本研究由全球資本市場日益複雜及主管機關監管力道增強出發，以2005年至2025年公開發布之137件會計師懲戒案件為樣本，透過Logistic迴歸模型進行實證分析，探討事務所特性、會計師特性、受查公司特性以及案件處理期間對是否被嚴重懲戒（以是否被處以停止執行業務或除名衡量）的影響。本研究之實證結果發現，案件處理期間越長，被嚴重懲戒的可能性顯著越高，反映出冗長的審理過程通常為案件複雜度高與違規情節重大的表徵；同時，由四大會計師事務所查核之案件受到嚴重懲戒的機率較低，支持了大型事務所具備較佳品質控制與深口袋風險管理能力的觀點。相對地，會計師性別與受查公司是否為公開發行，對被嚴重懲戒並未呈現顯著影響。另外，研究結果發現，在2007年底大幅修正《會計師法》及2013年接軌國際財務報導準則（IFRS）後，四大會計師事務所與案件處理期間之變數，皆由原先不顯著轉為顯著，顯示監理環境之改變可能影響會計師遭受嚴重懲戒之相關因素。
本研究之貢獻有二：第一，彌補過去文獻較少針對影響被嚴重懲戒相關因素進行探討之缺口。第二，本研究實證識別出導致重度懲戒之高風險特性，可協助主管機關釐清在裁量懲戒輕重時之關鍵影響因素。本研究之管理意涵為：實證結果可作為主管機關未來修訂審計監理法規、調整執法強度以及分配監理資源之參考依據。

As regulatory authorities continue to strengthen oversight of the accounting profession, disciplinary actions against Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) have become increasingly important in maintaining professional standards, audit quality, and public confidence. Prior studies have examined litigation risk, audit quality, enforcement actions, and characteristics of sanctioned CPAs and clients. For example, larger accounting firms may face lower litigation risk because of stronger reputational concerns and greater professional resources, while larger and more visible clients may attract greater regulatory scrutiny. Previous research has also suggested that the time required to process enforcement cases may be associated with the severity of legal outcomes. However, limited empirical evidence exists regarding the factors associated with the severity of disciplinary actions against CPAs. Therefore, this study investigates whether accounting firm characteristics, CPA personal characteristics, client characteristics, and case processing time affect the likelihood of severe disciplinary actions against CPAs in Taiwan. The study further examines whether these relationships vary following major regulatory and institutional changes.
Using 137 CPA disciplinary cases publicly released by Taiwanese regulatory authorities from 2005 to 2025, this study employs logistic regression analysis to examine the determinants of severe disciplinary actions. Severe discipline is defined as suspension from practicing the profession or removal from the CPA registry, while fines, warnings, and admonitions are classified as non-severe disciplinary actions. The explanatory variables include accounting firm characteristics, CPA characteristics, client characteristics, and case processing time. Accounting firm characteristics are measured by Big 4 and Medium 8 affiliation. CPA characteristics include gender, while client characteristics are represented by whether the client is a public company. Case processing time is measured by the logarithm of the time required to process each disciplinary case. Case-condition variables are also included as control variables to account for differences in the nature of disciplinary cases.
The empirical results show that case processing time is significantly and positively associated with the likelihood of severe disciplinary actions. Cases requiring longer processing periods are more likely to result in severe disciplinary outcomes. This finding suggests that more serious or complex cases may require longer investigation and review procedures because of the need for more extensive evidence collection and examination. However, the result should be interpreted as an association rather than a causal relationship, as longer processing time may reflect the underlying complexity or seriousness of disciplinary cases. In contrast, Big 4 affiliation is significantly and negatively associated with severe disciplinary actions. Cases involving CPAs affiliated with Big 4 accounting firms are less likely to receive severe disciplinary sanctions. One possible explanation is that larger accounting firms may possess stronger internal quality control systems, risk management mechanisms, professional resources, and reputational incentives, which may reduce the likelihood of severe disciplinary outcomes.
In contrast, CPA gender and client public-company status do not have statistically significant effects on disciplinary severity. These findings suggest that, after controlling for other relevant factors, these characteristics do not independently explain the likelihood of severe disciplinary actions in the sample.
Furthermore, subgroup analyses examine the effects of major institutional changes, including the 2007 amendment to the CPA Act and the adoption of IFRS in Taiwan in 2013. The results indicate that the effects of Big 4 affiliation and case processing time became more pronounced after these regulatory changes. In particular, following IFRS adoption, Big 4 affiliation is significantly negatively associated with severe disciplinary actions, while case processing time is significantly positively associated with disciplinary severity. These findings suggest that regulatory reforms may alter audit practices, regulatory expectations, and enforcement mechanisms, thereby influencing the factors associated with disciplinary outcomes. The determinants of disciplinary severity may therefore vary across different regulatory environments rather than remaining constant over time.
To assess the robustness of the main findings, an additional analysis expands the unit of observation from the disciplinary case level to the individual CPA level. By treating multiple CPAs involved in the same disciplinary case as individual observations, the expanded analysis increases the sample from 137 case-level observations to 223 CPA-level observations. The results remain generally consistent with the main analysis, providing additional support for the robustness of the findings.
Overall, this study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the factors associated with severe disciplinary actions against CPAs in Taiwan, an area that has received relatively limited attention in prior research. The findings identify case processing time and accounting firm characteristics as important factors associated with disciplinary severity, while CPA gender and client public status do not significantly affect disciplinary outcomes. The study also highlights the importance of considering the institutional environment when examining CPA disciplinary actions. From a practical perspective, the findings provide useful references for regulatory authorities in identifying characteristics associated with severe disciplinary cases, strengthening supervisory policies, adjusting enforcement intensity, and allocating investigative and supervisory resources. The results may also serve as a reference for future amendments to CPA regulations and audit supervision mechanisms, contributing to the continued improvement of the quality, accountability, and credibility of the accounting profession in Taiwan.

一、中文文獻
1. 余駿展、謝安軒、黃華瑋（2022）。異常審計公費與實際及認知審計品質關聯之研究：臺灣的近期證據。會計審計論叢，12(2)，39–86。
2. 林孝倫、林嬋娟（2013）。臺灣審計研究之回顧與前瞻。會計審計論叢，3(1)，1–47。
3. 林志潔、林孝倫（2010）。從力霸案論臺灣會計師簽證財報不實之法律責任：一個實證的分析。臺大法學論叢，39(3)，223–288。
4. 金融監督管理委員會（2024）。113 年度審計監理報告。
5. 洪玉舜、顏信輝（2011）。會計師懲戒程度對簽證保守性之影響。管理學報，28(4)，325–343。
6. 會計師法（2018年01月31日修法）。
二、英文文獻
1. Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 591–597.
2. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.
3. Bernardi, R. A., & Arnold, D. F. (1997). An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(4), 653–668.
4. Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.
5. Cornerstone Research. (2025). PCAOB enforcement activity in 2024 reached highest level since 2017 as monetary penalties hit new record for the third consecutive year.
6. Dharmasiri, P., Phang, S. Y., Prasad, A., & Webster, J. (2022). Consequences of ethical and audit violations: Evidence from the PCAOB settled disciplinary orders. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 179–203.
7. Dwyer, P. D., Gilkeson, J. H., & List, J. A. (2002). Gender differences in revealed risk taking: Evidence from mutual fund investors. Economics Letters, 76(2), 151–158.
8. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281–295.
9. Feldberg, R. L., & Glenn, E. N. (1979). Male and female: Job versus gender models in the sociology of work. Social Problems, 26(5), 524–538.
10. Holm, M., & Johansen, T. R. (2025). The Big 4 effect for new audit services: The case of the Danish COVID-19 fixed-cost business-support scheme. International Journal of Auditing, 29, 136–159.
11. Juric, D., O’Connell, B., Rankin, M., & Birt, J. (2018). Determinants of the severity of legal and employment consequences for CPAs named in SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 545–563.
12. Lane, R., & O’Connell, B. T. (2009). The changing face of regulators’ investigations into financial statement fraud. Accounting Research Journal, 22(2), 118–143.
13. Langli, J. C., & Svanström, T. (2014). Audits of private firms. In D. Hay, R. W. Knechel, & M. Willekens (Eds.), Routledge companion to auditing (pp. 148–158). Routledge.
14. Lys, T., & Watts, R. L. (1994). Lawsuits against auditors. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(Suppl.), 65–93.
15. Nasution, D., & Jonnergård, K. (2017). Do auditor and CFO gender matter to earnings quality? Evidence from Sweden. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 32(5), 330–351.
16. Palmrose, Z. V. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63(1), 55–73.
17. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.
18. Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five-factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(6), 649–664.
19. Wang, H.-M., & Alarid, L. F. (2001). Judicial sentencing decisions in Taiwanese economic crimes: Consequences of swift justice. Law & Society Review, 35(3), 607–636.
20. White, R. D., Jr. (1999). Are women more ethical? Recent findings on the effects of gender upon moral development. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 459–471.
21. You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender differences in moral sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Ethics & Behavior, 21(4), 263–282.