臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

對於財務狀況不佳的企業，會計師應依審計準則之規定，對受查者據以編製財務報表的繼續經營假設加以評估，如對繼續經營有重大疑慮，應修正查核報告。然而，會計師在形成繼續經營假設意見時，其決定因素為何？
本文參酌過去國內外相關文獻之研究結果及我國證券交易市場現行規定，採用5項財務性指標及1項非財務性指標作為自變數，以會計師在各種個案情況下出具繼續經營疑慮查核報告之可能性為因變數，建立迴歸模型。個案係採問卷方式，並以二分之一因素設計法，模擬在不同情況下，由受試之審計人員進行判斷。實證結果如下：
1. 本研究選定之六個因素，對於查核人員形成繼續經營假設意見之判斷上，均達統計上的顯著水準
2. 當公司存在鉅額或有負債下，要較之其他財務變數更可能增加查核人員出具繼續經營假設意見的可能性。此外，當公司存在未註銷的退票記錄時，又比所有財務變數更可能促使查核人員出具繼續經營假設意見。
3. 在合夥人與非合夥人判斷的共識性與一致性上，合夥人的判斷共識均比非合夥人來的高，顯示在使用本研究所給定的因素方面，合夥人對各種因素要如何置放權重有較一致的看法，而非合夥人或釵]為不是審計意見的最後簽發者，因此在因素的使用上看法較為分歧。另外，就判斷的一致性而言，合夥人較非合夥人略低，但未達統計上的顯著水準。
4. 以男、女受試者進行分組比較，其結果顯示在六個判斷因素上，均無統計上顯著之差異。
5. 審計準則公報16號與33號在修正及發佈後，查核人員出具繼續經營假設意見的可能性稍有增加，此一實證結果與過去文獻並不一致。

ABSTRACT
When auditing the financial statements of a client experiencing financial deterioration, the accountant should, in accordance with the established audit principles, assess the validity of the going concern assumption the client used to prepare its financial statements, and modify the audit opinion if the accountant finds significant going concern uncertainties. But what are the determinants in forming the opinion on going concern assumption?
In reference to past studies and the prevailing regulations governing Taiwan’s securities exchange market; this paper built a regression model using five financial indicators and one non-financial indicator as independent variables and the likelihood of the accountant issuing audit report expressing going concern uncertainties under different scenarios as dependent variable. The study was carried out by questionnaire survey and different scenarios were created by “factorial design” for tested auditors to make decisions on. The study finds the following:
1. All six determinants selected in this study are significantly correlated with auditor’s formation of opinion on going concern assumption.
2. In comparison with other financial variables, huge contingent liability increases the likelihood of an auditor issuing qualified opinion on going concern assumption. In addition, having uncancelled bad check record more likely than all other financial variables to prompt an auditor to issue qualified opinion on going concern assumption.
3. In terms of consensus and consistency of auditor’s decisions among partners and non-partners, the consensus among partners is higher than that among non-partners, indicating partners tend to agree on how to weigh each determinant defined in this study, while non-partners tend to have divergent views with regard to the weight of each determinant, possibly due to the fact that they are not the signatory of the final audit opinion. In addition, in the consistency of decisions among partners, that among partners is slightly lower than that among non-partners, but the difference is not statistically significant.
4. By comparing the groups of male and female tested auditors, no statistically significant difference is observed in the six determinants.
5. The likelihood of auditors issuing qualified opinion on going concerned opinion increases slightly following the amendment and promulgation of Audit Principle Bulletin No. 16 and No.33. This finding does not coincide with the conclusions drawn in the other studies.

目 錄
謝詞 3
中文摘要 4
英文摘要 6
目錄 8
圖次與表次 10
第一章 緒論 11
第一節 研究背景與動機 11
第二節 研究目的與研究主題 14
第三節 論文架構 17
第二章 文獻探討 18
第一節 審計行為判斷研究及相關文獻 18
第二節 繼續經營假設疑慮相關議題文獻 23
第三節 審計準則相關規範之沿革及證券交易市場現行規定 29
第四節 保留意見型態預測模型相關文獻 34
第三章 研究設計與方法 38
第一節 問卷設計與內容 38
第二節 資料分析方法 43
第四章 實證結果與分析 45
第一節 查核人員出具繼續經營假設意見的決定因素 45
第二節 判斷共識與判斷一致性的比較分析 49
第三節 審計準則公報十六號與三十三號發布後對查核人員形成繼續經營假設意見的影響 51
第四節 實證結果彙總 52
第五章 結論與建議 55
第一節 結論 55
第二節 研究限制 58
第三節 未來研究方向 59
附錄一：研究問卷 60
附錄二：台灣證券交易所營業細則第49條與第50條 75
附錄三：合夥人與非合夥人組內之相關係數
A部分：合夥人Pearson相關係數 80
B部分：非合夥人Pearson相關係數 81
C部分：合夥人Spearman相關係數 82
D部分：非合夥人Spearman相關係數 83
參考文獻 84

參考文獻
一、中文部分
1.林耿步，民78，台灣證券市場上市公司保留意見審計報告所含資訊內容之研究，輔仁大管理科學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
2.林蕙真，民82，「保留意見書對股價的影響之研究(上)」，會計研究月刊，第93，頁137-141。
3.林蕙真，民82，「保留意見書對股價的影響之研究(中)」，會計研究月刊，第94期，頁75-77。
4.林蕙真，民82，「保留意見書對股價的影響之研究(下)」，會計研究月刊，第95，頁137-143。
5.李煥堂，民83，由累積異常報酬探討保留意見之資訊內涵，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
6.吳孟達，民85，審計人員內部控制判斷行為研究─類神經網路之應用，台灣大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
6.周雪琴，民85，財務比率與會計師簽發查核報告意見型態關係之研究，台灣大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
7.財政部證券暨期貨管理委員會，民77，發行人募集與發行有價證券處理準則。
8.財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會，民76，審計準則公報第二號：查核會計報告處理原則。
9.財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會，民88，審計準則公報第十六號：繼續經營之評估。
10.財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會，民88，審計準則公報第三十三號：財務報表查核報告。
11.郭水義，民78，繼續經營之評估與審計報告弁鄋漪膍s，政治大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文。
12.陳旭郁，民87，會計師出具保留意見與其害怕失去客戶之恐懼及其提供非審計服務之關聯性研究，政治大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文。
13.陳輝吉，財務危機手冊：面對25個企業致命的錯誤，臉譜出版社。
14.蔡美惠，民89，繼續經營特性與會計師查核意見之研究，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
15.賴永發，民86，由盈餘反應係數探討保留意見之資訊內涵，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
（二）英文部分：
1.American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1981, The Auditor’s Considerations When a Question Arises about an Entity''s Continued Existence, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 34, New York: AICPA.
2.American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1988a, Report on Audited Financial Statements, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 58, New York: AICPA.
3.American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1988b, The Auditor''s Consideration of an Entity''s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59, New York: AICPA.
4.Banks and Kinney Jr., 1982,“Loss Contingency Reports and Stock Price: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Accounting Research (Spring), pp. 240-254.
5.Chen, K. C. W. and B. K. Church, 1996,“Going Concern Opinions and The Market’s Reaction to Bankruptcy Filings,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 (January), pp. 117-128.
6.Chow, C. and S. Rice, 1982,“Qualified Audit Opinions and Share Prices: An Investigation,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Winter), pp. 25-53.
7.Dodd, P., N. Dopuch, R. Holthausen, and R. Leftwich, 1984,“Qualified Audit Opinions and Stock Prices Information Content, Announcement Dates and Concurrent Disclosures,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 6(April), pp. 3-38.
8.Dopuch, N., R. Holthausen, and R. Leftwich, 1987,“Predicting Audit Qualifications with Financial and Market Variables,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 62 (July), pp.431-454.
9.Elliot, J. A., 1982,“Subject to Audit Opinion and Abnormal Security Returns-Outcomes and Ambiguities,” Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn), pp. 617-638.
10.Firth, M., 1978,“Qualified Audit Reports: Their Impact on Investment Decisions,” The Accounting Review (July), pp. 642-650.
11.Holder-Webb, L. M. and M. S. Wilkins, 2000,“The Incremental Information Content of SAS No. 59 Going-Concern Opinions,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 209-219.
12.Johnson, V. E.., and S. E. Kaplan. 1991. “Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10: PP. 96-107
13.Koh, H. C. and L. N. Kilough, 1990,“The Use of Multiple Discriminant and Analysis in the Assessment of the Going-Concern Status of an Audit Client,” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting (Spring), pp. 179-192.
14.Krishnan, J., and J. Krishnan, 1996,“The Role of Economic Tradeoffs in the Audit Opinion Decision: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance (Fall), pp. 565-586.
15.Loudder, M. L., I. K. Khurana, R. B. Sawyers, C. Cordery, C. Johnson, J. Lowe,and R. Wunderle, 1992, “The Information Content of Audit Qualifications,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 11, Iss. 1 (Spring), pp. 69-82.
16.Mutchler, J. F., 1985,“A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor’s Going-Concern Opinion Decision,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Autumn), pp. 668-682.
17.Marshall A. Geiger and K. Raghunandan, 2002,“Going-Concern Opinions in the New Legal Environment,” Accounting Horizons (March), pp. 17-26.
18.Raghunandan, K. and D. V. Rama, 1995,“Audit Reports for Companies in Financial Distress: Before and After SAS No. 59,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 14. 1 (Spring), pp. 50-63.