Assessing Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Using Expert Accounting Witness Evidence and the Conceptual Framework: GAAP, Expert Evidence, and the Conceptual Framework
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
To enhance understanding of the status of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, we analyse important rules of evidence in United States (US) courts regarding the presentation of expert accounting witness testimony. We draw on this analysis to recommend the relocation of the Conceptual Framework in the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) hierarchy. For empirical support, we explore how rules of evidence in the criminal trial in 2006 of Enron’s two most senior executives affected assessment of whether Enron’s financial reports conformed with the FASB’s GAAP. We recommend that the FASB’s Conceptual Framework should be included in authoritative literature as the uppermost authority, and that it be grounded closely in user needs and the ethical principles associated with meeting those needs. Further, we recommend that accounting expert witnesses adopt an overriding concern for objectivity and impartiality in assisting courts to understand complex accounting matters within the Conceptual Framework.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 200-206 |
Journal | Australian Accounting Review |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 26 Sep 2014 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Sep 2014 |
Documents
- CRAIG_2014_cright_AAR_Assessing_Conformity_with_Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles_Using_Expert_Accounting_Witness_Evidence_and_the_Conceptual_Framework
Rights statement: This is the accepted version of the following article: "Assessing Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Using Expert Accounting Witness Evidence and the Conceptual Framework", (2014), Australian Accounting Review, 24(3), DOI: 10.1111/auar.12039, which has been published in final form at http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/auar.12039
Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 362 KB, PDF document
Related information
ID: 6107199