Connect with us

Accounting

PCAOB board member complains of persecution by senators

Published

on

Christina Ho, a member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, complained publicly on LinkedIn that a pair of influential senators are singling her out for audit failures at firms.

In a LinkedIn post on Oct. 17, Ho referenced a letter a week earlier from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, calling on the PCAOB to establish stricter accountability for firms with unacceptable deficiency rates. They noted that last year, the PCAOB’s review of over 200 accounting firms’ audits found that 46% had errors so significant that the auditor “had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion” about a public company’s financial statements and financial reporting. 

In the letter, they pointed to a statement from a speech in September by Ho at an Institute of Internal Auditors event. “Last month, Board Member Christina Ho denied that the inspection results were a problem, instead claiming that ‘there is another side to the story,’ and that ‘PCAOB has become overzealous in its enforcement program,” falsely claiming that the inspection results “lump all deficiencies together without a qualitative assessment of their severity.’

pcaob-board-members-2022.jpg

Center for Audit Quality CEO Julie Bell Lindsay (left) moderates a 2022 panel discussion with (left to right) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board chair Erica Williams and board members Duane DesParte, Christina Ho, Kara Stein and Anthony Thompson at the AICPA & CIMA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments in Washington, D.C.

Ho complained that the Senators’ letter accused her of appearing to be “focused on downplaying and misdirecting attention from these atrocious findings,” and of making false statements in her speech. “The letter also contains a thinly veiled threat to me (and others) by noting how Senator Warren had successfully urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2021 ‘to remove and replace all members of the PCAOB.,” she added.

“The fact that the Senators decided to single me out is troubling because I believe they are trying to stifle me from expressing views inconsistent with their false narrative,” said Ho. “I am writing to: (1) protect investors, by providing context as to why the Senators’ alarmism is unwarranted; and (2) defend myself and my views which are based on over 30 years of professional experience.”

Ho explained why the 46% deficiency rate should not be as alarming as the senators said.

“To be clear, I am not saying that a 46% deficiency rate or a 5% incorrect audit opinion rate is acceptable, it’s not,” said Ho. “What I am saying is that when you put the 46% figure cited by PCAOB and the Senators into context, the sky is not falling, and for the Senators to state that investors ‘face a coin flip when it comes to whether they should believe and trust the results of public companies’ audits,’ is unfair and unwarranted.” Since my work at the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) leading the governmentwide implementation of the first federal open data law sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), I have dedicated my career to promoting data-driven government and evidence-based policymaking, because that is how we build trust in government. The best way to protect investors is to drive audit quality, especially through innovation. However, regulating through enforcement will not be effective. Fear might extract compliance, but it will not achieve audit quality. There is a significant opportunity to promote audit quality through innovation.”

Ho said she had worked with 10 experts in the past two years to develop recommendations to the PCAOB regarding ways to promote audit quality through emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. 

She took umbrage at the accusations from the senators. “As an immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen, one of my most treasured values of American democracy is freedom of speech,” said Ho. “Like many women of color, it has taken me a long time to be able to use my voice to express my views. As a public servant who contributed significantly to the advancement of federal financial transparency and accountability, I have earned the trust of many people in governments, industries, academia, and civil societies. As a PCAOB Board Member, I have applied my expertise in auditing, financial reporting, technology, and public policy to advance the PCAOB’s mission of investor protection. That is why the Senators’ letter was so stunning to me.”

She felt threatened by the senators’ letter. “U.S. Senators have tremendous influence,” said Ho. “Senators Warren and Whitehouse made it clear in their letter to the PCAOB that Senator Warren got the former PCAOB Board fired. Is this a threat for simply using my voice to speak the truth in the name of investor protection? If Congress did not want dissenting voices on the PCAOB Board, why did it pass a law that required a five-member board to govern the PCAOB? Yes, those in charge have the power to fire me without cause; the power to put my daughter’s healthcare, education, and future in jeopardy as I am a single parent; the power to deprive investors of the whole truth; and the power to sow distrust about the public company auditing profession and with it our capital markets.”

Ho pointed to her right to speak out as an American. “But why?” she wrote. “Is there anything more undemocratic than trying to silence the voice of a fellow American? Is there anything more abusive than U.S. Senators’ thinly veiled threat to take away the jobs of public servants just because they have different perspectives? Is there anything more hypocritical than Senators who claim to serve underprivileged and underrepresented populations, but do not think twice about threatening a woman of color for simply doing what she believes is right?”

She pointed out that the PCAOB is not a federal agency even though it is a federal regulator.

“I am not a political person,” she added. “I was a career executive at Treasury and served under three Treasury Secretaries during two Administrations. I took an oath to serve the American people and support the Constitution, which I take seriously every day. I agree that the PCAOB should be held accountable. Like all financial regulators, PCAOB has enormous power. However, unlike other financial regulators, we are not a federal agency. In my opinion, all regulators should be subject to congressional oversight because unchecked power is dangerous and harmful to our people and democracy. I welcome any opportunities to be held accountable for doing my job honestly and serving investors as well as the American people at large.”

Ho suggested in her IIA speech that financial restatements were a better measure of audit quality than the audit deficiency rate. “To me, the best and most direct metric that measures reporting, and audit quality is the number of public company financial restatements, and this particular metric suggests a more positive and hopeful reality,” she said. 

The senators’ letter also criticized a statement by PCAOB chair Erica Williams in response to the report.

“In a statement upon the release of the report, Chair Williams commented that: ‘These inspection results point to some small signs of movement in the right direction.'”

“This is the wrong conclusion to draw from an embarrassing and intolerable set of findings,” wrote Sen. Warren and Whitehouse. “Even more troubling is the PCAOB’s attribution of these systemically high failure rates—which appears to affect virtually all auditors—to ‘more isolated incidents’ and outliers.”

Williams in turn seemed to counter Ho’s claim that restatements are a more accurate reflection of audit quality than deficiencies during a speech last week. 

“These Part I.A deficiencies are relevant when assessing the quality of work done by an audit firm,” she said. “But audit quality is complex, and it escapes simplistic proxies or measures. For instance, some have suggested that audit quality can be best measured by the number of issuer restatements. Specifically, some argue that a relatively low number of restatements translates to high audit quality. I believe that view is too simplistic. A properly performed audit should identify errors before the need for restatements. At the same time, a poorly performed audit does not always mean that the financial statements are erroneous.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accounting

Taxpayer Advocate criticizes IRS move to shorten third-party notice requirements

Published

on

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is objecting to proposed regulations that would enable the Internal Revenue Service to shorten its third-party notice requirements to as little as 10 days, saying they would unfairly erode the taxpayer notice requirements.

In a blog post Thursday, Collins called attention to a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make exceptions to the 45-day notice requirement in the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2019 and the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The 1998 law included provisions giving taxpayers more protections in circumstances when the IRS intends to contact someone other than the taxpayer (a third party such as a tax preparer) to get information that will help the IRS assess or collect taxes. Prior to contacting a third party, the IRS had to provide taxpayers with “reasonable notice” of the contact.

In 2019, the Taxpayer First Act strengthened 1998 law’s taxpayer third-party contact protections, substituting the “reasonable notice” requirement for a 45-day notice requirement before contacting a third party. Collins noted there are three statutory exceptions to this 45-day notice requirement:

  • When the taxpayer authorizes the contact;
  • If the IRS determines for good cause a notice would jeopardize tax collection or may involve reprisal against any person; or,
  • If the contact is made with respect to any pending criminal investigation.

However, the proposed regulations that the IRS posted this spring would implement exceptions to the 45-day notice requirement, allowing the IRS to shorten the statutory 45-day notification period to 10 days when there’s a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations for collection and certain other circumstances exist. That includes when the case involves an issue where the IRS would have the burden of proof in a court proceeding, and the IRS has requested but the taxpayer has refused to extend the statute of limitations by agreement. Or, the 45-day notice requirement could be reduced to 10 days if there’s a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations and the IRS intends to ask the Justice Department file suit to reduce assessments to a judgment or to foreclose a federal tax lien.
Those exceptions could unfairly punish taxpayers for the IRS’s own delays, according to Collins. 

“The IRS typically has three years to assess additional tax and ten years to collect unpaid tax,” she wrote. “The Taxpayer Bill of Rights includes the taxpayer’s right to finality — meaning, the right to know the maximum amount of time the IRS has to audit a particular tax year or to collect a tax debt. The statute of limitations is an important component of the right to finality because it sets forth clear and certain boundaries for the IRS to act to assess or collect taxes.”

collins-erin-irs-aicpa-tax-conference.jpg

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins speaking at the AICPA & CIMA National Tax and Sophisticated Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

She believes the IRS could find itself trying to assess or collect taxes within one year of the statute of limitations for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the actions or events controllable by the taxpayer. Collins called on the IRS to reconsider the proposed regulations and said Congress should consider enacting additional taxpayer protections for third-party contacts.

Continue Reading

Accounting

PCAOB settles sanction, revokes Chinese firm’s registration

Published

on

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board today settled a disciplinary order sanctioning  a Chinese firm for repeatedly violating PCAOB rules and failing to cooperate with the board’s investigation. 

The PCAOB found that JTC Fair Song CPA Firm, located in Shenzhen, China, repeatedly failed to make required filings. First, the firm repeatedly failed to timely report the participants in its issuer audits on PCAOB Form AP, violating PCAOB Rule 3211, Auditor Reporting of Certain Audit Participants. Second, the firm failed to timely file its annual reports on PCAOB Form 2 in 2021, 2022 and 2023, violating Rule 2201, Time for Filing of Annual Report. 

The firm also failed to cooperate with the PCAOB’s Division of Enforcement and Investigations by refusing to produce documents and information.

PCAOB logo

“All registered firms must comply with PCAOB reporting requirements, which are designed to provide the PCAOB, investors and other stakeholders with important information,” PCAOB chair Erica Williams said in a statement. “When firms don’t comply, the PCAOB will use the tools at our disposal to hold them accountable to fulfill our investor-protector mission.”

Without admitting or denying the findings, JTC Fair Song CPA Firm settled with the PCAOB and consented to a disciplinary order censuring the firm and revoking the firm’s registration. The board accepted the firm’s settlement offer, which does not require it to pay a civil money penalty. The PCAOB would have imposed a $50,000 penalty if it had not taken the firm’s financial resources into consideration.

“Today’s order should serve as a stark reminder that firms must cooperate with the Board’s investigatory process,” Robert Rice, director of the PCAOB’s Division of Enforcement and Investigations, said in a statement. “Cooperation with the Board’s processes is a bedrock principle under our rules and standards and is not optional.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Keeping an eye on DEI at accounting firms

Published

on

As the conversation around diversity, equity and inclusion continues to evolve, many accounting firms find themselves in a complex dance where the music occasionally skips a beat due to recent legislative actions in states like Florida, Texas and Utah. While these states have opted to cut back on DEI education, the corporate world has been slow to raise its voice, leaving DEI leaders to juggle the impacts of landmark rulings, like the U.S. Supreme Court’s take on affirmative action.

In today’s often-mercurial environment, DEI professionals can face apathy or active resistance, a reality highlighted by a Harvard Business Review article that discusses the burnout rates and high turnover affecting DEI professionals. The emotional toll of maintaining a positive stance in the face of challenges can be profound. Research often suggests that working in DEI roles is not for the faint of heart. These advocates are expected to maintain positive emotions and atmosphere, even when they encounter negativity. This challenge can be especially intense for women and people of color, who already deal with extra layers of expectations and pressures due to societal biases.

The costs of DEI burnout

Most leaders in the DEI space only last about three years. This short tenure highlights just how taxing the emotional and physical demands can be in this line of work. According to the Journal of Organizational Behavior, emotional labor, or the need to fabricate positive feelings and suppress negative ones, can lead to burnout and reduced job satisfaction, especially in roles where employees must continually advocate for underrepresented groups. This is exacerbated by corporate display rules, which dictate how emotions should be shown, placing an additional burden on DEI leaders to manage their feelings while promoting inclusivity. This “surface acting” — masking your true emotions — often leads to emotional exhaustion and eventually, burnout. 

The odds are often stacked against our DEI leaders, making retention a significant challenge and hurdle for sustainable policies. To help these teams overcome internal obstacles like stereotypes, resistance and other societal pressures, firms should invest in frameworks that align with their DEI goals and provide support to their leaders. 

Essential support strategies for DEI leaders

Here are three key pillars that accounting firm leaders can use to effectively support and retain DEI professionals:

  1. Strong advocacy and resource allocation: To support DEI efforts meaningfully, firms should cultivate strong internal advocates who understand the long-term nature of this work. They must also invest in resources — financial and otherwise — that allow DEI leaders to implement effective programs. Engaging firm leadership as champions of these initiatives can amplify DEI efforts across all levels of the organization.
  2. The learning and effectiveness paradigm: Research from Harvard Business School suggests that organizations with a “learning-and-effectiveness” DEI approach see better results than those that merely check boxes. This model values employees for their unique identities and encourages the integration of DEI values into all processes, from hiring to decision-making. For accounting firms, this approach can help shift the focus from compliance to true inclusivity, which is essential for long-term growth and employee satisfaction.
  3. Supportive flexibility: Providing flexibility, such as offering paid time off for DEI-related responsibilities or recognition for their contributions in performance reviews, can go a long way in helping these leaders focus on creating and implementing broader goals.

Practical strategies for alleviating DEI stress

DEI professionals are often an “army of one,” responsible for maintaining firmwide inclusivity goals. To manage the emotional weight of this work, consider these quick strategies to improve morale and reduce burnout.

  1. Celebrate milestones and wins: Recognizing even small achievements can boost morale. Studies show that marking milestones can have a significant impact on motivation and job satisfaction. Regularly reviewing DEI metrics to track and celebrate progress helps to maintain momentum and commitment, creating a cycle of positive reinforcement for DEI efforts.
  2. Encourage participation in DEI events: A strong network is essential for any professional, and this is especially true for DEI leaders. Events and industry connections provide fresh perspectives and insights that can inform DEI strategies. They also offer valuable opportunities to connect with others who understand the unique challenges of DEI work, helping professionals feel less isolated in their roles.
  3. Encourage emotional health: DEI work is emotionally taxing, and professionals need to establish boundaries for their mental well-being. Accounting firms can actively support DEI leaders by fostering a workplace culture that respects boundaries, promotes self-care and provides opportunities for delegation. A well-resourced DEI team can better handle the pressures of the role, ensuring a sustainable impact on firm culture.

Moving forward: A balanced approach to DEI

The journey toward inclusivity may be challenging, but the benefits are clear: a robust DEI strategy isn’t just good for employee morale — it’s essential for attracting and retaining talent. In fact, the vast majority of job seekers consider diversity an important factor when evaluating companies and job offers. A recent Glassdoor survey asked more than 4,000 employees or job seekers how important corporate investment in diversity, equity and inclusion is to them when considering a new job. Not surprisingly, 77% of Gen Z men and 76% of Gen Z women said it was somewhat or very important. But older workers felt similarly. In fact, both millennial men and women felt even more strongly about it, at 79%. Even Gen X (69% of men and 76% of women) and Boomers (56% of men and 70% of women) felt it was either somewhat or very important. So while news reports may posit that people care less about DEI in the workplace, the vast majority consider it important. 

Creating a work environment that genuinely promotes diversity, equity and inclusion not only improves employee engagement but also contributes to innovation, job satisfaction and, ultimately, a stronger bottom line. Accounting firms that invest in DEI — especially in supportive structures for DEI professionals — are more likely to create a workplace where employees feel safe, respected and empowered, which is critical when competing for talent in today’s shrinking pool.

By acknowledging the challenges DEI leaders face and providing them with the resources, autonomy and support they need, accounting firms can cultivate an inclusive culture that attracts and retains diverse talent. As external pressures continue to shape the DEI landscape, firms that proactively support DEI efforts — and the employees leading the charge — will be better equipped to navigate these challenges, building a resilient, adaptable workplace where employees thrive.

Continue Reading

Trending