Have the Czech SAO’s Audits Carried out in the Area of the State Budget Revenues Resulted in a Higher Number of Legislative Changes when Compared to the Audits in the Domain of the State Property Management ?

Author:

Buček Jan1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Finance and Accounting , University of Economics , Prague , Czech Republic .

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this paper is to compare the results of 4 selected audit areas of the SAO, namely audits carried out in the domain of the state budget revenues, state property, state-owned enterprises and state funds. The hypothesis is that the findings of audits on the revenue side of the state budget have resulted in the largest number of legislative changes within the period under review. As part of the assessment of the development of the impact of the SAO activity measured by the number of government-imposed corrective measures, it was also found that the benefits of audit findings have increased and their usability has risen noticeably since 2005. By analysing the selected audit areas, the first established hypothesis was confirmed when it was found that the largest number of legislative changes was made in the area of the state budget revenues. In this domain, areas of system failures and implementations of the imposed recommendations were analysed additionally, with the aim to uncover the most problematic areas and to assess the overall implementation of the imposed recommendations. The hypothesis in this respect was that the recommended remedies were mostly met. Within the area of the state budget revenues, based on the publicly available information and the auditees’ opinions it was found out that most of the recommendations were met. The second hypothesis was met, as well. The presented paper analyses both the government’s resolutions, audit findings and conclusions, annual reports, EU reports, and selected views of the auditees. Within the audit areas, the number of submitted criminal notifications and notifications to the tax authority is also quantified. The usefulness of the results is based on the fact that the audits in the assessed areas were focused on the audit of legality with elements of the performance audit, though the best results in the domain of legality were brought by audits in the area of the state budget revenues. In this domain, it is therefore appropriate to focus more on the audit issues related to legality, as evidenced by the number of corrective measures in which the government has imposed a legislated solution to the given issue. Conversely, for audits of state assets (the remaining three groups), it would make more sense to strengthen the focus of these audits on the performance-related risks (the so-called 3E).

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Public Administration

Reference15 articles.

1. Act no. 166 / 1993 Coll., On the Supreme Audit Office, as amended.

2. Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: Resolution no. 39. 2006, Resolution no. 55. 2006, Resolution no. 262. 2007, Resolution no. 83, 87, 97. 2011, Resolution no. 65. 2012, Resolution no. 51. 2013, Resolution no. 177. 2013, Resolution no. 124. 2015, Resolution no. 76. 2014, Resolution no. 23. 2018, Resolution no. 148. 2015, Resolution no. 161. 2015, Resolution no. 102. 2015.

3. González, B., A. López and R. García. 2008. “How do Supreme Audit Institutions Measure the Impact of their Work ?” Implementing Reforms in Public Sector Accounting. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Available at https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/jspui/bitstream/10316.2/32146/1/Implementing%20Reforms%20in%20Public%20Sector%20Accounting%20(2008)%20Gonzalez,%20Lopez,%20Garcia.pdf?ln=pt-pt (last accessed 20 September 2018).

4. Government of the Czech Republic – Government decision (control action year, number and case): 1994 – 94 / 12 case 843 / 95 (without resolution), 1995 – 94 / 26 case 413 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-94 / 28 case 384 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 04 case 13 / 97 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 09 case 92 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 20 case 366 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 22 case 702 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 07 case 640 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 26 case 250 / 98 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 38 case 614 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-97 / 06 case 331 / 98 (without resolution), 1999-98 / 01 case 640 / 99 (without resolution), 1998-97 / 26 (Resolution no. 750 / 1998), 1998-97 / 35 (Resolution no. 751 / 1998), 1999-98 / 02 case 697 / 99 (without resolution), 2000-99 / 21 (Resolution no. 725 / 2000), 2001-00 / 13 (Resolution no. 183 / 2001 and 649 / 2001), 2001-00 / 25 (Resolution no. 869 / 2001), 2002-01 / 02 (Resolution no. 80 / 2002), 2002-01 / 14 (Resolution no. 336 / 2002), 2002-01 / 18 (Resolution no. 337 / 2002), 2002-01 / 29 (Resolution no. 211 / 2003), 2002-01 / 37 (Resolution no. 890 / 2002), 2002-02 / 02 (Resolution no. 151 / 2003), 2003-02 / 16 (Resolution no. 732 / 2003), 2003-02 / 21 (Resolution no. 91 / 2004), 2005-04 / 07 (Resolution no. 142 / 05), 2005-04 / 30 (Resolution no. 1183 / 05), 2005-04 / 39 (Resolution no. 1179 / 05), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2006-05 / 19 (Resolution no. 467 / 2006 and 1327 / 2006), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2007-06 / 27 (Resolution no. 842 / 07), 2007-07 / 07 (Resolution no. 232 / 08), 2008-08 / 04 (Resolution no. 297 / 2009), 2010-09 / 11 (Resolution no. 522 / 2010), 2011-10 / 08 (Resolution no. 303 / 2011), 2012-11 / 07 (Resolution no. 495 / 2012), 2012-12 / 01 (Resolution no. 316 / 2013), 2013-13 / 02 (Resolution no. 301 / 2014), 2013-13 / 15 (Resolution no. 300 / 2014), 2014-13 / 35 (Resolution no. 1019 / 2014), 2015-14 / 17 (Resolution no. 104 / 16), 2015-14 / 28 (Resolution no. 155 / 16), 2015-14 / 08 (Resolution no. 691 / 2015), 2016-15 / 15 (Resolution no. 770 / 2016), 2016-15 / 17 (Resolution no. 1078 / 16), 2016-15 / 33 (Resolution no. 782 / 17), 2016-15 / 39 (Resolution no. 1077 / 16), 2015-15 / 05 (Resolution no. 443 / 16), 2015-14 / 40 (Resolution no. 999 / 15), 2015-14 / 34 (Resolution no. 107 / 16), 2015-14 / 29 (Resolution no. 108 / 16), 2014-13 / 40 (Resolution no. 1018 / 14), 2013-13 / 01 (Resolution no. 7 / 14), 2013-12 / 24 (Resolution no. 654 / 13), 2013-12 / 17 (Resolution no. 651 / 13), 2013-12 / 16 (Resolution no. 649 / 13), 2012-12 / 05 (Resolution no. 183 / 13), 2011-11 / 32 (Resolution no. 227 / 12), 2011-10 / 13 (Resolution no. 474 / 11), 2016-16 / 07 (Resolution no. 462 / 17), 2016-16 / 04 (Resolution no. 236 / 17), 2015-14 / 11 (Resolution no. 998 / 15), 2014-13 / 16 (Resolution no. 411 / 14), 2013-13 / 05 (Resolution no. 302 / 14), 2013-12 / 26 (Resolution no. 770 / 13), 2012-11 / 28 (Resolution no. 828 / 12), 2012-10 / 26 (Resolution no. 821 / 12), 2011-10 / 18 (Resolution no. 225 / 12, 373 / 12), 2016-15 / 28 (Resolution no. 1084 / 16), 2015-14 / 30 (Resolution no. 772 / 16), 2012-11 / 33 (Resolution no. 890 / 12).

5. Groenendijk, N. S. 2004. “Assessing Member States’ Management of EU Finance: An Empirical Analysis of the Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors”, 1996 – 2001. Public Administration 82(3), 701 – 725.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Comparison of Selected Elements and Processes within the Activity of European SAIs;European Financial and Accounting Journal;2022-10-21

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3