Running head: Nonprofits and SOX
Scholar ID: 3750548620
Accounting Capstone: Senior Seminar in Accounting ACC499 004016 Summer 2009
Nonprofits as well as the Sarbanes Oxley Act
Submitted to: Tee M. Thein
Stand of Items
SOX regulations for charitable organizations
Reasons for nonprofits to adopt SOX
Study file comunicacion
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 (U. H. House of Representatives 2002) was approved by congress as a result of a wave of accounting scandals and related financial problems in companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco. SOX is called the most significant securities laws since 1933 and 1934 securities ACT. The Act attempted to help to make ethics more black and white-colored rather than a grey area. The increased suggestions have altered businesses and business relationships. These new requirements possess placed higher demands about directors, audit committees, auditors and supervision. Most, of those provisions in which only built towards publicly held businesses, similar restrictions targeted nonprofit organizations (Panel on the Nonprofit Sector 2005). Two hundred and fifteen nonprofit organizations have voluntarily used provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Take action of 2002 (SOX). A large number of, nonprofits are currently in the process of adopting SOX. The -panel on the Nonprofit Sector (2005), in its last report to Our elected representatives in 06 2005, suggests more than 120 actions to be taken by charitable organizations, Congress and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to durability non-profits against, transparency, governance and liability. The most significant supply of the Act is the requirements in Section 404 the reporting on the effectiveness of internal settings over the economic reporting. PCAOB auditing regular 2 needs that the examine of inside control always be integrated together with the audit with the financial assertions. The PCAOB requirements also only connect with public and for revenue companies, these would be fresh requirements for nonprofits wanting to adopt to SOX. The needs of SOX section 404 requirements in internal regulates have proven to be very costly for community companies (D'Aquila 2004; Pomeroy 2006), additional research into the current express of governance in the non-profit sector will be beneficial just before similar measures are decided. Nonprofits include several reasons they might be forced to adopt SOX provisions. Initial, several claims are likely to copy provisions a lot like those of SOX. Some of these fresh laws incorporate elements of SOX including: broadening whistleblower safeguard, requiring officers of the corporation to sign the corporation's annual record, appointing a great audit committee and elevating penalties against those who devote fraud or perhaps impede an investigation of scam. California exceeded the Nonprofit Integrity Work in 2004. This Work addresses economical reporting, corporate governance, compensation, independence and fund elevating (Silk and Fei 2005). New Hampshire requires audited financial claims for non-profits with income greater than one million. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kansas have identical requirements (Anderson and Kelley 2006). Second, unethical patterns seems as common in the non-profit organizations as it will in the non-public sector. New scandals in nonprofit companies such as: The NYSE, Upsala College, United Way and Education & Research Groundwork, have had a negative effect on the general public trust in their very own charitable organizations (Gibelman 1997). To get non-profits trust from the public is vital because the majority of their particular funds come from donors. SOX could result in better responses via donors, traders and upcoming board users (Orlikoff and Totten 2004). Finally, a few provisions of SOX previously apply to non-profits. non-profits need to establish...
References: Anderson, T., and C. L. Kelley. 2006. Counseling non-profit businesses. The CPA (CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT) Journal 76 (8): 20-26.
Beasley, M. S., and S. Electronic. Salterio. 2001. The relationship among board characteristics and non-reflex improvements in audit panel composition and experience. Modern day Accounting Study 18 (Winter): 539-570.
BoardSource. 2003. The Sarbanes-Oxley Work and effects for non-profit organizations. Offered by: http://www.boardsource.org/clintfiles/Sarbarnes-Oxley.pdf.
Bradbury, M. Elizabeth. 1990. The incentives intended for voluntary examine committee development. Journal of Accounting and Public Insurance plan 9 (1): 19-36.
Broude, P. M. 2006. The effect of Sarbanes-Oxley on personal & non-profit companies. Foley and Lardner, LLP. Offered at: http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?puibid=3511.
Coles, J. T., D. D. Naveen, and L. Naveen. 2008. Panels: Does one particular size fit all? Diary of Financial Economics 87 (2): 329-356
Gibelman, M., T. Gelman, and D. Pollack. 1997. The credibility of nonprofit planks: A view through the 1990s and beyond. Administration in Social Work twenty one (2): 21-39.
Grant Thornton LLP. 2006. Grant Thornton National Plank governance survey for not-for-profit organizations. Sold at: http://www.granthornton.com/staticfiles/GTCom/files/Industries/NotForProfit/nfp_board1.pdf.
GuideStar. 2005. Nonprofits, Sarbanes-Oxley, plus the states. Offered at: http://www.guidestar.org/DisplayArticle.do?articleId=779.
Hempel, J., and A. Borrus. 2004. Now the non-profits need cleaning; Cozy boardrooms at educational institutions and non profit organizations face elevating government overview. BusinessWeek (June 21): 107.
Hymowitz, C. 2005. The Sarbanes-Oxley time, running a nonprofit is only obtaining harder. Wsj (June 21): B1.
O'Hare, P. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley boosts red flag to get not-for-profits. Health-related Financial Supervision 56 (10): 42-44.
O'Regan, K., and S. M. Oster. june 2006. Does the structure and structure of the table matter? The truth of non-profit organizations. Journal of Legislation Economics and Organization 21 (1): 205-227.
Orlikoff, M., and Meters. Totten. 2005. Applying for-profit governance reconstructs. Healthcare Professional 19 (3): 52.
-panel in the non-profit Sector. june 2006. Strengthening openness, governance and accountability of charitable organizations. Sold at: http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/final/.
Mark, K., Meters. Rusbarsky, and J. Wong. 1989. Non-reflex formation of corporate taxation committees amongst NASDAQ organizations. Journal of Accounting and Public Insurance plan 8 (4): 239-265.
Pomeroy, A. 06\. Sarbanes-Oxley costs affect small companies one of the most. HRMagazine fifty-one (8): 14-16.
Silk, Big t., and 3rd there’s r. Fei. june 2006. California's non-profit Integrity Take action of 2004 (SB 1262). The International Journal for Not-For-Profit Rules 7 (2). Available at: http://www.icnl.org/JOURNAL/vol7iss2/ar_silk.htm.
Tran, P. 2005. A Sarbanes-Oxley Fill in for non-profits? The Practical Attorney 51 (5): 47-53.
U. S. Property of Associates, Committee on Financial Services. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley Take action of 2002. Public Law No . 107-204. Washington, Deb. C.: Authorities Printing Office.
Vermeer, Capital t. E., E. Raghunandan, and D. A. Forgoine. 2006. The make up of nonprofit audit committees. Accounting Perimetre 20 (1): 75-90.
Walters, R. 2003. You don't know what you've got until it's eliminated. Healthcare Financial Management 57 (3): 94-97.
Yermack, G. 1996. Higher market value of businesses with a small board of directors. Log of Financial Economics 40 (2): 185-212.