Does Immateriality Matter? Evidence from Accountants Concerning the Acceptability of Questionable Accounting Practices

DOI: 10.4236/me.2012.32031   PDF   HTML     3,820 Downloads   6,630 Views   Citations

Abstract

Questionable accounting practices, sometimes, cause from misusing the concept of materiality to manage their reported earnings. The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of accountants concerning the acceptability of 14 questionable accounting practices from the amount of material and immaterial perspectives. The results show that, for all 14 questionable accounting practices, the differences in acceptability between the amount of materiality and immateriality were all statistically significant. Regarding the amount of immateriality, especially for questionable, but still legal accounting practices, accountants appear to have the higher average level of acceptability under the extreme pressure from the top management. While questionable accounting practices are clearly illegal, no matter what the amount is material or immaterial, accountants appear to have the lowest average level of acceptability. This finding may be helpful for businesses and professional associations as they develop their own policies, standards and educational programs regarding dealing with questionable accounting practices.

Share and Cite:

W. Chang, M. Chen and C. Chiao, "Does Immateriality Matter? Evidence from Accountants Concerning the Acceptability of Questionable Accounting Practices," Modern Economy, Vol. 3 No. 2, 2012, pp. 223-228. doi: 10.4236/me.2012.32031.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] M. W. Nelson, J. A. Elliott and R. L. Tarpley, “How Are Earning Managed? Example from Auditors,” Accounting Horizons, Supplement, 2003, pp. 17-35.
[2] M. S. Beasley and D. R. Hermanson, “Going beyond Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance: Five Keys to Creating Value,” CPA Journal, Vol. 74, No. 6, 2004, pp. 11-13.
[3] A. Levitt, “The Numbers Game,” Speech Delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York, 28 September 1998.
[4] D. F. Prawitt, J. L. Smith and D. A. Wood, “Internal Au- dit Quality and Earnings Management,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 84. No. 4, 2009, pp. 1255-1280. doi:10.2308/accr.2009.84.4.1255
[5] S. E. Bonner, Z. V. Palmrose and S. M. Young, “Fraud Type and Auditor Litigation: An Analysis of SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 73, No. 4, 1998, pp. 503-532.
[6] M. S. Beasley, J. V. Carcello and D. R. Hermanson, “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997 An Analysis of US Public Companies,” Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of The Treadway Commission, AICPA, Jersey City, 1999.
[7] R. Z. Elias, “Determinants of Earnings Management Ethics among Accountants,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2002, pp. 33-45. doi:10.1023/A:1019956821253
[8] T. L. N. Emerson, S. J. Conroy and C. W. Stanley, “Ethical Attitudes of Accountants: Recent Evidence from a Practitioners’ Survey,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2007, pp. 73-87. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9125-2
[9] National Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (NACFE), “Cooking the Books: What Every Accountant Should Know about Fraud. Austin,” NACFE, 1992.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.