會計師出具合理性意見書之法律責任評析──援用其他專家報告及人工智慧工具為中心

Critical Analysis of the Legal Responsibilities in Issuing Fairness Opinion by Accountants—Focus on Citing Other Expert Report and Artificial Intelligence Tools

我國會計師法對於會計師執行業務之不法行為設有懲戒及罰則規定外，尚有商業會計法、稅捐稽徵法、證券交易法、公司法、民法與刑法等則針對特定型態之行為亦設有相關法律規範。2023年4月20日臺灣臺北地方法院針對KY—康友案民事求償案，一審判決勤業眾信及2位會計師應負部分賠償責任，會計師被依比例責任各要負擔25%的賠償責任，合計逾25億元賠償金，會計師事務所負連帶賠償責任，雖非民事訴訟之最終結果，但已引發各界討論，天價賠償金將改變未來會計師從事專業案件服務時之作業模式。本文即在探討會計師於出具合理性意見書時，出具意見書之基礎係採用其他專家報告或委任人自行評價報告，有鑑於會計師須秉持專業能力及實務經驗，並依據專家出具意見書實務指引第12條及第28條要求，逐項評估說明並敘明對其他專家報告或委任人自行評價報告所作之檢視、查詢、計算或其他必要分析等程序，如其他專家報告或委任人自行評價報告使用之評價技術係以人工智慧作為評價方法，對會計師出具合理性意見書時會存在哪些問題，以利以後界定會計師之法律責任。
本文以為企業評價報告中，如其他專家採用人工智慧方式執行企業評價，該專家應要能提出人工智慧系統取具之資料來源、運算及推估價值模型，且該系統應有經過專業機構認可證明，在會計師能取得該專家提供之評價依據及人工智慧系統相關運算資料合理性時，已能證明其已善盡專業上之注意義務，並取得足夠及適切之證據，為合理性意見書後，如有問題，專業者應各司其職各負其責，不應將屬於其他專家應承擔之責加於會計師，合理地分配會計師與出具專家報告者間之責任，避免會計師成為不當訴訟的對象，確保法律的適用性和公平性，始能有助於確保會計師履行其職責。

In addition to disciplinary and penalty provisions for unlawful actions by accountants under the Accountants Act in Taiwan, there are also relevant legal regulations in place for specific types of behavior under the Business Entity Accounting Act, Tax Collection Act, Securities and Exchange Act, Company Act, Civil Code, and Criminal Code of the Republic of China. On April 20, 2023, the Taiwan Taipei District Court in Taiwan issued a first-instance judgment in the KY- Pharmally case civil compensation case. It ruled that Deloitte & Touche and two accountants should bear partial compensation liability. The accountants are individually responsible for 25% of the compensation, totaling over 25 billion NTD in compensation, while the accounting firm had joint and several compensation liability. Although this is not the final outcome of the civil litigation, it has sparked discussions across various sectors. The exorbitant compensation amount is expected to change the operational practices of accountants in future professional service cases. This article aims to explore the basis of accountants when issuing expert rationality opinion letters, which relies on other expert reports or assessments conducted by the appointing party. Given that accountants are required to uphold professional competence and practical experience, and in accordance with the Practical Guidelines for the Issuance of Expert Fairness Opinion, Sections 12 and 28, they are required to assess and document, item by item, the procedures for reviewing, querying, calculating, or any other necessary analysis of the other expert reports or assessments used by the appointing party. If artificial intelligence is used as the evaluation method in other expert reports or assessments when accountants issue fairness opinion, what issues may arise? Will be beneficial in defining the legal responsibilities of accountants when issuing fairness opinions in the future.
This article suggests that in a corporate valuation report, if other experts use artificial intelligence for the valuation, the expert should be able to provide the data sources, computational methods, and valuation models used by the artificial intelligence system. The system should be certified by a professional organization. When an accountant can access the expert’s basis for valuation and the reasonableness of the artificial intelligence system’s computational data, it can demonstrate that the professional duty of care has been fulfilled. Sufficient and appropriate evidence should be obtained for the issuance of an opinion letter. If any issues arise, each professional should fulfill their duties and responsibilities without attributing responsibilities that belong to other experts to the accountant. By reasonably allocating responsibilities between accountants and expert report issuers, accountants can avoid becoming the subject of undue litigation, ensuring the applicability and fairness of the law, and thereby helping to ensure that accountants fulfill their duties.