以受查客戶的財務報表發生重編做為審計品質不佳的代理變數，本文檢視若簽字會計師於某特定客戶的審計品質不佳，是否會全面性影響該會計師未來其他客戶的盈餘品質。這個計畫的研究動機係源於美國Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board(PACOB)於2011年10月關於要求應於審計報告揭露提供審計服務之合夥會計師姓名。PCAOB 相信這個規定若能實施，基於以下二項理由；將提高財務報告的透明度與審計品質。首先，對於提供審計服務的會計師而言，藉由被財務報表使用者究責(accountability)的程度提高，會使得該會計師更認真提高其審計服務的投入與品質。第二，對於投資者而言，提供一個研讀財務報表是被誰簽證的有用資訊，將會影響企業慎選簽字會計師的正面誘因。利用我國簽證會計師之資訊係公開取得的特性，本研究擬利用財務報表重編事件，去分析當某位合夥會計師的客戶發生「過去報表係淨利高估的重編」，是否提高該簽證會計師未來其他客戶的財務報表被重編的機率。除此之外，本計畫也預期股票市場對被該會計師簽證之「其他」公司的股價，於發生該財務報表重編時，會有負面的影響。期望藉由本計畫的完成可以提供PCAOB關於財務報告是否應提供合夥會計師姓名的參考。 Using the incidence of restatement of financial statements as the proxy of poor audit quality, this study examines whether an audit partner’s association with low quality audits negatively affects future accounting quality of that partner’s other clients. This study is inspired by the proposal of the U.S. Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in October 2011, which proposed that U.S. companies disclose their audit partners’ names on audit reports. PCAOB believe that this proposal can increase transparency of public company audits by providing investors with information about certain key participants in the audit. Moreover, PCAOB states that such rule can improve audit quality in two ways. First, increase the engagement partner's sense of accountability to financial statement users, which could lead him or her to exercise greater care in performing the audit. Second, it would increase transparency about who is responsible for performing the audit, which could provide useful information to investors and, in turn, provide an additional incentive to firms to improve the quality of all of their engagement partners”. Using audit data from Taiwan, where audit partners are publicly disclosed, this study plan to provide empirical evidence that past income-decreasing restatements associated with a particular partner serve as a strong predictor of future restatements in that partner’s other clients. Moreover, this study expects that the stock market discounts earnings news of clients audited by a partner with more frequent restatements. Therefore, this study thus can provide indirect evidence in testing the effectiveness of the PCAOB proposal to disclose partner’s names on the audit report.