全面透视中美会计跨境监管僵局

    美国证券交易委员（SEC）会起诉五家中国会计师事务所一案已引发众多讨论：这起诉讼有着怎样的意义？对在华经营的跨国公司可能产生怎样的影响？笔者从这一事件的最初就开始写文章，现可以更详细地来分析一下这个问题。

    这里可能牵涉到有两项行动。第一，美国证券交易委员会早已提交了针对这些会计师事务所的诉讼。第二，美国上市公司会计监管委员会（PCAOB）可能更改规定，取消中国会计师事务所的注册资格。迄今为止，美国上市公司会计监管委员会尚未采取行动。

    SEC一案的结果可能是行政初审法官判定五家会计师事务所未向SEC提交审计工作文件应受处罚。处罚措施可能横跨谴责这些会计师事务所到全面禁止其为SEC提供审计报告。全面禁止也可能包括，禁止它们继续服务于跨国公司。笔者认为这种可能性很小。更可能的情况是法官禁止它们为海外私营发行人提供审计服务，不涉及跨国公司客户。如果是这种情况，跨国公司就不会有问题。话虽如此，但我估计美国上市公司会计监管委员会的条例制定流程会考虑这起SEC诉讼，可能取消那些它无法实施检查的会计师事务所的注册资格。

    如果这些事务所的美国上市公司会计监管委员会注册资格被取消，跨国公司面临的问题会很严重。根据美国上市公司会计监管委员会的规定，任何在美国上市公司审计中承担关键角色的会计师事务所必须是在美国上市公司会计监管委员会登记注册的事务所。如果这些事务所丧失了登记注册资格，就不能再继续承担关键角色。

    下面美国上市公司会计监管委员会条例中对于关键角色的定义：

    (p)(ii) 在一份审计报告的准备或提交过程中承担关键角色

    “在一份审计报告的准备或提交过程中承担关键角色”意味着——

    -1 为发行人提供实质性服务，会计师事务所运用或依赖这样的服务发布全部或部分与发行人相关的审计报告，或者

    -2 为发行人子公司或部分业务提供主要审计服务，这些子公司或部分业务的资产或营收须达到发行人并表资产或营收的20%或以上，是主会计师事务所发布该发行人审计报告时不可缺少的部分。

    注1:第(1)段定义里的“实质性服务”意味着主会计师事务所为发布该发行人审计报告的全部或部分，投入的服务小时数或服务收费在总量中的占比分别达到20%或更多。该服务不包括向非审计客户提供的非审计服务。

    注2:第(2)段定义里的“子公司或部分业务”包括所有的子公司、部门、分支机构、办公室或其他业务，不管其组织结构和/或与发行人的控制关系。

    There has been a great deal of discussion about the implications of the SEC case against the five Chinese accounting firms and its potential impact on multinational companies operating in China. I posted on this when the issue first came up, and it is worth a more detailed look.

    There are two possible actions involved here. First we have the present case already filed by the SEC against the firms. Next we have a potential change in the rules by the PCAOB that would deregister Chinese accounting firms. The PCAOB has yet to act.

    The SEC case could lead to the Administrative Trial Judge penalizing the five firms for failing to provide working papers to the SEC. Those penalties could range from censure to completely banning the firms from practice before the SEC. A complete ban could include prohibiting them from serving multinationals. I think the chance of that is remote. More likely, the judge will ban them from auditing foreign private issuers and will leave the MNC clients alone. In that case, there is no issue for MNCs. Nonetheless, I think the SEC process will be subsumed by a PCAOB rulemaking process that proposes to deregister accounting firms that it cannot inspect.

    If the PCAOB moves to deregister the firms, then the risk for MNCs is more serious. PCAOB rules require any firm that plays a substantial role in the audit of a U.S. listed company must be registered with the PCAOB. If the firms lose their registration, then they cannot play a substantial role.

    Here is the definition of substantial role from the PCAOB rules:

    (p)(ii) Play a Substantial Role in the Preparation or Furnishing of an Audit Report

    The phrase "play a substantial role in the preparation or furnishing of an audit report" means –

    -1 to perform material services that a public accounting firm uses or relies on in issuing all or part of its audit report with respect to any issuer, or

    -2 to perform the majority of the audit procedures with respect to a subsidiary or component of any issuer the assets or revenues of which constitute 20% or more of the consolidated assets or revenues of such issuer necessary for the principal accountant to issue an audit report on the issuer.

    Note 1: For purposes of paragraph (1) of this definition, the term "material services" means services, for which the engagement hours or fees constitute 20% or more of the total engagement hours or fees, respectively, provided by the principal accountant in connection with the issuance of all or part of its audit report with respect to any issuer. The term does not include non-audit services provided to non-audit clients.

    Note 2: For purposes of paragraph (2) of this definition, the phrase "subsidiary or component" is meant to include any subsidiary, division, branch, office or other component of an issuer, regardless of its form of organization and/or control relationship with the issuer.