp. London: Routledge, 1993.

Ryan, S., Herz, R., Iannaconi, T., Maines, L., Palepu, K., Schrand, C., Skinner, D., Vincent, L., 2001, SEC Auditor Independence Requirements. Accounting Horizons, 15(4).

SHERER M.; KENT D. Auditing and Accountability. London: Pitman, 1983.

SIERRA, G.; ORTA, M. Teoría de la auditoría financieira. McGraw-Hill, 1996.

SOLOMON, D. The FASB Conceptual Framework, an Evaluation. Journal of Accountancy, June, 1986.

STEPHENS, A.; SMITH, H. Warnings from the audit society: an opportunity not to be missed. European Accounting Review, v. 7, n. 4, p. 767-771, 2010.

SWEENEY, B. Bridging the expectations gap – on shaky foundations. Accountancy Ireland, v. 29, n. 2, p. 18-20, 1997.

TAYLOR, D.; GLEZEN, G. Auditing: Integrated Concepts and procedures. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

WALLACE, W.A. The Economic Role of the Audit in Free and Regulated Markets. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1985.

WEBER, M. Economie et société, 1ère partie. Paris: Plon, 1971.

WHITTINGTON, R.; PANY, K. Principles of Auditing & Other Assurance Services. 7. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010.

Descargas

Archivos adicionales

Publicado

2015-12-14

Número

Vol. 5 Núm. 4 (2015): set./dez.

Sección

Artigos Internacionais

Licencia

Autores que publicam na RGFC concordam com os seguintes termos:

  • Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), permitindo o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria do trabalho e publicação inicial nesta revista;
  • Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
  • Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal), já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado. Porém deve-se observar que uma vez aprovado pelos avaliadores, o manuscrito não poderá sofrer mais alterações. Caso o autor deseje fazê-lo, deverá reiniciar o processo de submissão.