民國88年第33號審計公報「財務報表查核報告」的公布在會計師間引起軒然大波，會計師們認為其中使用「保證」一詞做為英文assurance的中文翻譯，可能會增加會計師的法律責任，極不妥當，後來「保證」一詞被換成「確信」，第33號審計公報也成為我國最快修正的一號公報。 本研究所探討的問題以第33號審計公報修正時所產生的爭議為主，以會計與法律系學生為對象，透過問卷量測「語彙」、「專業」與「了解程度」這三個因子對會計師責任之認知是否有顯著影響。 本研究之結果顯示，「語彙」對會計師責任的認知影響皆為顯著。「語彙」、「專業」與「了解程度」這三個因子對「財報擔保程度」的認知皆有顯著的影響，且其間無交互作用；對會計師法律責任的認知而言，「了解程度」的影響效果並不顯著，且「語彙」與「專業」間有交互作用。 / CPAs were nervous when No.33 audit statement issued in 1999, because they thought if the Chinese phrase 「保證」was translated for the term of ‘’assurance’’ might increase their legal liability. Finally, the phrase 「保證」 was replaced to 「確信」, and the No.33 audit statement became the fastest modified statement in the series. The subject discussed in this research is focused on the controversy occurred in the process of amending No.33 auditing statement. Through the poll (which is aimed at students of law and accounting departments) the research tried to find out if the phrases “wording”, ”comprehension”, and “specialty” would influence the cognition about CPA’s duties, and if there were any cross-effects between them. The results show the factor “Wording” is significant to all cognition about CPA’s duties. The three factors are all significant to the cognition about “assured degree” and there is no cross-effects between them. But ”comprehension” is not significant to the cognition about CPA’s legal liabilities, also there are cross-effects between “wording” and “specialty”.

每當重大舞弊案件發生時，社會大眾常將矛頭指向負責財務報表查核的會計師，認為會計師並沒有負起他（她）應負的責任，在國際上，如安隆案(Enron)、世界通訊（Worldcom）的隱瞞虧損、線上時代華納（AOL Time Warner）的虛報廣告營收等等事件皆是如此；在我國，也有赫赫有名的博達等案。 會計師的專業與超然獨立的立場，使得簽證功能得到資訊使用者的信任，對投資大眾而言，亦提供一層重要的保障。然而，會計師所提供之合理確信並非絕對之保證，一旦因為某些無法控制之因素造成企業失敗，相關利害關係人無可避免地會將矛頭指向會計師，因此跟隨而來的訴訟將對會計師造成相當大的損失，而利害關係人與會計師的認知差距即為造成訴訟的關鍵因素。 本研究先探討會計師查核舞弊的責任為何?再進一步研究財務報表使用者與會計師間，對於會計師執行財務報表查核時，偵測舞弊責任的認知，同時研究不同人之間，是否存有認知差距。 本研究採透鏡模型觀念，針對學過及未學過審計學的人進行問卷調查，研究結果發現：受試者皆認為會計師負有偵測管理舞弊的責任，財務報表使用者與會計師之間的認知，雖然使用的線索相同，但線索使用的程度仍有不同。 關鍵字：舞弊、會計師責任、透鏡模型 / Every time when there is serious fraud, the public will accuse the audit accountant for not taking the responsibility he/she should take. Internationally, there are Enron and Worldcom concealed their loses, AOL Time Warner overstated their commercial revenues. In Taiwan, there are also cases like procomp. Due to the profession and independence of accountants, the public trusts the opinion they issued toward the financial statements. However, the assurance that the audit accountant provides is highly but not absolute guarantee. Once there is some incontrollable factors lead to business failure, the interested party will blame the audit accountants. Therefore, the follow-up lawsuit will cause a lot loses to the accountant. The gap between interested party and accountant will be the key point to the lawsuit. The study tries to analyze the viewpoints of the interested party and accountants toward the accountant duty of inspecting fraud when auditing financial statements. The study uses questionnaire, taking national university graduated and college students as objects, and discuss by the framework of lens model. The study concluded that all the interviewee think that the audit accountant has the responsibility to examine the fraud. As to the perception of interested party and accountants, on the other hand, though the interest party and accountant own the same clues, they use them to different extent.