本文以問卷方式探討司法從業人員與證券監理從業人員對於不同簽證制度下，會計師應承擔之簽證責任，以了解我國目前所採行之雙簽制度、美國現存制度與我國會計師公會欲推行之單簽制度之會計師簽證責任是否存在差異；且我國於1983年起即於查核報告上揭示簽證會計師姓名，希冀能透過本文之結果，提供相關政策制定單位於查核報告上報導會計師姓名，是否能增加查核報告之信賴度與審計品質之依據。實證結果發現，司法從業人員與證券監理從業人員均認為，我國現行之雙簽制度與會計師公會欲推行之單簽制度之簽證會計師應負之簽證責任高於美國現制（僅事務所於查核報告簽章之制度）。亦即會計師只要於查核報告簽名，皆需承擔較高之簽證責任。而司法與證券監理從業人員亦均傾向我國應維持目前之雙簽制度，且雙簽制度下兩位簽證會計師對於查核報告應負之責任是有差異的，但差異並不大。另外，受測者均認為美國應於查核報告中報導會計師之姓名，不僅能增加查核報告之信賴度外，也能增加會計師個人的責任感。

This study surveys perceptions of how much accountability should be shouldered by audit partners when signing audit reports under different signature systems among both judiciary practitioners and securities regulatory agents. This study seeks to understand whether differences exist in auditor accountability among the dual signature system (currently adopted in Taiwan), the system currently adopted in the US (only endorsement of the audit firm is required) and the single signature system (promoted by the Taiwan CPA Association). It has been mandated since 1983 that audit reports include audit partners' signatures. Results of this study are expected to provide regulatory agencies a basis on whether providing audit partner signatures in audit reports can improve the reliability and quality of audit reports. Empirical results show that audit partners have a higher share of accountability in either the single signature system or the dual signature system, compared to the system currently adopted in the US, implying that as long as an audit partner signs an audit report, the audit partner is already accountable for the reliability of the audit report. Furthermore, all the respondents tend to support continuance of the dual signature system and a slight differentiation of accountability between the two audit partners. Besides, they all suggest that the audit partner signature system should be practiced in the US, as revealing audit partners’ names on audit reports can increase not only the reliability of the reports but also the individual accountability of audit partners.