Audit Board, Financial Services Commission Regular Audit Report Released
Passing Score Adjusted from 59 to 60 and 58 Points for Management
The Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out that the Financial Services Commission operated the certified public accountant selection system like a relative evaluation by setting target numbers in advance, even though it should have selected candidates through absolute evaluation. The CPA exam was changed to a system where candidates pass if they score over 60 points in each subject without setting a fixed number of successful candidates to ease entry regulations, but the scoring criteria and exam scores were arbitrarily altered.
On the 30th, during the regular audit of the Financial Services Commission, the Board of Audit and Inspection disclosed in a report on priority matters, "Following the revision of the 'Certified Public Accountant Act Enforcement Decree' in 2004, the law was amended to an absolute evaluation system starting in 2007," and added, "Even after that, the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service operated the system contrary to the law's intent by setting target numbers like a relative evaluation and arbitrarily changing scoring criteria and exam scores accordingly."
In line with recommendations to ease entry regulations for CPAs, the Financial Services Commission revised the 'Certified Public Accountant Act Enforcement Decree' in 2004, adjusting the system from 2007 to an absolute evaluation where candidates pass if they score 60 or above in all five subjects. However, the Financial Services Commission set target numbers in advance as if it were a relative evaluation. The Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out, "The Financial Services Commission, aware of the increasing demand for CPAs and the hiring difficulties faced by small and medium-sized accounting firms and non-accounting firms, froze the minimum planned number of successful candidates at around 1,100, which corresponds to the hiring plans of the Big Four accounting firms." Although the Financial Supervisory Service, which manages the exam, raised concerns about potential legal violations, the Financial Services Commission set the 'appropriate number of successful candidates' as originally planned and provided it to the Financial Supervisory Service as reference data.
During this process, the scoring criteria for question setting, preliminary scoring, and final scoring were arbitrarily changed. The Board of Audit and Inspection explained, "When the preliminary scoring average for tax law significantly exceeded 60 points, partial scores were disallowed to lower the average score, and when the preliminary scoring average for cost accounting was higher than 60 points, the original scoring criteria were relaxed to raise the preliminary scoring average."
It further stated, "After completing the scoring, the Financial Supervisory Service selected all answer sheets scoring in the 59-point range, close to the passing mark of 60 points, to prevent candidate objections and manage the number of successful candidates," and added, "They requested the scoring committee to either raise the 59-point scores to 60 points to pass or lower them to 58 points, resulting in upward and downward adjustments of scores." As a result, the scoring criteria were changed and rescored repeatedly until the expected number of successful candidates approached the number set by the Financial Services Commission.
Accordingly, the Board of Audit and Inspection notified the Financial Services Commission to comprehensively reflect demand when selecting CPAs and to align with the intent of relevant laws such as absolute evaluation. It also instructed the Financial Supervisory Service to prepare improvement measures regarding question setting and scoring methods to ensure transparent and reliable management of the CPA exam.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
