内部控制外文文献及翻译

附录A

关于内部控制的意见

如果要证明功能扩展到包含内部控制的有效性，那么报告准则则必须制定，若干基本问题必须被解决。

随着日益频繁增长，审计员听取了他们应该发表的一个效力于客户的内部控制制度建议的意见。这一证明功能扩展的主张者迅速指出，目前已经有了实例如独立审计师的报告公开他们的客户的内部控制制度和一些政府机构的成效，包括一些空置中的美国证券和交易委员会，都需要一个报告。这些证实类型的反对者公布了任何关于内部控制的有效性，他们认为，目前有显着性差异监管机构的报告要求和提出意见的内部控制将会误导公众。本文综述了目前报告的做法，考虑到理想状态相关的危害的特点，并最后提出了一些在任何给与最后判决之前必要的予以回答的问题。

现状报告

虽然审计员的报告中的一些情况提及了内部控制的性质，但作出的本质陈述还有很大不同的效应。

大型银行。关于对内部控制的观点事实上出现在一些大型银行和看法发行的年度报告中。有时这些意见是被董事会要求的。例如，下面的主张出现在1969年年度报告的一个大型纽约银行中，作为第3款的独立会计师的标准短形式的报告：

我们的审核工作包括评价有效性，大块的内部会计控制，其中还包括内部审计。我们认为，在于程序的影响下，再加上银行内部审计工作人员所进行的审核，这些构成一个有效的系统的内部会计控制。

意见被提供给几个其他银行，但它们基本上引用的意见是一样的。

美国证券交易委员会的规定。美国证券交易委员会表格X-17A-5，要求独立审计师作出某些有关的内部控制陈述，并必须在每年的大多数成员国家与每一个证券经纪或注册的交易商根据1934年证券交易法第15条进行交流时。

此外，美国证券交易委员会的第17a-5(g)规定要求独立的核数师的报告要包含“一份如，是否会计师审查了程序，要安全措施保障客户的证券的声明中”此外，许多股票交易所要求该报告要表明审查已取得的“会计制度，内部会计控制和程序，是为维护证券，

包括适当的测试它们对以后的期间，检验日期前”，很显然，美国证券交易委员会的工作人员更倾向于考虑，会计师包括了语言相似，所要求的所有报告的交流提交给证券交易委员会。审计范围的报告通常如下：

我们审核了声明的财务状况（姓名）以及（时间）。我们的审核是根据公认的审计标准，并据此包括审查会计制度，内部会计控制和程序，为维护证券及这种测试，因为因为我们事先认为在必要的情况下。检查了（日期）和会计记录和其他必要的审计程序，（着重添加）

为了避免进行混淆的类型审查，这有关“普遍接受的审计标准”改为了“相应接受的审计标准”。请注意，是要求满足表达的意见是否适当，因为该报告仅仅在审查中指出。

如果在内部控制材料的不足之处，独立审计师需要向美国证券交易委员会报告，但根据规则Rule I7a-5(b)(3)，不足之处可在一份机密报告的补充报告。如果没有发现材料不足，则代表这既不被要求也不期待。因此，美国证券交易委员会的报告并不构成表达意见的内部控制的有效性，并在这方面，很大不同于发表了报告的几个大型银行。

其他政府机构。政府机构大相径庭的关于所需的内部控制报告的类型。或许是要求是最严格的是被市场经济所管理。1967年的市场经济修正案243部分要求核数师评估专营公司的会计制度和内部控制要在大量的OEO补助资金已用完之前。核数师的报告必须包括以下意见：

会计制度和内部控制的（专营公司和代表机构）被认为是（充分，不够），以保障资产的专营公司，是检查准确性和可靠性的会计数据，是促进运营效率和鼓励遵守规定的管理政策。

有些机构需要一个非常类似于由证券交易委员会为经纪人给出的报告。例如，联邦住房贷款银行委员会，要求核数师的报告表明，内部控制进行了审查，并要求提交一份载有管理的关于任何系统的弱点的并建议其改正意见函。

关于内部控制可取的报告

相信这些报告的内部控制是可取的人提出主要有以下两个原因。首先，他们认为这样的报告将是有益于在公众评价管理层的业绩这方面的责任。有些人认为这样的报告作为一个可行的和合乎逻辑的第一步报告管理的表现在其他领域。其次是内部控制的先进的倡导者提出的报告将提供额外依赖于未经编辑的中期财务报表的基础。鉴于日益增加的重要性和其他临时季度报表，他们主张认为，这些报告将提供一个有益的公共服务。相反，在另

一方面，与之有关关切的是，这些报告将会因为风险的误解和不必要的依赖伤害公众。因此，关键的问题是向读者多做内部控制在评估结果方面的潜在好处和危险的这样的报告。关于内部控制灾害的报告

如果报告是关于内部控制对于专业和报告的用户拥有潜在利益的，那么是什么阻碍了完全可以承担责任报告的内部控制呢？

首先，确实没有可以全面评价的内部控制这样的事物。核数师对于内部控制是按照特定类型的错误和可能发生的在违规行为中因为程序的具体类别的交易及相关资产的弱点的谬误。除非是在每一个方面抖很优秀的内部控制，

对于是否存在足够的整体系统概括是极其困难的。一个地区的内部控制的优势在通常下不会抵消另一个领域的弱点。现金收据程序的弱点是不靠减轻强度处理的现金付款，而且充分收集过程不能取代失效的控制权的结算程序。

第二，与总体评价密切相关的各种困难，存在着一个不可比拟的对财务报表作为一个整体的意见，并提出作为内部控制系统一个整体的意见。内部控制的弱点有一个潜在的重大影响的行动，但其重要性不能以同样的一个已知金额错误可以对财务报表作为一个整体的方式被评价。因此，难以制定一个标准的报告的语言，其中的偏差可被视为具有特别的和已知的意义。

第三，关于有任何效性系统的内部控制存在许多内部的局限性。某些行动不受范围之内的内部控制制度的管制。

控制程序，主要依靠联结取决于分离的不相容的职责来被被避免。管理人员负责管理的内部控制系统，他们有能力实施故意错误和违规行为。尽管控制可能依靠低级别的雇员来防止类似的行动。可也许事实上最重要的内在联系表现在人手控制程序，它是依赖于人类的判断和意志，并有许多错误所产生的误解，错误，疏忽，分心或疲劳的可能性。

最后，由于其他关于内部控制部分问题的报告对一部分用户有可能创造一个重大的无理推论和误导。其中最突出的可能的误解为毫无道理的预测到未来期间伴随过度依赖未经财务信息。内部控制的审查和测试只在测试中所涉及。在未来，一些条件条件下，程序和承诺可能发生变化。产生许多变化，可能会发生的变化导致了遵守既定的程序，包括新员工或员工谁接管了新的责任，在业务量上不寻常的波动会导致员工采取走捷径，和创新的行动，或推出新的类型的交易。此外，财务决算的可靠性显著影响不属于受制度管制的管理的判决。

鉴于内部控制的重大危险的看法，这些表述的意见应注意和谨慎。目前，关于内部控制缺乏实地的工作和报告标准所发表的意见，以及会计师事务所提供的一份报告暴露一个未定义的责任。

内部控制的许多问题都必须解决的意见之前，应当有规律的定期印发期刊。这些问题可分为基本问题和报告准则的问题。

基本问题

内部控制意见的发表对于除了管理者以外的任何人包含的重要信息吗？

管理的信函提出改进内部控制制度是一个传统的独立审计产物。而这些内部控制的报告的价值被认为是一个重要的服务来管理，内部控制反对意见的问题被各方以外的其他管理所重视。

内部控制的倡导者的意见认为报告是在有限的范围内，增加了在将来可以可靠性不受影响的依赖未经编辑的财务信息为基础，。目前，在保留意见的财务报表无可能的基础上，他的测试，其中包括一个内部控制重要延伸审计程序所必需的，但核数师的报告已经没有办法知道这一点。一份突出的弱点内部控制回减少缺陷，而且读者将会从本质上了解，大大减少应放在未经财务信息发布期间经审计的报表的依赖。此外，更重要的是，发表关于内部控制意见的管理报告的重大受托义务来制定，安装和监督适当的内部控制系统。，关于内部控制的显着报告在假定情况下地延伸到核数师的责任以外的签发意见的财务报表吗？

任何证明功能延长的建议引起恐惧关于伴随延长的法律责任。虽然明确范围内答案的获得在诉讼之前不能承担法律责任，有一些观点可以猜测得到。

一种观点是，最可能发生的原因的行为将出现疲软时，未报告的内部控制导致财务状况或经营结果的期间所涵盖意见重大的错报，在这种情况下，报告中的缺陷可能会得到广泛的重视从而依靠群众的报告可能损坏。在这种情况下，审计员可能因为他对财务报表提出意见参与诉讼是。

还有一种可能性重大错误或违规行为造成的蓄意歪曲或联合雇员管理，这个没有系统的内部控制事可以防止的。核数师的责任是对这些应类似于他的责任项目的财务报表时，对他提出了无保留意见的重大误导，如果因为蓄意歪曲或联合雇员管理。只要他遵守公认的审计标准，他将不负责。

另一种对法律责任的观点是内部控制意见的表达将提请人们注意当前的责任，并增加

这些责任。反对审计的原告将缺乏对收取审计员有一个新的指控来。此外，如果内部控制这一问题的审查和评价成为一个点的诉讼，陪审团评估这一技术问题可能会更加困难，而不是评价有关的财务报表格式的证词。

内部控制的报告应需要或应该在自由裁量权的管理情况下自愿和发表的吗？

这似乎并不在核数师的省要求报告的内部控制。该报告没有添加任何信誉经审计的财务报表，因此，并不需要建立一个公平的财务状况和经营业绩。那些反对的意见认为，内部控制只有“积极”的意见，内部控制将是适当的发表。管理将自然有一个有重大缺陷的内部控制暴露于公众视野，因此，不会让不利的意见被发表。

这些有利于内部控制意见必须在某处对这种新的报告的做法实行。自愿报告披露，如果它们包含重要信息，已成为一种需要通过公众压力或武力的方法。

是否可以编写不会误导报告使用者的报告？

是否报告在功能的准确性和清晰方面有误导性将是一个认识和了解所拥有的用户的报告。一个最重要内部控制的危险的报告的可能性，是一部分用户毫无道理的和误导的推论。短形式经验的财务报表报告表明，它可作为重要的一份报告，内部控制的报告并不代表它是准确的代表出席了国家会议。其实，这个问题的答案在很大的程度上取决于得到的报告准则的问题答案。

报告准则问题

内部控制的报告是一个单独的报告不同于财务报表的意见吗？

虽然有一定的关系，评价内部控制和财务报表的意见是经审计的财务报表和内部控制评价后有重大区别的。他认为在形成的报表，审计评价内部控制只是一个中间步骤的检查。认为内部控制没有进一步的补充财务报表和任何意义的信誉，这是真正的，应当避免。

当然，内部控制的评价，报告中必须提到财务报表时，内部控制是不够的，遵守公认的审计标准是不可能的。在极端情况下，内部控制实际上是不存在的，一个免责的声明认为是适当的。在这种情况下未入帐的交易是有很大的概率，证明文件的审查是非常怀疑的，并发布资产负债表日后事项不能得到充分的审查。

如果认为对财务报表和内部控制的意见之间的区别是必须有力作出的，认为内部控制应是一个单独的报告。如果该报告不隔离，认为对财务报表的报告应当在对内部控制的报告之前，以避免影响，后者是必要的公正，这是财务报表的表述。

什么是审计工作必须支持内部控制意见的适当范围？

没有以确定的工作范围必须支持内部控制意见的实地工作的标准。充分说明在报告的这一节可以服务的工作范围，财务报表报告中的电子相同的功能段的范围。核数师应负责对未公布的内部控制的弱点，只有他应该发现的审查和评价这弱点的范围，审计工作的内部控制的意见有两个方面，广泛的覆盖面和深度的调查。

应加以澄清审查的范围通过包括一份简明定义的内部控制的报告吗？

宽度的覆盖面可以广泛如一个特别的调查一个管理信息系统或窄的会计控制，必须进行审查，以符合第二次野外工作的标准。无论覆盖的范围有多么宽广，可能包括内部控制制度审查的第一份简明的定义。虽然一些定义可能同样合适，这个问题的简要说明的报告应该考虑到一些定义。结束时定义的短语所介绍的“包括”一词可以用来确定任何方面的管制，要求具体提及。例如，董事会可能会觉得评价内部审计部门尤其重要。

审查以支持意见的内部控制的要求与以满足二级标准的外地工作相同的范围是必要的吗？

第二个进行工作状态的标准：

这里要适当的研究和评价现有的内部控制，其中审计程序受到限制由此程度的测试是信赖和决心的基础。

如果广度覆盖的意见和需要发表意见的财务报表是一样的，那么深入的调查可能与符合第二次野外工作的标准是有关系的。这一点可能涉及的报告的部分范围如下：我们的审核的财务报表形成于act01舞蹈，普遍接受了审计标准，因此包括审查和评价的会计制度和内部控制。

在一个大公司，大量的文书工作，任何程度的审计覆盖面之外的一个小测试所占的百分比将是高昂的交易费用。因此，审计员必须审查和测试内部控制，并得到满意的充分性制度。在一家小公司，这可能不是真的。此外，会计师没有完全同意对数额的审计工作进行必要的审查和内部控制的评价，是否符合第二次野外工作的标准。由于这些原因，应有分歧的深入调查，以支持内部控制的意见。

应该发表必须体现全面衡量内部控制如充足或有效性的意见吗？

有几个特点的内部控制系统是与此有关的问题。内部控制的弱点不抵销，所有系统有固有的弱点，成本作为所有系统有效性的约束。一种观点是，这些特征是“理解”的全面表达，如充足性或有效性。“有效”的手段在这方面意味着适当的特殊情况，每个公司视其为一个独特的情况。

另一种观点认为，财务报表中经验短形式的报告很少应被推定为“理解”，并认为，

由于“适足”的系统是核数师的代表，应十分注意明确说明何谓“适当”的手段。

应该分开提出方法和程序的意见和遵守这些程序的意见吗？

一个建议替代全面代表性的有效性是该部门的意见，意见在是否有足够的订明的内部

控制程序和是否有足够的遵守这些程序之间。一个适当的研究和评价内部控制包括不同的

阶段。

适当的评价系统的内部控制要求（1）了解和理解的程序和方法（2）合理程度的保

证他们在使用和操作计划（数词补充）。

认识和了解在审查制度所完成的调查中所获得的程序，观察和审查文件。另一方面，

保证正在使用的程序和操作系统的测试计划需要遵守。通过观察和检查人员的书面证据，

审计师决定，在整个期间所涉及的考试中，是否进行必要的程序，如果是的话，是谁进行

的。因此，审计人员可能会形成不同的结论包括是否有足够的死规定的程序和一定程度的

遵守这些程序。

意见的分离是在：程序的意见产生于遵守服务，进一步的目的是提醒读者的一些任何

内部控制系统发出通知的固有限制，存在适当的程序并不能自动保证令人满意的遵守情

况。

如果遵守一个单独的意见，什么时间内应该被涵盖？

自从发表关于预测未来的交涉的内部控制意见是其中一个显著的危害，意见应该表示

对某一时间点或时间的跨度。意见可以表达对内部控制制度的影响的时候，完成审查会通

常会配合完成实地工作。另一方面，意见可能是表示一段时间内该公司的业务所涉及的考

试，这将配合所涵盖的期间财务报表。另一个变化是该意见认为对时间跨度的审查和评价

内部控制系统将被限制在一段时间内，可限于几个月。

应该对添加以澄清性质的意见增加警示语，并说明它并不代表什么吗？

两个报告内部控制的危险特别与这个问题有关：（1）任何制度的有效性是归因于内在

的局限性（2）有这样一种危险，该系统可能在未来被改变，这使得对未来的预测意见没

有道理。

关于内部控制的意见可能包括拒绝简要解释局限性意见的一个细节部分。如下面的句

子可能被包括在这样的一节：（1）持续有效的制度设计需要不断的在部分管理和定期审查

（2）任何系统的内部控制的有效运作取决于个人是否继续符合规定的政策和程序。上监测。

（3）我们不发表将来遵守规定的程序的意见。（4）内部控制制度不能防止蓄意串通或防

止违规行为的行政系统。

什么样的标准应当被用于决定是否内部控制有效性的例外应当被报告？

这有两个备选弧，现有标准可以用来作为报告例外的基础。一个标准涉及的有效性或以财务报表格式的内部控制的充足性。根据这一标准，如果没有控制这一个例外将会被报告，通过迅速与合理，防止或侦查重大错误和违规行为，即那些有可能产生重大影响的财务报表。其他标准会就这些相同基础上的内部控制管理的例外情况提出改进建议。

应该如何报告例外？

这个问题并不在于一个形式，因为它是一个程度的意见。一种意见认为报告将引入的例外增加了一句“除下文指出”一句适当的意见。例外情况将是在一个意见段和主要类别的交易或资产的段划分和有关充足或遵守之后被列出。

如果有足够材料的例外情况，认为将表示，内部控制是不够的。换言之，将有三种类型相当于不合格的意见，合格的和不利类型的意见被财务报表提出。

另一种观点将限制或者“适当”或“不够”类型的意见。根据这种观点，弱点不被足以视为系统不足的方面可能包括在一份关于内部控制的报告上。此外，一些控制范围以外的关于控制目的的审查报告内部可能是包含在一份管理的报告。这很可能是不同于给他人的报告。这种情况是类似于情况长期存在的形式和短形式的报告。管理的建议不是报告中所载的内部控制不应该记载的报告的意见，也就是说，他们不应该支持一个该报告对内部控制有误导之嫌的论点。

审计员应该如何遵守监管机构所订明的内部控制的报告？

如果监管机构的要求是一份声明，声明是关于内部控制制度是审查的一部分和一份关于管理的推荐信，文件的要求不暴露审计员先前概述的发表内部控制的意见的危害。但是，如果监管机构要求有一个积极表达内部控制意见的有效性，那么，应该规定报告的形式，核数师应认真考虑是否为充分认识到本报告的危害而订明表格。

如果核数师不能接受订明的表格，他有两个基本的选择。他可以试图说服该机构接受一个不同的报告，报告可以采取多种形式。另一方面，他可以修改意见，以减少满足特定要求的机构的报告方式的灾害。

审议报告要求办事处负责经济机会，这就是“核数师的有关会计制度和内部控制的评估必须包括以下的话以可以被OEO接受。”换句话说，他们认为必须使用段，但是他们不说舆论只限于其措辞的话。

可能修改的订明表格将增设一个范围，在澄清段的基础上支持的意见和另一段认为不包括解释的段，这可能是第一个拒绝。

他应该发表关于内部控制的意见吗？

当审计没有形成的时候，当审计与未经编辑的财务报表连接起来的时候，一个关于内部控制的报告不符合第8段，第38号的SAP，其中记述着“任何审计程序可能已完成与通常没有他所描述的未编辑的财务报表联系起来。”当报表未经编辑，审查和测试的内部控制是不完整的程序，是不应该被报道的，因为误解风险意义的危害性。

只有一份是否有足够程序的报告这种可能出现的情况是理想的。当审计师与财务报表不相关的时候，这样一份作为特殊任务的结果报告将是适当的。如果作出是否有足够程序的意见，这个意见应当明确排除责任并交涉关于目前和今后要遵守这些程序。

结论

虽然关于内部控制的报告是在许多情况下发出的，除了极少数例外的没有证明对内部控制的有效性的这些报告。在没有设立审计标准的内部控制报告，签发认证类型的报告充满了重大的危害。

本文提出了关于报告准则的若干问题，这些问题在关于内部控制的意见被讨论有多少频率之前必须予以回答。然而，即使问题的报告形式被回答了，有几个基本问题仍然必须解决。

附录B

OPINIONS ON INTERNAL CONTROL If the attest function is extended to cover internal control effectiveness, guidelines for reporting must be formulated, and several fundamental questions must be resolved.

With increasing frequency, auditors hear the suggestion that they should express an opinion on the effectiveness of a client's internal control system. Advocates of this extension of the attest function are quick to point out that there are already instances in which independent auditors are reporting publicly on the effectiveness of their clients' systems of internal control and that some government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission in some eases, require a report. Opponents of attestation-type reports counter that any report on internal control effectiveness would be misleading to the public and they believe that there is a significant difference between present regulatory agency reporting requirements and an opinion on internal control. This article reviews the present reporting practices, considers the desirable features of the reports as well as the associated hazards, and, finally, proposes some of the questions which must be answered before any final judgment can be made.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF REPORTS

Although auditors' reports do in several circumstances contain references to internal control, the nature of the representations made concerning effectiveness differ significantly.

Large banks. Opinions on internal control are, in fact, given in the ease of a few large banks and the opinions do appear in published annual reports. These opinions are sometimes requested by the board of directors. For example, the following opinion appears in the 1969 annual report of a large New York bank, as a third paragraph in the independent accountant's standard short-form report:

Our examination included an evaluation of the effectiveness of the hunk's internal accounting controls, including the internal auditing. In our opinion, lie procedures in effect, together with the examinations conducted by the bank's internal audit staff, constitute an effective system of internal accounting control.

Opinions are rendered for a few other banks, but they are essentially the same as the quoted opinion.

SEC requirements. SEC Form X-17A-5, which requires that the independent auditor make certain representations concerning internal control, must be filed annually by most members of national securities exchanges and every broker or dealer registered pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition, the SEC's Rule 17a-5(g) requires that the independent auditor's report contain "a statement as to whether the accountant reviewed the procedures for safeguarding the securities of customers." Moreover, many exchanges require that the report indicate that a review has been made of "the accounting system, the internal accounting control and procedures for safeguarding securities including appropriate tests thereof for the period since the prior examination date," and, evidently, the SEC staff prefers that the accountant include language similar to that required by the exchanges in all reports filed with the SEC. The scope paragraph of the report usually reads as follows:

We have examined the statement of financial condition of (name) as of (date). Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included a review of the accounting system, the internal accounting control and procedures for safeguarding securities and such tests thereof since the prior examination dote, (date) and of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. (Emphasis added.)

To avoid confusion as to the type of review made, it is related to "generally accepted auditing standards" by the word "accordingly." Note that the requirement is met without the expression of an opinion on adequacy since the report merely states that a review has been made.

If there are material inadequacies in internal control, the independent auditor is required to report them to the SEC, but according to Rule I7a-5(b)(3) inadequacies may be reported in a confidential supplementary report. If no material inadequacies are found, a representation to that effect is neither required nor expected. Therefore reports to the SEC do not constitute the expression of an opinion on internal control effectiveness and, in this respect, differ significantly from the reports issued for a few large banks.

Other government agencies. Government agencies differ widely in the type of report

required on internal control. Perhaps the most stringent requirement is that administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Section 243 of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967 requires an auditor's appraisal of a grantee's accounting system and internal controls before a substantial amount of OEO grant funds have been expended . The auditor's report must include the following opinion:

The accounting system and internal controls of the (grantee and delegate agencies) are considered (adequate, inadequate) to safeguard the assets of the grantee, check the accuracy and reliability of accounting data, promote operational efficiency and encourage adherence to prescribed management policies.

Some agencies require a report very similar to that required by the SEC for brokers. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board, for example, requires that the auditor's report indicate that internal control has been reviewed and requires submission of a copy of the management letter containing comments about any weaknesses in the system and recommendations for their correction.

THE DESIRABILITY OF REPORTING ON INTERNAL CONTROL

Those who believe that reports on internal control are desirable do so primarily for two reasons. First, they believe such reports would be useful to the public in evaluating management's performance in this area of its responsibility. Some regard such reports as a feasible and logical first step toward reports on management's performance in other areas.

The second reason advanced by advocates of reports on internal control is that these reports would provide an additional basis for reliance on unedited interim financial statements. In view of the increasing importance of quarterly and other interim statements, the advocates believe that such reports would provide a useful public service. Opponents, on the other hand, are concerned that such reports would be a disservice to the public because of the risk of misunderstanding and unwarranted reliance. Thus, the crux of the question concerning desirability of reporting on internal control turns on an evaluation of the potential benefits and hazards to the readers of such reports.

HAZARDS OF REPORTING ON INTERNAL CONTROL

If reporting on internal control holds potential benefit for the profession and report users, what has impeded wholehearted assumption of responsibility for reporting on internal control?

First, there is really no such thing as an overall evaluation of internal control. An auditor views internal control in terms of specific types of errors and irregularities which may occur because of weaknesses in the procedures concerning specific classes of transactions and related assets. Unless internal control is excellent in every respect, generalizations about the adequacy of the overall system are extremely difficult to make. Strengths in one area of internal control do not normally offset weaknesses in another area. Weaknesses in cash receipts procedures are not mitigated by strength in handling of cash disbursements, and adequate collection procedures cannot substitute for ineffective control over billing procedures.

Second and closely related to the difficulties of an overall evaluation, there is the incomparability of an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole and an opinion on the internal control sys-tem taken as a whole. Weaknesses in internal control can have a potential material impact on operations, but their materiality cannot be evaluated in the same manner that a known dollar amount of error can be with respect to the financial statements taken as a whole. Therefore, it is difficult to formulate the language of a standard report from which deviations could be considered as having a special and known significance.

Third, there are many inherent limitations on the effectiveness of any system of internal control. Certain actions are not subject to control within the scope of internal control systems. Control procedures that depend primarily on the separation of incompatible duties can be circumvented by collusion. Management officials who are charged with administering the internal control system are in a position to perpetrate intentional errors and irregularities in .spite of the controls that might prevent similar actions by lower ranking employees. Perhaps the most critical inherent limitation is the fact that performance of man> control procedures is dependent on human judgment and volition and there are many possibilities for error arising from misunderstandings, mistakes, carelessness, distraction or fatigue.

Finally—partially as a consequence of the other problems-reports on internal control create a significant possibility of unwarranted and misleading inferences on the part of users. Prominent among possible misunderstandings is the unwarranted projection of the opinion into future periods and the concomitant undue reliance on unedited financial information. The review and

tests of internal control pertain only to the period covered during the examination. In the future, conditions, procedures and compliance may change. Many changes may occur to cause variations in compliance with established procedures, including new employees or employees taking over new responsibilities, unusual fluctuations in business volume that cause employees to take short cuts, and innovations in operations which introduce new types of transactions. Further, the reliability of financial statements is significantly influenced by management judgments which are not subject to control by the system.

In view of the significant hazards associated with opinions on internal control, such opinions should be expressed with care and caution. At present there is an absence of field work and reporting standards for expressing an opinion on internal control, and the CPA who renders a report is exposing himself to an undefined responsibility.

Many questions must be answered before opinions on internal control should be issued on a regular basis. These questions may be divided into fundamental questions and reporting guideline questions.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS

Does an opinion on internal control contain information important to anyone other than management?

Letters to management recommending improvements in the internal control system are a traditional by-product of independent audits. While the value of these reports on internal control is acknowledged as an important service to management, opponents of opinions on internal control question their importance to parties other than management.

Advocates of opinions on internal control hold that the report does, to a limited extent, increase the reliance which can be placed on unedited financial information in the future even though reliability is unaffected. At the present time, an unqualified opinion on financial statements may he based on an examination which includes a significant extension of auditing procedures necessitated by poor internal control, but the reader of the auditor's report has no way of knowing this. A report on internal control would highlight the weakness and the reader would know that substantially less reliance should be placed on the unedited financial information issued during the period between audited statements. In addition, and of more importance, is the

fact that an opinion on internal control reports on management's significant fiduciary obligation to devise, install and supervise an adequate system of internal control.

Would reporting, on internal control significantly extend the auditor's liability beyond that assumed when issuing an opinion on financial statements?

Any suggested extension of the attest function raises apprehensions concerning a concomitant extension of legal liability. Although a definitive answer to the extent of legal liability assumed cannot be obtained prior to litigation, there arc several lines of speculation.

One view is that the most likely cause of action will arise when an unreported weakness in internal control causes a material misstatement in financial position or in the results of operations in the period covered by the opinion. Under these circumstances the deficiency in the report is likely to receive widespread attention and people relying on the report arc likely to be damaged thereby. In this situation, the auditor would probably he involved in litigation anyway because of his opinion on the financial statements.

There is also a possibility of material errors or irregularities caused by deliberate management misrepresentation or employee collusion, which no system of internal control can prevent. The auditor's responsibility for these items should be similar to his responsibility when the financial statements on which he renders an unqualified opinion are materially misleading because of deliberate management misrepresentation or employee collusion. As long as he complied with generally accepted auditing standards, he would not be responsible.

Another view on legal liability is that the expression of an opinion on internal control will draw attention to present responsibilities and also increase those responsibilities. Plaintiffs in a ease against auditors will have a new alleged deficiency with which to charge the auditor. In addition, if the subject of internal control review and evaluation becomes a point of litigation, juries may have even more difficulties evaluating this technical subject than they do evaluating testimony concerning financial statement presentation.

Should a report on internal control be required or should it be voluntary and issued at the discretion of management?

It does not seem to be within the auditor's province to require a report on internal control. The report does not add any credibility to audited financial statements and, thus, is not required for a fair presentation of financial position and results of operations. Those opposed to opinions

on internal control contend that only "positive" opinions that internal control is adequate will be issued. Management would have a natural reluctance to have significant inadequacies in internal control exposed to public view and, consequently, would not allow unfavorable opinions to be issued.

Those favoring opinions on internal control counter that new reporting practices must start somewhere. Voluntary reporting disclosures—if they contain significant information—have a way of becoming required either by public pressure or the force of custom.

Can a report be prepared which will not be misleading to report users?

Whether a report will be misleading is a function of both the accuracy and clarity of the report and the knowledge and understanding possessed by the users of the report. One of the most significant hazards of reporting on internal control is the possibility of unwarranted and misleading inferences on the part of users. Experience with the short-form report on financial statements indicates that it may be as important for a report on internal control to say what the report does not represent as it is to accurately state what is represented. Actually, the answer to this question depends, to a large extent, on the answers obtained from the reporting guideline questions.

REPORTING GUIDELINE QUESTIONS

Should the report on interned control be a separate report distinct from the opinion on financial statements?

Although there is a definite relationship between the evaluation of internal control and the opinion on the financial statements, there is a significant distinction between audited financial statements and internal control evaluation. In forming his opinion on the statements, the auditors evaluation of internal control is only an intermediate step in his examination. The opinion on internal control adds no further credibility to the financial statements and any implication that this is true should be avoided.

Of course, internal control evaluation must be mentioned in the report on the financial statements when internal control is so inadequate that compliance with generally accepted auditing standards is impossible. In the extreme case when internal control is virtually nonexistent, a disclaimer of opinion on the statements is appropriate. In these circumstances

there is a significant probability of unrecorded transactions, documentary evidence examined is highly suspect, and post balance sheet events cannot be adequately reviewed.

If the distinction between the opinion on financial statements and the opinion on internal control is to be made forcefully, the opinion on internal control should be a separate report. If the reports are not separated, the opinion on financial statements should precede the report on internal control to avoid implication that the latter is necessary for fair presentation of the financial statements.

What is the appropriate scope of audit work necessary to support an opinion on internal control?

There are no standards of field work for determining the scope of work necessary to support an opinion on internal control. An adequate description of the work performed in a scope section of the report could ser\'e the same function as the scope paragraph in the report on financial statements. An auditor should be responsible for failure to disclose a weakness in internal control only if his review and evaluation should have uncovered that weakness. The scope of audit work for opinions on internal control has two aspects—breadth of coverage and depth of investigation.

Should the scope of the review be clarified by including a concise definition of internal control in the report?

The breadth of coverage could be as broad as a special investigation of a management information system or as narrow as the accounting controls which must be reviewed to comply with the second standard of field work. No matter what breadth of coverage was, the scope paragraph could include a concise definition of the internal control system reviewed. Although a number of definitions would probably be equally suitable, some definition should be given to describe concisely the subject of the report. A phrase at the end of the definition introduced by the word "including" could be used to identify any aspect of controls requiring specific mention. For example, the board of directors may feel that evaluation of the internal auditing department is especially important.

Is the scope of the examination necessary to support an opinion on internal control the same as that required to satisfy the second standard of field work?

The second standard of Held work states:

There is to be a proper study and evaluation of the existing internal control as a basis for

reliance thereon and for the determination of the resultant extent of the tests to which auditing procedures are to be restricted.

If the breadth of coverage of the opinion is the same as that required for an opinion on financial statements, then the depth of the investigation may be related to compliance with the second standard of field work. This aspect may be covered in a scope section of the report as follows:

Our examination of the financial statements performed in act01 dance with generally accepted auditing .standards, accordingly included a review and evaluation of the accounting system and internal controls.

In a large company with a high volume of clerical work, any degree of audit coverage beyond tests of a small percentage of total transactions would be prohibitively costly. Consequently, the auditor must review and test the internal controls and be satisfied with the adequacy of the system. In a small company this may not be true. In addition, accountants are not in complete agreement on the amount of audit work necessary to perform a review and evaluation of internal control which meets the second standard of field work. For these reasons, there is disagreement on the depth of investigation necessary to support an opinion on internal control.

Should an opinion on internal control be expressed in terms of an overall measure such as adequacy or effectiveness?

Several characteristics of internal control systems are relevant to this question. Weaknesses in internal control are not offsetting, all systems have inherent weaknesses, and cost acts as a constraint on the effectiveness of all systems. One view is that these characteristics are "understood" in a comprehensive expression such as adequacy or effectiveness. "Effective" in this context means appropriate for the particular situation, with each company regarded as a unique situation.

Another view holds that experience with the short-form report on financial statements indicates that very little should be presumed to be "understood" and that, since the "adequacy" of the system is the auditor's representation, great care should be exercised in clearly stating what "adequate" means.

Should an opinion on prescribed methods and procedures be separated from an opinion on

compliance with those procedures?

One suggested alternative to a comprehensive representation on effectiveness is the division of the opinion between the adequacy of prescribed internal control procedures and the adequacy of compliance with those procedures. A proper study and evaluation of internal control includes distinct phases.

Adequate evaluation of a system of internal control requires (1) knowledge and understanding of the procedures and methods prescribed and (2) a reasonable degree of assurance that they are in use and operating as planned. (Numerals added.)

Knowledge and understanding of the prescribed procedures are gained by a review of the system accomplished by inquiry, observation and review of documentation. On the other hand, assurance that the procedures are in use and operating as planned requires tests of compliance. By observation of personnel and examination of documentary evidence, the auditor determines, for the entire period covered by the examination, whether the necessary procedures were performed and, if so, by whom. Thus, the auditor may form different conclusions concerning the adequacy of die prescribed procedures and the degree of compliance with those procedures.

Separation of the opinion on prescribed procedures from the opinion on compliance serves the further purpose of alerting the reader to some of the limitations inherent in any internal control system by giving notice that the existence of adequate procedures does not automatically assure satisfactory compliance.

If a separate opinion is expressed on compliance, what period of time should be covered?

Since one of the significant hazards of expressing an opinion on internal control is unwarranted projection of the representations to the future, the opinion should be expressed with respect to a point in time or a span of time. An opinion could be expressed on the internal control system in effect at the time of the completion of the review, which would normally coincide with the completion of field work. On the other hand, the opinion might be expressed for the period of time in the company's operations covered by the examination, which would normally coincide with the period covered by the financial statements. Another variation would limit the period of time for which the opinion was expressed to the time span of the review and evaluation of the internal control system which could be limited to a few months.

Should additional cautionary language be added to the opinion to clarify the nature of the

opinion and explain what it does not represent?

Two hazards of reporting on internal control are especially relevant to this question: (1) The effectiveness of any system is subject to inherent limitations and (2) there is a danger that the system may change in the future, which makes projection of the opinion to the future unwarranted.

An opinion on internal control could include a denial section which concisely explains the limitations of the opinion. Wording such as the following might be included in such a section: (1) The continuing effectiveness of the system as designed requires constant surveillance on the part of management and periodic review. (2) The effective functioning of any system of internal control depends on whether individuals continue to conform to prescribed policies and procedures. (3) We do not express an opinion on future compliance with prescribed procedures.

(4) The system of internal control cannot prevent collusion or prevent intentional irregularities by the administrators of the system.

What criteria should be used in determining whether exceptions to effective internal control should be reported?

There arc two alternative, existing criteria which could be used as a basis for reporting exceptions. One criterion relates effectiveness or adequacy of internal control to financial statement presentation. Under this criterion an exception would be reported if controls would not, with reasonable promptness, prevent or detect material errors and irregularities, i.e., those which have a potential material impact on the financial statements. The other criterion would report exceptions on the same basis used to recommend improvements in internal control to management.

How should exceptions be reported?

This question is not so much one of format as it is a matter of degrees of opinions. Under one view exceptions would be introduced into the report by adding the phrase "except as noted below" to the appropriate opinion sentence. Exceptions would be listed after the opinion paragraph and classified by major class of transaction or asset and the relation to adequacy or compliance. If the exceptions were sufficiently material, the opinion would be expressed that internal control was inadequate. In other words, there would be three types of opinions equivalent to the unqualified, qualified and adverse types of opinions rendered on financial

会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献

会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)

内部控制透视：理论与概念 摘要：内部控制是会计程序或控制系统，旨在促进效率或保证一个执行政策或保护资产或避免欺诈和错误。内部是一个组织管理的重要组成部分。它包括计划、方法和程序使用，以满足任务，目标和目的，并在这样做，支持基于业绩的管理。内部控制是管理阶层的平等与控制可以帮助管理者实现资源的预期的有效管理的结果通过。内部控制应减少或违规错误的风险关联未被发现的，但设计和建立有效的内部控制不是一个简单的任务，不可能是一个实现通过快速修复短套。在此讨论了内部文件的概念的不同方面的内部控制和管制。 关键词：内部控制，管理控制，控制环境，控制活动，监督 1、介绍 环境需要新的业务控制变量不为任何潜在的股东和管理人士的响应因子为1，另外应执行/她组织了一个很大的控制权。控制是管理活动的东西或以上施加控制。思想的产生和近十年的发展需要有系统的商业资源和控制这种财富一个新的关注。主题之一热一回合管制的商业资源是分析每个控制成本效益。 作为内部控制和欺诈的第一道防线，维护资产以及预防和侦查错误。内部控制，我们可以说是一种控制整个系统的财务和其他方面的管理制定了为企业的顺利运行;它包括内部的脸颊，内部审计和其他形式的控制。 COSO的内部控制描述如下。内部控制是一个客观的方法用来帮助确保实现。在会计和组织理论，内部控制是指或目标目标的过程实施由组织的结构，工作和权力流动，人员和具体的管理信息系统，旨在帮助组织实现。这是一种手段，其中一个组织的资源被定向，监控和测量。它发挥着无形的（重要的作用，预防和侦查欺诈和保护组织的资源，包括生理（如，机械和财产）和乙二醇，声誉或知识产权，如商标）。在组织水平，内部控制目标与可靠性的目标或战略的财务报告，及时反馈业务上的成就，并遵守法律，法规。在具体的交易水平，内部控制是指第三方采取行动以实现一个具体目标（例如，如何确保本组织的款项，在申请服务提供有效的。）内部控制程序reduce程变异，导

本科毕业论文内部控制外文文献翻译完整版中英对照

A Clear Look at Internal Controls: Theory and Concepts Hammed Arad (Philae) Department of accounting, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, Iran Barak Jamshedy-Navid Faculty Member of Islamic Azad University, Kerman-shah, Iran Abstract: internal control is an accounting procedure or system designed to promote efficiency or assure the implementation of a policy or safeguard assets or avoid fraud and error. Internal Control is a major part of managing an organization. It comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing so, support performance-based management. Internal Control which is equal with management control helps managers achieve desired results through effective stewardship of resources. Internal controls should reduce the risks associated with undetected errors or irregularities, but designing and establishing effective internal controls is not a simple task and cannot be accomplished through a short set of quick fixes. In this paper the concepts of internal controls and different aspects of internal controls are discussed. Keywords: Internal Control, management controls, Control Environment, Control Activities, Monitoring 1. Introduction The necessity of control in new variable business environment is not latent for any person and management as a response factor for stockholders and another should implement a great control over his/her organization. Control is the activity of managing or exerting control over something. he emergence and development of systematic thoughts in recent decade required a new attention to business resource and control over this wealth. One of the hot topic a bout controls over business resource is analyzing the cost-benefit of each control. Internal Controls serve as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors and fraud. We can say Internal control is a whole system of controls financial and otherwise, established by the management for the smooth running of business; it includes internal cheek, internal audit and other forms of controls. COSO describe Internal Control as follow. Internal controls are the methods employed to help ensure the achievement of an objective. In accounting and organizational theory, Internal control is defined as a process effected by an organization's structure, work and authority flows, people and management information systems, designed to help the organization accomplish specific goals or objectives. It is a means by which an organization's resources are directed, monitored, and measured. It plays an important role in preventing and detecting fraud and protecting the organization's resources, both physical (e.g., machinery and property) and intangible (e.g., reputation or intellectual property such as trademarks). At the organizational level, internal control objectives relate to the reliability of financial reporting, timely feedback on the achievement of operational or strategic goals, and compliance with laws and regulations. At the specific transaction level, internal control refers to the actions taken to achieve a specific objective (e.g., how to ensure the organization's payments to third parties are for valid services rendered.) Internal control

化工英文文献翻译

Heavy Oil Development Technology of Liaohe Oilfield Han Yun (Scientific Research Information Department Exploration&Development Research Institute，Liaohe Oilfield Company) Liaohe Oilfield，the largest heavy oil production base in China，features in various reservoir types，deep burial，and wide range of crude oil viscosity．For many years，a series of technologies have been developed for different oil products and reservoir types of the oilfield，of which water flooding，foam slug drive，steam stimulation，steam drive,and SAGD are the main technologies. After continuous improvement，they have been further developed and played an important role in the development of heavy oil in the oilfield． Liaohe Oilfield is abundant in heavy oil resources，46％of the total proved reserves of Liaohe Oilfield Company. Horizontally the resources concentrates in the West Depression and the southern plunging belt of the Central Uplift in Liaohe Rift. Vertically,it is mainly distributed in Paleocene Shahejie Formation(ES). The distinctive geological feature of Liaohe 0ilfield is manifested in three aspects：first，the heavy oil reservoirs are deeply buried and 80％of them are buried more than 900m deep；second，the heavy oil viscosity ranges widely．For most of the reservoirs．the dead oil viscosity ranges in 100～100000mPa·s with the maximum 650000mPa·s.Third the reservoir types are various with complicated oil—water relationship，most of the reservoirs are edge water and bosom water reservoirs and there are also edge water reservoirs，top water reservoirs and bosom water reservoirs．For more than 20 years of development，Liaohe Oilfield has developed series of heavy oil development technologies for different oil products and different types of reservoirs，such as water flooding, foam slug drive,steam stimulation steam drive and SAGD．The most difficult issues have been overcome in the development of the super

外文翻译--如何监测内部控制

附录A

附录B 如何监测内部控制 内部控制是任何组织有效运行的关键,董事会、执行长和内部审计人员都为实现这个企业的目标而工作;该内部控制系统是使这些团体确保那些目标的达成的一种手段。控制帮助一个企业有效率地运转。此外,运用一种有效的风险系统,风险可被降低到最小。同时,控制促进经营和与经营有关的信息的可靠性。全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织(COSO；1992) 在它发布的具有开创性的文件《内部控制整合框架》中,将内部控制定义为：企业风险管理是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理层和其他员工的影响，包括内部控制及其在战略和整个公司的应用，旨在为实现经营的效率和效果、财务报告的可靠性以及法规的遵循提供合理保证。该委员会还指出,一个的内部控制的系统包括五个要素。它们是：控制环境、风险评估、信息和沟通、控制活动、监控。 COSO的定义及五个要素已被证明确实对不同的团体,如董事会和首席执行官起到作用。这些群体对内部控制系统的监管以及系统设计与运行有责任。而且,内部审计人员已经发现COSO的指导是有用的。这群人员可能会被董事会或管理层要求去测试控制。COSO最近发布的一份讨论文件，指出五个要素监控,其中的五个要素的确定在1992 frame work COSO原本。中国发展简报的题为《内部控制-整合框架：内部控制体系监督指南》(COSO，2007)。在文件中,COSO 强调监控的重要性，以及这些信息常常被没有充分利用。 因为董事会、执行长,和内部审计人员都在一个公司的内部控制中扮演着重要角色，内部控制的各要素,包括监测,都对所有的团体有着非常重要的意义。同时,外审计人员对监测有兴趣。《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》（2002）为外部审计师创建了一个新的监督体制。所有的五个要素,包括监测,必须加以考虑。另外,内部控制审计必须结合对财务报告的检查。在一体化审计之前，在首席执行官的领导下，也许也在内部审计活动的支持下的管理，评估了内控制体系的有效性。随后外部审计人员对控制出具意见。起监督角色的董事会，将阅读内部审计、管理层和首席执行官出具的报告。文件关于监测对每一个团体的指导起了帮助,因为他们分别为各自的角色而劳动。 第一，什么是监测。监测的组成可评估内部控制系统在过去一段时间发挥效用的质量。其对控制功能的评估有助于企业确定其控制在有效地运作中。在执行监测活动时，相关人员参与审查系统的设计及其运行效果。这种检查必须进行及时,目的是为了提供给企业最大的利益。管理层负责做出适当的行动以回应这些结果。当事人对内部控制有兴趣,可以充分依赖这个内部控制系统,如果合适的监

石油和天然气勘探中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文对照外文翻译文献 (文档含英文原文和中文翻译) OIL UNDER ICE DETECTION: WHAT IS THE STATE-OF-THE-ART? Abstract. Since the exploration for oil and gas in the Canadian and US arctic commenced in the early 1970s, a need has been identified to develop technology to detect oil under ice. Both electromagnetic and acoustic sensors have been tried, but a practical field instrument has not been identified. Most proposed systems require that the equipment be operated from the ice surface in order to get adequate coupling and, for some systems, the snow must be removed from the ice. For many ice

situations, surface access is difficult and poses a severe safety issue. Two recent spills in Alberta used “high technology” ice augers to detect the presence of oil under the ice. Some potential new techniques are discussed and the basic principles of their operation described. Keywords: arctic, oil spill response, oil in ice, detection 1. Introduction The detection of oil under continuous ice cover has presented one of the most difficult challenges to the oil-spill technological community for the past two decades and there is still no operationally proven system available. Dickins (2000) under the sponsorship of the US Minerals Management Service conducted an excellent review of the status of oil-under-ice detection and this paper complements this review with a more detailed analysis of some systems. Dickins identified many false start concepts, which will not be discussed in this paper. In order to determine the design of a suitable oil-under-ice detector, the various situations under which oil may be found under a continuous ice sheet need to be considered. The oil must come from a sub-surface release since any surface release would either be on the ice surface or in a lead or other opening in the ice. Potential sources of sub-surface oil are a leak in a pipeline, the leakage from a submerged tank or vessel or a natural seep. Oil when trapped under ice does not spread rapidly or cover a large area due to natural

管理 审计 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 内部控制爆X炸

外文出处：Maijoor S. The Internal Control Explosion[J]. International Journal of Auditing, 2000, 4(1):101–109. 内部控制爆炸① 摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已内部控制爆炸然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制 1 概述 Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。公共越来①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

中小企业内部控制_外文参考文献

中小企业内部控制_外文参考文献 安徽工业大学毕业设计外文翻译 Private Enterprises of the intenal control issues Pulin Chang Economic Review. 2008, (5) Third, the promotion of private SMEs in the internal control system strategy (A) change management and business owners the concept of development. The majority of private small and medium enterprises in the family business, the success of these enterprises depends largely on internal control or entrepreneur leadership attention and level of implementation. Over the years, by traditional Chinese culture, business owners believe in Sincerity, fraternal loyalty permeate many aspects of enterprise management, strengthen internal controls that will affect the organization the members of distrust, resulting in internal control. Many private business owners that rely on business to do business benefits out of, rather than out of the internal financial management control; that the market is the most important internal control will be bound himself and staff development. Understanding of the bias, so that these leaders neglected the internal control system on the production and operation activities. Internal control can really become the leader of the internal needs of enterprise internal control system is the key to whether a mere formality. The internal control to make the internal needs of the enterprise depends largely on two points: First, determine

英文文献翻译

中等分辨率制备分离的 快速色谱技术 W. Clark Still,* Michael K a h n , and Abhijit Mitra Departm(7nt o/ Chemistry, Columbia Uniuersity,1Veu York, Neu; York 10027 ReceiLied January 26, 1978 我们希望找到一种简单的吸附色谱技术用于有机化合物的常规净化。这种技术是适于传统的有机物大规模制备分离，该技术需使用长柱色谱法。尽管这种技术得到的效果非常好，但是其需要消耗大量的时间，并且由于频带拖尾经常出现低复原率。当分离的样本剂量大于1或者2g时，这些问题显得更加突出。近年来，几种制备系统已经进行了改进，能将分离时间减少到1-3h，并允许各成分的分辨率ΔR f≥（使用薄层色谱分析进行分析）。在这些方法中，在我们的实验室中，媒介压力色谱法1和短柱色谱法2是最成功的。最近，我们发现一种可以将分离速度大幅度提升的技术，可用于反应产物的常规提纯，我们将这种技术称为急骤色谱法。虽然这种技术的分辨率只是中等（ΔR f≥），而且构建这个系统花费非常低，并且能在10-15min内分离重量在的样本。4 急骤色谱法是以空气压力驱动的混合介质压力以及短柱色谱法为基础，专门针对快速分离，介质压力以及短柱色谱已经进行了优化。优化实验是在一组标准条件5下进行的，优化实验使用苯甲醇作为样本，放在一个20mm*5in.的硅胶柱60内，使用Tracor 970紫外检测器监测圆柱的输出。分辨率通过持续时间（r）和峰宽（w,w/2）的比率进行测定的（Figure 1），结果如图2-4所示，图2-4分别放映分辨率随着硅胶颗粒大小、洗脱液流速和样本大小的变化。

审计学内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文翻译 内部控制爆炸① 摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制 1 概述 Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审 ①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。公共越来越关注内部控制，令人对power在1997年英国和北美的书中的审计社会的现状有所信服。此书的主题是在Anglo-Saxon经济体的审计活动：审计爆炸的扩散。Power表示，联合开发与审计爆炸带动了内部控制制度兴起。增加监管问责制是公众对审计和公司治理政策辩论机构内部控制系统的一部分。然而Power注意到，尽管公众对内部控制的关注度迅速增加，内部控制的概念还是很模糊。他支出，内部控制是什么，内部控制的有效性的界定是内部控制的最基本问题。 本文讨论研究内部控制的兴起，认为内部控制的研究也有一些潜在的问题。首先，在以往的研究中，长期的内部控制涵盖完全不同的概念。其次，有关的内部控制研究机构的规模是有限的，要从孤立的学科进行交叉使用得到结果很难。因此，内部控制是尚未独立的研究范畴。最后，以往的对内部控制的研究没有彻底解决在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中谈到的内部控制有关问题。假设的内部控制、财务报告和公司治理的基本关系也没有被证实。 本文解构如下：在开始对内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，先介绍了两个主要的，在Power1997的书中所提出的发展：第一部分讨论了审计爆炸，第二部分讨论了内部控制的崛起。两者也讲被从欧盟的角度评论。第三部分讨论了什么是内部控制，并从会计研究的三个主要观点出发，研究内部控制制度。第四部分确定了内部控制和公司治理的公共政策辩论所承担的四个基本关系，并讨论之前的相关研究。最后一节提供了一个总结和结论。 2 内部控制的崛起 不论是否存在审计爆炸，Power1997和1998在审计中变得越来越重要。根据Power （1997年83爷），因为内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。根据更具体

中石油部门英文翻译

一、公司领导职务英文翻译集团公司：China National Petroleum Corporation 总经理：President 副总经理：Vice President 总会计师：Chief Financial Officer 纪检组长：Chief of Discipline & Inspection Group 、Vice President 总经理助理：Assistant President 总法律顾问：General Counsel 副总会计师：Deputy Chief Financial Officer 副总经济师：Deputy Chief Economist 副总工程师：Deputy Chief Engineer 股份公司：PetroChina Company Limited 董事长：Chairman, Board of Directors 副董事长：Vice Chairman, Board of Directors 董事：Director, Board of Directors 监事会主席：Chairman, Board of Supervisors 总裁：President 副总裁：Vice President 财务总监：Chief Financial Officer 总工程师：Chief Engineer 总地质师：Chief Geologist 董事会秘书：Secretary, Board of Directors 二、机关部门及处室职务英文翻译一、机关部门职务： 1、办公厅、直属党委、×办公室、××部、××局: 主任（总经理）：Director-General 副主任（副总经理）：Deputy Director-General 副总工程师：Deputy Chief Engineer 副总经济师：Deputy Chief Economist 副总会计师：Deputy Chief Accountant 副总审计师：Deputy Chief Auditor 2、专业公司：总经理：President 副总经理：Vice President 总工程师：Chief Engineer 总经济师：Chief Economist 总地质师：Chief Geologist 总会计师：Chief Financial Officer 3、董事会助理秘书：Assistant Secretary, Board of Directors 纪委书记Secretary, Disciplinary Inspection 工会主席Chairman, Worker ' s Union 4、处室主任、处长：Director 副主任、副处长：Deputy Director 二、下属子公司、分公司职务：总经理：President 副总经理：Vice President （副）总工程师：(Deputy) Chief Engineer （副）总经济师：(Deputy) Chief Economist （副）总地质师：(Deputy) Chief Geologist （副）总会计师：(Deputy) Chief Accountant 处室、处级办公 室： Department 处室主任、处长：Director 副主任、副处长：Deputy Director 科室：Division ；科长：Chief ；副科长：Deputy Chief 三、机关部门及处室名称英文翻译集团公司机关机构编制总表办公厅General Office 、总裁办President's Office 总值班室（应急协调办公室） General Reception（Emergency Response Coordination Office）、秘书一处Secretariat 秘书二处Secretariat 综合处（办公室）Administration 文电处（保密办公室）Document Management 、公共关系处Public Relations 、网站管理处Website Management 、档案处（史志办公室）Filing Management 、行政事务处Logistic Support 、扶贫援藏办公室Poverty Alleviation & Tibet Assistance 政策研究室Policy

内部控制外文文献翻译

文献出处:Lakis V, Giriūnas L. THE CONCEPT OF INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM: THEORETICAL ASPECT[J]. Ekonomika/Economics, 2012, 91(2). 原文 THE CONCEPT OF INTERNALCONTROLSYSTEM: THEORETICALASPECT Vaclovas Lakis, Lukas Giriūnas* Vilnius University, Lithuania Introduction One of the basic instruments of enterprise control, whose implementation in modern economic conditions provide conditions for achieving a competitive advantage over other enterprises is the creation of an effective internal control system. In the industry sector, the market is constantly changing, and this requires changing the attitude to internal control from treating it only in the financial aspect to the management of the control process. Internal control as such becomes an instrument and means of risk control, which helps the enterprise to achieve its goals and to perform its tasks. Only an effective internal control in the enterprise is able to help objectively assessing the potential development and tendencies of enterprise performance and thus to detect and eliminate the threats and risks in due time as well as to maintain a particular fixed level of risk and to provide for its reasonable

ERP系统中英文对照外文翻译文献

ERP系统中英文对照外文翻译文献 (文档含英文原文和中文翻译) ERP系统在财务报告内部控制的作用 【摘要】：萨班斯-奥克斯利法案法例中强调，ERP系统的重要作用是运用内部控制反映公司的基本建设，为此 ERP系统软件开发供应商也增加了对内部控制的应用。他们认为，这些内置的控制和其他功能将帮助企业改善其财务报告内部控制就如萨班斯法案要求的那样。这项研究测试，通过检查萨班斯法案第404条在1994年和2003年之间实施ERP 系统的公司合规内控数据。其结果表明，应用ERP 的公司相对于未应用ERP的样本公司较少报告内部控制弱点。它还发现，这种差异存在一般控制和特别控制中。

关键词：企业资源规划；ERP；萨班斯-奥克斯利法案；萨班斯法案第404条；内部控制1简介 2002年的萨班斯法案要求企业将其内部控制的有效性的报告与财务报告作为一个整体努力，以减少欺诈和恢复完整的财务报告过程的一部分。ERP系统软件开发供应商已强调，ERP系统的重要作用是运用“内置”控制反映公司基本建设。他们在营销理念强调了产品的功能，声称这些系统将帮助企业按萨班斯法案所要求提高内部控制的有效性。 这些供应商的声明激发了关于ERP系统对内部控制的影响一项有趣的实证问题研究。具体来说，是不是实现ERP系统的企业或多或少可能比未实现ERP系统的公司较少在其年度报告报告内部控制弱点？已经进行过这特定区域研究的经验/档案相对较少的，因为之前萨班斯法案内部控制的数据并没有被公开报道。这项研究的方法通过在文献资料检查一个已经宣布实施ERP系统和一个还没有类似的公司控制样本公司的抽样调查的内部控制数据来发现差距。 内部控制是在公司使用的以解决代理问题的许多机制之一。其他的机制还包括财务报告，编制预算，审计委员会和外部审计（Jensen和佩恩2003）。研究表明，内部控制降低了代理成本（Abdel-khalik 1993；Barefield 等，1993），有些甚至争辩说，即使没有萨班斯法案的要求，企业也有经济诱因报告内部控制（Deumes和Knechel，2008年）。他们的论点假定这些额外提供给有关的代理行为主体的信息可以减少了信息不对称和降低投资者的风险以及权益资本成本。其他的研究发现，内部控制报告与公司盈余质量有关, （Chan 等， 2008；Ashbaugh-Skaife等，2008） ERP系统提供了一种机制，运用内部控制，旨在保证控制的准确性和快速，准确的财务报告财务信息的可靠性报告给股东。 除了提供有关代理行为的外部委托人的增加保证，ERP系统也应有助于减轻大型企业各层次之间的管理的代理问题。使用内建控制以增加透明度的应该使各级代理商从中不可观察的行为中受益变得更加困难。这是可能的，但是，企业实施ERP系统可能无法利用的所有的内建的控制功能，无论是对经营合法的原因或者是因为管理层为了操纵盈余希望避免增加透明度的目的。通过这些控制措施的成效的检查，这项研究不仅扩展了研究机构的理论流，还考察这种盈余管理与内部控制、一般控制和特别控制之间相关的整体检验假说。 这项研究使用了108家在1994年和2003年之间宣布实施ERP系统的样本公司，与