تدوین مدل حق الزحمه حسابرسی در ایران: شواهد اولیه مبتنی بر روندهای ترتیبی روش ترکیبی

اغلب پژوهش‌‌های کمّی مرتبط با عوامل موثر بر تعیین حق الزحمه حسابرسی در کشور به نظر می رسد از مشکلات روش‌شناسی رنج می برند. بدین منظور پژوهش حاضر برای اولین بار از روش ترکیبی مبتنی بر روندهای ترتیبی برای بررسی این موضوع بهره برده است. با تحلیل محتوای پیشینۀ پژوهش، متغیرهایی موثر بر حق الزحمه حسابرسی شناسایی و براساس آن، مصاحبه نیمه‌ ساختار یافته ای با 15 نفر از شرکا، سرپرستان و مدیران فنی موسسات حسابرسی در سال 1398 اجرا گردید. عوامل موثر بر حق الزحمه از طریق کدگذاری و تحلیل مضمون مصاحبه ها شناسایی و براساس آن پرسشنامه ای طراحی و داده ها در نیمه دوم سال 1398 و نیمه اول سال 1399 گردآوری شدند. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل عاملی نشان داد که عوامل اثر گذار برتعیین حق الزحمه حسابرسی در ایران را می توان در چهار طبقه کلی شامل عوامل مرتبط با صاحبکار، عوامل مرتبط با کار حسابرسی، عوامل مرتبط با حسابرس و سایر عوامل (ارتباطی و اقتصادی) دسته بندی کرد. به علاوه این پژوهش نشان داد که عوامل موثر بر تعیین حق الزحمه حسابرسی در ایران می تواند در مواردی، متفاوت از عوامل برجسته شده در متون بین المللی باشد (مانند، لابی، حق الزحمه حسابرسی سال قبل و میان دوره ای). به نظر می رسد این مطالعه توانسته باشد برخی از عوامل مهمی که در پژوهش های کیفی و کمی داخلی (مانند، وجود بند شرط در رابطه با وضعیت بیمه و مالیات) مغفول مانده بودند را برجسته کرد.

Audit Fee Model in Iran: First Evidence from a Mixed Method

Introduction:Audit quality and consequently financial reporting quality is subject to appropriate level of fees paid to auditors (Francis, 2004). Low audit fees is one the significant challenges of the audit profession in Iran (MohammadRezaei et al., 2015). Audit fee has attracted the attention of researchers and regulators in both Iran and other countries. However, the review of empirical research about the audit fee model in Iran reveals that most of these studies suffer from several methodological issues such as omitted correlated variable bias (MohammadRezaei and Faraji, 2019). Hence, the present study is going to provide a model about determinants of audit fee in Iran through employing a mixed method.  Literature review:Simonic (1980) considers audit fee as a function of audit costs and profit. There are two streams of archival research about audit fees. The older and broader stream is a continuation of previous models but with the aim of quickly identifying new variables that affect audit fees and possibly audit costs such as investigating the effect of the audit market structure (Gunn et al., 2019) and disclosure of audit fees (Averhals et al. 2020). The smaller, second stream uses information about audit work hours to estimate production performance or compare audit performance. In Iran, there is also considerable evidence about determinants of audit fees (such as, Nikhbakhat and Tanani, 2010: MohammadRezaei et al., 2018). Comparison of these studies with the metaanalysis of Hay et al (2006) reveals that the studies suffer from three main methodological issues including omitted correlated variables bias, self selection bias (endogeniety) and a lack of attention to the different market structure of private and state auditors.Research method:Through a close reading of the previous literature, variables affecting the audit fee were identified and based on it, a semistructured interview with 15 audit partners and managers was conducted. Based on factors affecting audit fee identified through coding and content analysis of the interviews, a questionnaire was designed and data were collected through survey responses from 90 certified auditors.Findings:The coding and content analysis of the interviews reveals four codes and 30 themes. In addition, through factor analysis of data obtained from survey responses, the variables affecting audit fees were identified and classified into four groups, including factors related to the client, the auditor, the audit engagement and other factors (lobbying). More specifically, clientrelated factors include six components and 23 variables, auditorrelated factors include four variables, audit engagement factors contain two components and 12 variables and finally lobbying factors include four variables.Conclusion:This study indicates that the determinants of audit fee in Iran can be different from those highlighted by prior studies in international era (e.g., lobbying, audit fees in last year and interim fees). Moreover, the present study highlights some of the significant determinants of audit fee model in Iran (e.g., audit qualification paragraph in relation to insurance and tax) that have not been captured by prior qualitative and quantitative research from the setting. This study opens a rich avenue for future studies in Iran about audit fees to overcome methodological issues such as omitted correlated variable bias. In addition, the findings of this study can be interesting for auditors and oversight bodies in Iran.