사립대학 임상교원인건비 원가배분에 관한 전문가 의견의 실증연구

This paper extends the Kang et al.(2016), performs hypotheses testing about the approval rate of accounting experts including university professors and practicing CPAs concerning the tentative solutions to the 18 detailed arguments derived from accounting issues of private university with affiliated hospital. Another testing is made about the independence of response between accounting professors and CPAs and between practicing CPAs with and without auditing experiences to confirm the self-protecting response biases of some practicing CPAs with auditing experiences of the private university. 18 detailed arguments have been derived in relation to 3 research issues about the proper sharing of payroll and overhead expenditures payment, the rational cost allocation between School Expenses Accounts and Affiliated Hospital Accounts, and the lawful conditions for the legal person’s diversion of school revenues. And the tentative solutions, deemed as legal or reasonable, for these 18 arguments have been drawn through the review of the related laws and regulations: ① lawfulness of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up(unlawful), ② reporting the preceding matter as unlawful(report), ③ lawfulness of over-sharing of payroll costs by School Expenses Accounts(unlawful), ④ reporting the preceding matter as unlawful(report), ⑤ non-conformity with GAAP of over-payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts(non-conform), ⑥ reflecting the preceding matter and modifying the auditor’s opinion in the Independent Auditor’s Report(modify), ⑦ unlawfulness of the legal person’s diversion of window-dressed fraudulent income of the hospital by improper payroll allocation(unlawful), ⑧ reporting the preceding matter as unlawful(report), ⑨ violation of the matching principle due to the revenue diversion into Legal Person Accounts in ex-post settling-up process of payroll(violation), ⑩ modifying the auditor’s opinion because of the preceding matter(modify), ⑪ rationality of direct working hour as a payroll allocation basis(rational), ⑬ unlawfulness of the legal person’s override in compilation and execution of Affiliated Hospital Accounts(unlawful), ⑭ reporting the legal person’s diversion of overstated hospital income by improper payroll allocation(report), ⑮ lawfulness of the legal person’s transfer-in of true hospital income attained with proper payroll allocation and investment and transfer-out of it into School Expenses Accounts(lawful), ⑯ reporting of the diversion of equipments of School Expenses Accounts to Affiliated Hospital Accounts(report), ⑰ possibility for Affiliated Hospital Accounts to request usage fee of medical facilities to School Expenses Accounts(possible), ⑱ rationality of using direct operating hour as an allocation basis of overhead costs(rational), ⑳ lawfulness of construction of a hospital building by payment of School Expenses Accounts(unlawful). Arguments ⑫ and ⑲ are about the possible alternative rational cost allocation basis other than direct labour or machine hours and are not subject to hypothesis testing. Additionally to the existing data of the previous research from 25 accounting professors and 25 practicing CPAs, expert opinions are sought from 31 practicing CPAs with 2 big Korean members of international accounting firms to test deeply the independence of response between the practicing CPAs with and without auditing experiences of private university with affiliated hospitals. The previous research showed high approval rates of 0.68∼1.00 for all 18 arguments. The approval rate about the direct working or operating hours as being an only available rational joint cost allocation basis has turned out to be as high as 0.96 and 1.00 respectively. The survey opinions including additional opinions from 31 CPAs show, though rather low compared to the previous research for most of the detailed arguments, absolutely high approval rates of 0.77∼0.99 for 17 detailed arguments except for the lawfulness argument of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up(unlawful), which stands at 0.57 failing to win the majority approval from practicing CPAs surveyed additionally. Two types of alternative hypotheses where , the experts approval rate, is over either 2/3 or at least 1/2 are formulated for each of 18 arguments to test statistically the fairness of tentative positions obtained through critical review of related laws and regulations. Theses 18 pairs(or 36) of hypotheses are tested using Z-tests upon 81 opinions from all respondents and upon 56 opinions only from practicing CPAs respectively. tests are performed to test the independence of responses between the professor and CPA group and between the experienced and non-experienced CPAs with audit of the affiliated hospital of private university. The test results reveal that the null hypotheses of approval rates being not over 1/2 or 2/3 are rejected at significance level of 0.01 or 0.05∼0.01, for 17 arguments except for ① the unlawfulness of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up, of which argument the null hypotheses can't be rejected even at 0.10 level in both types of hypotheses. Tests on the opinions from practicing CPAs are showing rather weak results compared to the above. The null hypothesis of approval rate being not over 1/2 is rejected at significance level of 0.01 for 17 arguments except for the argument of unlawfulness of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up, and the null hypothesis of approval rate being not over 2/3 is rejected at significance level of 0.01 for 13 arguments. Especially ①the argument of the lawfulness of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up(unlawful), ⑬ unlawfulness of the legal person’s override in compilation and execution of Affiliated Hospital Accounts(unlawful), ⑰ possibility for Affiliated Hospital Accounts to request usage fee of medical facilities to School Expenses Accounts(possible), and ⑳ lawfulness of construc- tion of a hospital building by payment of School Expenses Accounts(unlawful) can’t win the majority of approval. The tests showed, for some arguments, the practicing CPAs with auditing experience of private university showed lower approval rate than accounting professors and (or) CPAs with no experience, resultantly rejecting the independence of responses for some arguments like ① the argument of the lawfulness of full payment of payroll by School Expenses Accounts and ex-post settling-up(unlawful), ⑬ unlawfulness of the legal person’s override in compilation and execution of Affiliated Hospital Accounts(unlawful). The lower approval rate of CPAs having auditing experience with private university might be reflecting the self-justification or client-defending error of response, or the consideration of practical convenience, or the professional judgement of materiality, or other effects in the course of seeking experts’ opinions. The test results that confirmed the tentative positions about the concerned issues related to the university-affiliated hospital implicates that the payroll of the clinical faculty and the overhead cost from clinical facilities and equipments need to be properly shared, paid, and recognised as expenses based upon the direct working or operating hours, and matched with their respective revenue in both School Expenses Accounts and Affiliated Hospital Accounts.