Mandatory Insurance or Mandatory Disclosure? A Reconsideration of the Legal Status of Accountant`s Liability Insurance in Taiwan

Abstract

本文旨在從比較法觀點，釐清我國會計師責任保險之定位，並提出具體之立法建議。會計師具專業守門人之性質，如何在其責任與保護投資人間尋求平衡，甚為重要。首先，本文認為我國目前仍欠缺全面採取強制保險之正當性基礎。我國現行法僅要求法人會計師事務所強制投保，亦非妥適。再者，美國法在律師責任保險有關於強制保險與強制揭露兩大模型之辯論，且多數州採取強制揭露之方式，可供我國參考。由於兩種模式各有其優缺點，本文乃主張我國可採取綜合模式──基本上採取強制揭露，但在必要時適用強制保險之模式，如此也有助於責任保險監督與信號功能之發揮。最後，本文據此重新架構細部法律關係，並提出建議修正條文，以供後續研究與實務之參酌。

This research aims to clarify the legal status of accountant’s liability insurance in Taiwan and provide legislative suggestions—from the prospective of comparative law. With the characteristics of gatekeeper, accountant is critical to the capital market and corporate governance, and thus that will be more important about how to balance the accountant’s liability and protection of investors. This paper first compares Taiwan with other jurisdictions, finding that there is no sufficient empirical evidence to support a complete mandatory insurance system in Taiwan. It is also improper for current Taiwan law to only requir the incorporated CPA firm for mandatory insurance. It is then proposed in this paper that the arguments about mandatory insurance and the preferred mandatory disclosure of attorney’s liability insurance in the U.S. may be also considered for accountant’s liability insurance for Taiwan. Since two models both have their pros and cons, this paper proposes the mixed model—mandatory disclosure—as the default rule, and mandatory insurance as the exception. The criteria should be able to reflect the liability risk, such as the type of business accountant engages, and not limited to the issue a firm is incorporated or not. This framework is also helpful for the monitoring and signaling function of accountant’s liability insurance. Finally, according to the framework proposed by this research, more detailed analyses and legislative recommendations are provided for research and practice in the future.