IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00477398.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Les Facteurs Objectifs De La Complexité De La Tâche En Audit Légal

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Ifergan

    (IAE Nice - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nice - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Pierre-Laurent Bescos

    (EDHEC - EDHEC Business School - UCL - Université catholique de Lille)

Abstract

Previous researches on judgmental errors during legal audit were focus on causes derived from the auditor's lack of independence. But current works hold with the fact that these errors are also linked to task complexity audit, this complexity coming from auditor's characteristics (subjective factors) or from the engagement's parameters (objective factors). Thus, this communication aims to demonstrate that objective factors explaining task complexity audit should not be neglected, as they also cause inevitable certification errors due to some risks hard to valuate, the instability of law, lack, abundance or imprecision of accounting or tax rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Ifergan & Pierre-Laurent Bescos, 2010. "Les Facteurs Objectifs De La Complexité De La Tâche En Audit Légal," Post-Print hal-00477398, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00477398
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00477398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00477398/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abir Sakka, 2009. "L'Auditeur: Complice Ou Victime De L'Audit?," Post-Print halshs-00460551, HAL.
    2. Campbell, Donald J. & Gingrich, Karl F., 1986. "The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 162-180, October.
    3. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    4. Libby, Robert & Lewis, Barry L., 1977. "Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 245-268, June.
    5. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    6. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    7. Sarah Bonner, 1991. "Is experience necessary in cue measurement? The case of auditing tasks," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 253-269, September.
    8. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    9. Charles Piot, 2008. "Les déterminants du délai de signature du rapport d'audit en France," ACCRA, Association francophone de comptabilité, vol. 14(2), pages 43-73.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alia Miledi & Benoit Pigé, 2013. "Le Jugement Professionnel En Audit : Enquete Aupres Des Associes Signataires," Post-Print hal-01002359, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Ifergan, 2011. "Interprétativisme et complexité des normes d'audit françaises," Post-Print hal-00650464, HAL.
    2. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    3. O'Donnell, Ed. & Koch, Bruce & Boone, Jeff, 2005. "The influence of domain knowledge and task complexity on tax professionals' compliance recommendations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-165, February.
    4. Gediminas Adomavicius & Shawn P. Curley & Alok Gupta & Pallab Sanyal, 2020. "How Decision Complexity Affects Outcomes in Combinatorial Auctions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2579-2600, November.
    5. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    6. Hun†Tong Tan & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 761-787, September.
    7. Mala, Rajni & Chand, Parmod, 2014. "Impacts of Additional Guidance Provided on International Financial Reporting Standards on the Judgments of Accountants," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 263-288.
    8. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    9. Dilla, William N. & Raschke, Robyn L., 2015. "Data visualization for fraud detection: Practice implications and a call for future research," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-22.
    10. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    11. Laitinen, Erkki K. & Laitinen, Teija, 2015. "A probability tree model of audit quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(2), pages 665-677.
    12. Wen-Ching Chang & Yahn-Shir Chen & Ling-Tai Lynette Chou & Chia-Hui Ko, 2016. "Audit Partner Disciplinary Actions and Financial Restatements," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 52(2), pages 286-318, June.
    13. David T. Dearman & Michael D. Shields, 2005. "Avoiding Accounting Fixation: Determinants of Cognitive Adaptation to Differences in Accounting Method," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 351-384, June.
    14. Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    15. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    16. Barton, Jan & Waymire, Gregory, 2004. "Investor protection under unregulated financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 65-116, December.
    17. Venkataraghavan Krishnaswamy & R. P. Sundarraj, 2017. "Organizational implications of a comprehensive approach for cloud-storage sourcing," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 57-73, February.
    18. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2008. "The interplay between cost accounting knowledge and presentation formats in cost-based decision-making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 582-602, August.
    19. Marie Caussimont & David Carassus, 2015. "L’audit financier en contexte territorial : vers un audit de performance de la gestion locale ?," Post-Print hal-02141946, HAL.
    20. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00477398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.