Anmärkning i revisionsberättelsen
(2013) HARH10 20122Department of Business Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den första lagstiftningen om revision kom år 1886. Sedan dess har revision och revisorer reglerats i lagen i flera avseenden. Revisorns arbetsuppgifter förekommer främst i aktiebolagslagen, vilket reglerar bl.a. revisorns rapportering. En av revisorns viktigaste uppgifter är att upprätta en revisionsberättelse, vilket är den enda offentliga rapporten som en revisor avger. Revisionsberättelsen skall vidare innehålla en eller flera anmärkningar om en styrelseledamot eller VD handlat i strid med lagen.
Denna uppsats behandlar revisorns anmärkning i revisionsberättelsen och när en revisor är skyldig till att anmärka enligt aktiebolagslagen. Uppsatsen behandlar delvis även revisorns skyldighet att anmärka ur ett intresseperspektiv.
En... (More) - Den första lagstiftningen om revision kom år 1886. Sedan dess har revision och revisorer reglerats i lagen i flera avseenden. Revisorns arbetsuppgifter förekommer främst i aktiebolagslagen, vilket reglerar bl.a. revisorns rapportering. En av revisorns viktigaste uppgifter är att upprätta en revisionsberättelse, vilket är den enda offentliga rapporten som en revisor avger. Revisionsberättelsen skall vidare innehålla en eller flera anmärkningar om en styrelseledamot eller VD handlat i strid med lagen.
Denna uppsats behandlar revisorns anmärkning i revisionsberättelsen och när en revisor är skyldig till att anmärka enligt aktiebolagslagen. Uppsatsen behandlar delvis även revisorns skyldighet att anmärka ur ett intresseperspektiv.
En slutsats som kan dras genom redogörelsen av lagtext, förarbeten, praxis och olika branschorganisationer är att en revisor är skyldig att anmärka om en styrelseledamot eller VD:n vidtar en företeelse som står i strid med aktiebolagslagen, tillämpliglag om årsredovisning, bolagsordningen och vidare inte följer angivna regler gällande skatter och avgifter. Företeelsen måste dock vara väsentlig samtidigt som bolaget underlåter att vidta rättelse. Det skall dock observeras att en rättelse från bolagets sida inte fråntar revisorn anmärkningsskyldighet om företeelsen är av allvarlig grad eller skadan av företeelser fortfarande existerar trots en vidtagande rättelse. (Less) - Abstract
- The first legislation of auditing came in 1886. Auditing and auditors have since then been mentioned in the law in masses. The auditors’ assignments are for the mostly regulated in the Swedish Companies Act, which for example contains regulations for the reporting phase. One of the most important parts of the auditor’s job is to establish an audit report. The audit report is the only public report from the auditor, which should contain a remark if and a board member or the CEO act against the law.
The subject of this essay is about the auditor’s remark in the audit report and when an auditor is responsible to remark according to the Swedish Companies Act. The subject is also partially focusing on a public interest perspective.
A... (More) - The first legislation of auditing came in 1886. Auditing and auditors have since then been mentioned in the law in masses. The auditors’ assignments are for the mostly regulated in the Swedish Companies Act, which for example contains regulations for the reporting phase. One of the most important parts of the auditor’s job is to establish an audit report. The audit report is the only public report from the auditor, which should contain a remark if and a board member or the CEO act against the law.
The subject of this essay is about the auditor’s remark in the audit report and when an auditor is responsible to remark according to the Swedish Companies Act. The subject is also partially focusing on a public interest perspective.
A conclusion that can be drawn from the law, the government’s propositions, the Supervisory Board of Public Accountants’ praxis and different business organizations is that an auditor is responsible to make a remark if a board member or the CEO acting against the Swedish Companies Act, the Annual Accounts Act or the articles of association. An auditor is also responsible to remark if the company doesn’t follow the regulations in the Tax law. The act in both these cases must however, contain a considerable fault that doesn’t get corrected. It should be notified that a correction from the company doesn’t eliminate an auditor’s responsibility to remark if the cause of act is serious or the damage still exists after a correction. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3409719
- author
- Tran, Johnny LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- HARH10 20122
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Auditing, auditor, Swedish Companies Act, remark, audit report Revision, revisor, aktiebolagslagen, anmärkning, revisionsberättelse
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3409719
- date added to LUP
- 2013-01-28 16:51:44
- date last changed
- 2013-01-28 16:51:44
@misc{3409719,
abstract = {{The first legislation of auditing came in 1886. Auditing and auditors have since then been mentioned in the law in masses. The auditors’ assignments are for the mostly regulated in the Swedish Companies Act, which for example contains regulations for the reporting phase. One of the most important parts of the auditor’s job is to establish an audit report. The audit report is the only public report from the auditor, which should contain a remark if and a board member or the CEO act against the law.
The subject of this essay is about the auditor’s remark in the audit report and when an auditor is responsible to remark according to the Swedish Companies Act. The subject is also partially focusing on a public interest perspective.
A conclusion that can be drawn from the law, the government’s propositions, the Supervisory Board of Public Accountants’ praxis and different business organizations is that an auditor is responsible to make a remark if a board member or the CEO acting against the Swedish Companies Act, the Annual Accounts Act or the articles of association. An auditor is also responsible to remark if the company doesn’t follow the regulations in the Tax law. The act in both these cases must however, contain a considerable fault that doesn’t get corrected. It should be notified that a correction from the company doesn’t eliminate an auditor’s responsibility to remark if the cause of act is serious or the damage still exists after a correction.}},
author = {{Tran, Johnny}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Anmärkning i revisionsberättelsen}},
year = {{2013}},
}