圖為約翰·卡洛斯先生在會計(jì)審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則國際趨同演講會上發(fā)言

國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的發(fā)展

約翰·卡洛斯 國際審計(jì)與鑒證準(zhǔn)則理事會主席

　　很高興今天能代表國際審計(jì)與鑒證準(zhǔn)則理事會（IAASB）來到北京。中國加速國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則趨同的決定體現(xiàn)了你們對國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的信心，對此，我深表感謝，對于中國注冊會計(jì)師協(xié)會（簡稱“中注協(xié)”）應(yīng)對這一決定而取得的進(jìn)展表示欽佩。

　　歐盟也作出了類似的決定，很快將開始采用國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。還有很多國家有類似的政策。IAASB需要確保所制定的國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則能被不同司法體系、歷史和文化的國家所采納。從一定層面上說，我們通過國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定中穩(wěn)健而透明的程序來實(shí)現(xiàn)該目標(biāo)。

　　我們完備的準(zhǔn)則制定程序是高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的，最近得到了公眾利益監(jiān)督委員會的批準(zhǔn)。該委員會要求我們將制定程序與其他類似的準(zhǔn)則制定者進(jìn)行比較。我們確信我們的準(zhǔn)則制定程序是經(jīng)得起比較的，這將使我們的準(zhǔn)則使用者有信心相信國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是高質(zhì)量的。

　　我們對完備的準(zhǔn)則制定程序有信心的另一個(gè)重要原因，是因?yàn)槲覀兊臅�議是向公眾公開的，會議議程等材料可以通過網(wǎng)站免費(fèi)查看。會議記錄也能在網(wǎng)站找到。這樣一來，人們就可以知道我們討論的依據(jù)究竟是什么，而且，如果他們愿意的話，還可以親耳聆聽討論的內(nèi)容。

　　對于我們準(zhǔn)則的權(quán)威性而言，有關(guān)當(dāng)事人能對我們的征求意見稿發(fā)表意見是很重要的。因此，我們一貫將權(quán)威性文件予以公開，以便征求意見。考慮到在國際環(huán)境中這樣做的難度，我們給予120天的時(shí)間征求意見—我們希望這已足夠進(jìn)行翻譯和內(nèi)部征詢意見，我們認(rèn)為這對于征求更進(jìn)一步的意見至關(guān)重要。

　　來自不同國家的各種意見有利于確保國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則能為多數(shù)國家接受并無需修正地施行。如果不能達(dá)到這個(gè)水平，準(zhǔn)則就不能被稱為“國際”準(zhǔn)則。所以，我們力圖使準(zhǔn)則“框架中立”—就是說，運(yùn)用準(zhǔn)則的能力并不取決于任何關(guān)于法律或會計(jì)框架的假設(shè)。當(dāng)然，有時(shí)候出于國情的考慮，需要對準(zhǔn)則作出改動—無論這是由于法律的沖突，還是其他一些當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境的原因。保證這種情況在當(dāng)?shù)氐靡赃m當(dāng)解決是各國準(zhǔn)則制定者的責(zé)任。但有必要注意的是，應(yīng)確保國際準(zhǔn)則不因?yàn)閲�家改變而變得面目全非。我們正在草擬一個(gè)政策說明來幫助各國準(zhǔn)則制定者決定什么形式的改變是被允許的，同時(shí)還能夠確保所制定的準(zhǔn)則與國際準(zhǔn)則保持一致。

　　我希望在中國，關(guān)心審計(jì)的人們，或許可以通過中注協(xié)對我們的征求意見稿發(fā)表意見。我希望可以聽到來自中國意見。另一條途徑是我們主辦的由各重要國家審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定者參加的年度會議。我希望中注協(xié)的審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會可以派代表參加我們的下一次準(zhǔn)則制定者會議。這些會議有助于我們認(rèn)識到所需要處理的問題，因?yàn)閲�際上很多人關(guān)注找尋共同的方法以解決共同的問題。

　　IAASB的構(gòu)成對于制定可接受的準(zhǔn)則也是很重要的。目前，在我們的18名委員中，12個(gè)國家派出了自己的代表。這種理事會委員構(gòu)成有兩大好處：第一，將不同環(huán)境下的經(jīng)驗(yàn)帶到會上，這有助于IAASB理解在國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中所允許的各個(gè)國家的差異；第二，使IAASB委員認(rèn)識到行事的方法可以不同于人們最初的理解，——這有助于我們在關(guān)鍵的時(shí)候變得靈活，還使我們能夠找到最佳的方法。只要是有效的，即使在個(gè)別使用準(zhǔn)則的國家可能要對準(zhǔn)則予以修改的情況下，也應(yīng)運(yùn)用的最佳方法。

　　如果關(guān)注一下我們的議程和潛在的議程就可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們不乏需要處理的題目。我們的問題是，要尋求平衡，在需要我們采取行動的眾多項(xiàng)目與有限的資源之間尋求平衡，在制定更多準(zhǔn)則和“準(zhǔn)則泛濫”的危險(xiǎn)之間尋求平衡。目前，我們正努力提高我們準(zhǔn)則的清晰度。在這方面我們有許多目標(biāo)，但是，最基本的是剔除可能會對翻譯產(chǎn)生影響的任何語言使用的含糊不清。為達(dá)到這一目的，我們?yōu)槊宽?xiàng)準(zhǔn)則都設(shè)定了目標(biāo)，并將之分段，分別包括各自的準(zhǔn)則要求和指南。我們希望這將有助于人們清楚地理解準(zhǔn)則的要求。這還有助于各國準(zhǔn)則制定者在當(dāng)?shù)夭杉{國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。比如，在中國，你們將準(zhǔn)則要求和指南分列在不同的文件中；其他準(zhǔn)則制定者可能也作類似的處理。我們認(rèn)為，這種分別列示的做法有助于各國準(zhǔn)則制定者正確地實(shí)施國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。但我們強(qiáng)調(diào)，準(zhǔn)則要求和指南對于確保審計(jì)師正確理解準(zhǔn)則要求都是必需的。

　　我們也正在制定其他不同的項(xiàng)目，如：對關(guān)聯(lián)方的考慮、集團(tuán)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表審計(jì)、審計(jì)中利用專家工作、客戶聲明書以及服務(wù)組織。每一個(gè)項(xiàng)目都有自己的需要。比如，關(guān)于關(guān)聯(lián)方項(xiàng)目的制定就在舞弊及其審計(jì)項(xiàng)目之后。這一項(xiàng)目更新了關(guān)于舞弊方面的國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則，使審計(jì)能更有效地識別舞弊所造成的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告錯(cuò)報(bào)。但我們還認(rèn)識到在某些領(lǐng)域舞弊更加普遍，或者更可能產(chǎn)生—如其中之一就是實(shí)體與關(guān)聯(lián)方的交易和關(guān)聯(lián)關(guān)系中所產(chǎn)生的舞弊。作為另一個(gè)例子，由于會計(jì)的發(fā)展，比如更加廣泛地使用公允價(jià)值，需要更多地利用專家工作，所以我們正關(guān)注利用專家工作項(xiàng)目。

　　在未來的兩年左右時(shí)間中，我們還將繼續(xù)致力于這些工作。但由于現(xiàn)有的項(xiàng)目已趨成熟，我們還需要考慮之后我們應(yīng)該做什么。在使國際審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則變得清晰的過程中，我們有機(jī)會來考慮其他準(zhǔn)則是否需要大范圍的修訂。但也有其他題目，比如運(yùn)用可擴(kuò)展商業(yè)報(bào)告語言（XBRL）系統(tǒng)下的報(bào)告，在這種情況下數(shù)據(jù)可以以標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的類別提供給使用者，以便使用者進(jìn)行分析�？赡苓�會有處理預(yù)期信息的需求，而且，要求考慮我們是否可以就鑒證非財(cái)務(wù)信息發(fā)布一個(gè)準(zhǔn)則，比如管理報(bào)告或持續(xù)經(jīng)營能力報(bào)告。

　　我們還會發(fā)現(xiàn)快速前進(jìn)的國際環(huán)境要求我們在問題產(chǎn)生時(shí)作出更快的反應(yīng)。比如，很多國家采納了國際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則（IFRS），但不是所有的能夠完全按照它來做。我們也許會發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們需要考慮審計(jì)師如何參考與IFRS類似而非完全就是IFRS的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告框架。在這些情況中，人們經(jīng)常會有種可以理解的愿望，就是參考資料最好是某種經(jīng)修改了的IFRS.這是否被允許以及被允許到什么程度，是個(gè)有難度的問題，這涉及到在復(fù)雜的國際環(huán)境中本國法律要求與專業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之間的相互影響。

　　我很高興今天能有機(jī)會向大家介紹國際準(zhǔn)則和IAASB的工作。我確信，我們的工作對于可靠的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告和金融穩(wěn)定做出了重要的貢獻(xiàn)。但重要的是，應(yīng)認(rèn)識到這一貢獻(xiàn)只是共同努力做好許多事情中的一個(gè)部分，這許多的事情包括：會計(jì)教育，包括強(qiáng)調(diào)道德行為和價(jià)值；遵循高質(zhì)量報(bào)告和審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的法律、職業(yè)和監(jiān)管要求；對職業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的內(nèi)、外部監(jiān)管；強(qiáng)化公司報(bào)告要求；以及懲戒安排。

　　很高興今天和大家在一起，我祝愿中國在國際準(zhǔn)則趨同上的努力獲得成功。

　　相關(guān)講話鏈接：

　　金人慶在中國會計(jì)審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系發(fā)布會上發(fā)表重要講話

　　樓繼偉：中國企業(yè)會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則建設(shè)的可貴實(shí)踐和嶄新突破　　　　

　　劉仲藜：創(chuàng)新審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系維護(hù)社會公眾利益

　　格雷厄姆·沃德先生在會計(jì)審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系發(fā)布會上發(fā)言

　　相關(guān)專題：“中國會計(jì)審計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系發(fā)布”專題

　　講話原文：

　　Development of International Standardson Auditing

Speech by John Kellas， Chairman IAAS Bon the Release Ceremony for Chinese Accounting Standards System for Business Enterprises and Chinese Auditing Standards System

Beijing， 15 February， 2006

　　It is a great pleasure to be able to represent the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board （IAASB） in Beijing today. I should like to express my appreciation of the confidence shown in the International Standards on Auditing （ISAs） by the decision of China to accelerate convergence with the ISAs； and my admiration for the way in which the CICPA has made progress in response to that decision.

　　A similar decision has been taken by the European Union， which will shortly be going through the process of endorsing the ISAs. And there are many other countries who have similar policies. At IAASB， we need to ensure that we write ISAs that can be adopted in jurisdictions with such different legal systems， histories and cultures. We do this， in part， by having a sound and transparent process for the development of the ISAs.

　　Our due processes are of a very high standard. They have recently been approved by the Public Interest Oversight Board， which required us to compare our processes with those of other comparable standard setters. We believe that ours stood up well to this comparison， and should give those who use our standards confidence that the ISAs will be of high quality.

　　An important part of our determination to create confidence in our due process is that our meetings are open to the public， and the agenda materials are freely available on our web site. Recordings of our meetings are also placed on the web site. In this way， people can see exactly what our discussions are based on， and hear， if they wish， the discussions themselves.

　　It is important to the authority of our standards that interested parties should be able to comment on our proposals. We therefore always expose any intended authoritative document for comment. Recognising the difficulties of doing this in the international context， we allow 120 days for responses to proposals—enough， we hope， to allow for translation and domestic consultation to take place， which we think are essential to encourage the depth of comment we are seeking.

　　A good range of comment from many jurisdictions is essential to help us to ensure that our ISAs will be acceptable and will work in most countries without amendment. If this were not the case， they would cease to be‘international’standards. So we try to make them‘framework neutral’—that is， the ability to use them does not depend on any assumption about legal or accounting frameworks. Of course， sometimes domestic considerations will require changes to the standards—either because of a conflict of law， or some other local circumstance. It is for national standard setters to ensure that such matters are appropriately dealt with at local level. But care is necessary， to ensure that the international standards are not undermined by country changes. We are working on a policy statement to help national standard setters to decide what type of variation might be permitted， while preserving the ability to deem the resulting standards compliant with international standards.

　　I hope that those in China with an interest in auditing will make comments on our proposals， perhaps through the CICPA. A further avenue through which I am looking for input from China is the annual meeting we hold with important national auditing standard setters. I hope that the CICPA’s auditing standards board can be represented at our next meeting of standard setters. These meetings help us to identify issues that we should be dealing with because there is sufficient international concern to achieve a common solution to common problems.

　　The composition of the IAASB is also important in the context of the development of acceptable standards. At present， amongst our 18 members， 12 countries are represented round the table. This broad membership has 2 advantages： first， it brings to the table a range of experiences of different environments， and this helps the IAASB to understand the differences between jurisdictions that need to be allowed for within the ISAs； secondly， it allows IAASB members to see that there may be different ways of doing things than they had at first understood—this can help us to be flexible when it is important to be so， but it also allows us to identify the best approach which， provided it will work， should be adopted even though it may require changes within certain countries that use the standards.

　　Looking at our agenda， and our potential agenda， we are not short of possible topics to be tackled. Our problem is to balance the need for action on our part， with our resources and the ever-present danger of“standards overload”， which can be counter-productive. At present， we are working hard to improve the clarity of our standards. We have a number of objectives in this project， but the principal one is to remove any ambiguity in our use of language that might affect the interpretation of the requirements. We are doing this by introducing objectives into each standard， followed by separate sections that include respectively requirements and guidance. We hope this will help people to understand clearly what the standards are requiring. It may also help national standard setters to adopt the ISAs locally. In China， for example， you separate requirements and guidance in different documents； other standard setters may do something similar. We think that for us to make that separation will assist national standard setters in the proper implementation of the ISAs. But we stress that both requirements and guidance are necessary to ensure that the requirements are properly understood by auditors.

　　We are also working on projects as diverse as the consideration of related parties； the audit of group financial statements； the use of experts on an audit； representation letters； and service organisations. Each of these projects responds to an identified need. For example， our work on related parties follows on from our work on fraud and the audit. That project updated our ISA on fraud to try to make the audit more effective in identifying when financial statements are misstated because of fraud. But we also recognise that there are some areas where fraud is more prevalent， or more likely—and one of these is in transactions and relationships between an entity and parties related to it. As another example， we are looking at the use of experts since developments in accounting， such as greater use of fair values， are tending to require greater use of specialist expertise.

　　These matters will keep us occupied for the next 2 years or so. But we also need to consider what we need to do after that time， as current projects mature. The process of clarifying our ISAs will give us an opportunity to consider whether any other standards require more extensive revision. But there are also other topics， such as reporting using XBRL， under which a set of data can be supplied to users in standard categories which allow users to manipulate the data readily for analysis. There may also be a need to deal with forecast information， and there are demands to consider whether we should issue a standard on assurance on non-financial information such as management or sustainability reports.

　　We may also find that the fast moving international environment requires us to find ways of responding to issues more quickly as they arise. For example， many jurisdictions are adopting International Financial Reporting Standards （IFRS）， but not all find that they can do so completely. We may find that we need to consider how auditors can refer to financial reporting frameworks that are close to IFRS， but not wholly IFRS. There is often an understandable desire in these cases that the references should be to some form of modified IFRS. Whether， and how far， this should be allowed is a difficult question， involving the interplay of domestic legal requirements and professional standards in a complex international environment.

　　I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to you today about international standards and the work of the IAASB. Our work， I am sure， makes an important contribution to reliable financial reporting， and therefore to financial stability. But it is important to recognise that this contribution is only one among many others that have a part to play in achieving this： accountancy education， including an emphasis on ethical behaviour and values； legal， professional and regulatory requirements to follow high quality standards of reporting and auditing； internal and external monitoring of professional standards； enforcement of corporate reporting requirements； and disciplinary arrangements.

　　It has been a pleasure to be with you today； I wish China well in its endeavours to achieve convergence with international standards.