我国政府会计要素体系重构研究

正一、政府会计要素国际研究概况(一)国际公共会计准则理事会关于政府会计要素的主要观点国际公共部门会计准则理事会(IPSASB),隶属于国际会计师联合会(IFAC),致力于制定公共部门会计概念框架项目。IPSAS将权责发生制下公共部门报表中的会计要素分为6类:资产、负债、净资产/权益、收入、费用和所有者投入保全调整(类似于IASB中"资本保全调整"要素)。2012年10月8日的征求意见稿"公共部门主体通用目的财务报告的概念框架:财务报表的要素和确认",与国际会计准则理事会(IASB)的概念框架相比,     

会计国际趋同及国外相关组织近期动态

国际公共部门会计准则委员会(IPSASB)近期发布了多项新准则、征求意见稿和公开咨询稿,特别是在社会福利、服务特许权协议等极具分量的公共部门特定项目准则上都取得了重大的阶段性成果,对国际公共部门会计的发展将产生深远影响.     

国际公共部门会计准则委员会(IPSASB)利用全球资源打造国际公共部门会计概念框架

2007年3月26日,国际公共部门会计准则委员会(IPSASB)下设的公共部门会计概念框架委员会在香港召开会议,研讨公共部门财务报告目标、财务报告范围、报告主体和财务报告定性特征等内容。这标志着IPSASB利用全球资源、计划6年时间、打造自成体系、高质量的、与国际财务报告准则(IF     

国际公共部门会计准则委员会2012年度第四次会议综述

2012年12月3日至6日,国际公共部门会计准则委员会（IPSASB,以下简称委员会）在纽约召开2012年度第四次委员会议。会议批准了国际公共部门会计概念框架第1阶段,讨论了合并财务报表、财务报表讨论与分析、公共部门主体财务长期可持续性报告等项目。     

改进政府财务报告——国际会计师联合会发布了首批国际公共部门会计准则

国际会计师联合会 ( International Federation ofAccountants,IFAC)是一个世界性的会计职业组织 ,其任务是发展、提高会计职业 ,并且保证为公众利益提供高质量的服务。目前 ,国际会计师联合会的成员是来自于 10 4个国家的 143个职业会计团体。2 0 0 0年 5月 2 4日 ,国际会计师联合会发布了首批8个国际公共部门会计准则 ( ( International PublicSector Accounting Standards,IPSASs) ,旨在增强世界范围内政府的会计责任与财务管理。这些准则的首次发布 ,为政府提供了一套具有权威性的、独立的财务报告准则。《国际公共部门会计准则…     

国际公共部门会计准则体系研究

国际公共部门会计准则（IPSAS）是全球政府会计准则的标杆。本文就国际公共部门会计准则（IP—SAS）的制定程序、制定团队、现有IPSAS的内容、国际公共部门会计准则理事会（IPsAsB）的未来战略和工作计划、IPSAS的未来布局及发展趋势等一系列问题进行概括与分析,以冀为我国的政府会计准则研究提供启发与借鉴。     

国际公共部门会计准则的最新进展和国际趋同动态

一、背景资料 （一）国际公共部门会计准则及其制定机构。国际公共部门会计准则（IPSASs）是由国际公共部门会计准则委员会（IPSASB）制定的、适用于公共部门主体编报通用财务报表的财务报告准则。根据委员会的界定,“公共部门主体”包括国家政府、地区性（如州、省、管区）政府、地方（如市、镇）政府和这些政府的组成主体（如部门、代理机构、理事会、委员会）。     

构建政府会计规范体系研究

一、政府会计规范的模式20世纪80年代中期以来，世界各国部在推进政府会计改革。国际会计师联合会（IFAC）公共部门委员会（Psc）从1996年起着手制定国际公立单位会计准则，到目前为止，已发布20个以权责发生制为基础的国际公立单位会计准则，一个综合性的以收付实现制为基础的国际公立单位会计准则——《收付实现制会计基础下的财务报告》，完成了《政府财务报告》研究，发布了《资产减值》等征求意见稿。目前近70个国家已经或准备采用国际公共部门会计准则，或者据其调整本国准则。国际货币基金组~,（IMF）2001年制定、2007年修订的《财政透明度手册》和《政府财政统计手册》要求：各国政府应公开政府结构与职能，公开政府的资产、负债、收入和支出信息，公开政府预算编制、执行信息，并要保证这些信息的真实性。     

国际会计师联合会即将完成公共部门核心会计准则

２００１年１２月１３日，国际会计师联合会 （ＩＦＡＣ）所属公共部门委员会（ＰＳＣ）又发布５项国际公共部门会计准则，使国际公共部门会计准则达到门项，离 ２００２年完成２０项核心会计准则的制定仅一步之遥。 新发布的５项公共部门会计准则是：（１）租赁：规定了出租方     

中国政府会计管理与改革战略框架研讨会观点综述

为推进政府会计改革,探索建立中国政府会计管理与改革战略框架,根据世界银行的中国政府会计管理与改革战略框架研究项目执行计划,2011年5月23—25日,财政部国库司在广东举办了中国政府会计管理与改革战略框架研讨会。国际公共部门会计准则委员会主席安卓斯·贝格曼先生（Andre＆sBergm＆nn）、南非会计准则委员会首席执行官厄娜·斯沃特女士（ErnaSw＆rt）、     

Comparability in IPSASs: Lessons to be Learned for the European Standards

Abstract

In 2013 the European Commission started addressing issues concerning public sector accounting harmonization across EU Member States, embarking on a project to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs). Although acknowledging the indisputable reference of the existing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), it highlighted that IPSASs, as they were, could not be suitably applied in the EU context (European Commission, 2013a). IPSASs were considered as not covering specific important matters of public sector accounting, not showing enough stability due to the need of constant convergence with IFRSs, and offering several options that compromised comparability.

Comparability of public sector accounts across Member States is one of the main objectives of EPSASs (EUROSTAT, 2016, 2019), clearly established as a qualitative characteristic in the draft EPSAS Conceptual Framework (EUROSTAT, 2018). It is critical for EU economic and fiscal convergence that countries’ accounts allow for substantial comparison and standardized transition to the National Accounts (Jorge et al., 2014).

The IPSAS Conceptual Framework (IPSASB, 2014), meanwhile issued, sustains that adopting these standards would improve comparability of General Purpose Financial Reporting (GPFR), in this way strengthening transparency and accountability of public sector finance.

Given that, despite the above concerns, EPSASs are to be developed on the basis of IPSASs (European Commission, 2019), the purpose of this paper is to show that IPSASs are not an adequate reference for EPSASs in terms of allowing the desired comparability of countries’ accounts in the EU. It relies on evidence gathered from IPSAS-based financial reports prepared by some Agencies of the United Nations System and from audit reports of the UN Board of Auditors.

The research illustrates that IPSASs only allow for de jure comparability of financial reports at a very broad level. Their implementation and interpretation in practice (due to the options permitted and the judgement required) does not allow for de facto comparable GPFR. European standard-setters need to be aware that the comparability EPSASs need to address across EU Member States’ accounts must go beyond the one that is permitted by IPSASs – EPSASs need to stretch IPSASs harmonization to a higher level of standardization.     

Avances en la cantidad de la información financiera del sector público en México a raíz de la LGCG

We evaluate the quantity, quality and harmonization of the financial information published by the states, the Federal District and the federal government during the period 2008 to 2012, following the approval of the General Law on Government Accounting (LGCG). First, the requirements identified by the CONAC and subsequently the International Accounting Standards Public Sector 1 (IPSAS) are used to assess the publication of the financial statements. Second, we presente the rate of compliance with the publication of accounts pointing IPSAS 1, 2 and 17. Finally, the harmonization of financial statements is studied by the Herfindahl-Hirschman index to determine whether the financial statements are comparable between them. The results indicate that the public sector has increased the quantity, quality and harmonization of the financial information published.     

IPSAS and local government consolidated financial statements—proposal for a territorial consolidation method

This paper presents a new consolidation method to improve local government accountability. After a brief review of consolidated financial statements in the public sector, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards approach to consolidation is described. The authors explain why this approach does not adequately consider the distinctive features of local governments. A case study is presented to illustrate the principles underlying the new method.     

New development: The IPSASB project on accounting for social benefits—IPSAS 42

ABSTRACT

This article explores the work undertaken by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in developing IPSAS 42 on ‘Social Benefits’, which was probably the IPSASB’s most challenging project to date. The authors explains IPSAS 42’s approach to liability recognition with the overriding considerations behind the IPSASB’s final decisions. In 2012, the EC identified the lack of a standard on social benefits in the IPSASB’s suite of standards as one of the arguments against the application of IPSASs in the EU, so this article is important in terms of the IPSASs being used as the basis for EPSASs (European Public Sector Accounting Standards).     

Progress in the quantity of financial information in the public sector in Mexico following the LGCG

This work evaluates the amount, quality, and harmonization of the financial information published by Mexico City, the states, and the Federal Government during the period of 2008–2012, following the approval of the General Law of Government Accounting (LGCG). Firstly, the requirements indicated by the CONAC and subsequently by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) are used to evaluate the publication of financial statements. Secondly, the compliance of the publication of the accounts indicated by IPSAS 1, 2 and 17 is reported. Finally, the harmonization of the financial statements is studied through the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to determine if the financial statements are comparable with one another. The results indicate that the public sector has increased the amount, quality, and harmonization of the financial information published during the study period.     

IPSAS or IFRS as the Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting? New Zealand Preparers’ Perspectives

The last 30 years have seen public sector accounting in many countries undergo considerable change. More recently, some governments adopted accrual accounting and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), some adopted modified International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) while others continued with cash‐based accounting. New Zealand (NZ) has, for more than two decades, followed a sector neutral approach to financial reporting and standard setting where the same accounting standards were applied to all entities in all sectors: for‐profit, not‐for‐profit and the public sector. This period included the adoption of IFRS by for‐profit entities with minor modifications for the public sector. The suitability of IFRS for the public sector has been questioned and, recently, standard setters in NZ decided to adopt a sector‐specific standard‐setting approach with multiple tiers for each sector. The for‐profit sector will continue to follow IFRS but reporting standards for the public sector will be based on IPSAS. In this period of change we sought the views of preparers of public sector financial reports regarding the users of such reports and their preferences for the public sector reporting framework. We also sought the views of the preparers regarding the usefulness of each financial statement for users, and whether the benefits of reporting by their organisations exceeds the costs. The findings indicate support for maintaining IFRS as a basis for reporting in the NZ public sector. However, IPSAS modified to NZ conditions is also perceived as an acceptable option by respondents in this study. The income statement is, in the opinion of the respondents in this study, the most useful statement while cash flows appear to hold little value. A high proportion of respondents believe that the benefits of reporting exceed the costs, which contradicts the view that such reports are mainly compliance documents that provide little value. This finding contributes to the continuing debate on costs versus benefits on the recent introduction of IPSAS as the reporting framework for the public sector and the perceived appropriateness of IPSAS in public sector reporting.     

A theoretical basis for public sector accrual accounting research: current state and perspectives

ABSTRACT

Public sector or government accounting has been the subject of many research endeavors. However, scholars have repeatedly criticized the lack of a consistent and well-defined theoretical basis for international research. So far, most researchers have drawn from various streams of theoretical perspectives with often unsatisfactory results. The goal of this paper is to put forward the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board’s (IPSASB) Conceptual Framework as a point of reference for establishing a better-fitting theoretical basis for public sector accrual accounting research.     

A Conceptual Framework for Accounting for Public-Benefit Entities

There is a renewed impetus in the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) to develop a conceptual framework for financial reporting for both private sector and public-benefit entities. This article takes stock of some of the key issues related to this endeavour with particular emphasis on what the objectives should be and whether it is possible to have one conceptual framework for all entities.     

THE SUBSTANCE OF ACCOUNTING FOR PUBLIC‐PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

This article evaluates Public‐Private Partnerships (PPP) accounting practice and the related financial accounting and reporting requirements. Governments across the world are seeking to access private finance to improve public infrastructure. Accounting for PPPs has encountered many difficulties, one of which is the practice by which PPPs are not accounted for as fixed assets on the balance sheet of either the public sector client or the private sector operator. Accounting for PPPs has grown in importance at a time of transition from national Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under UK GAAP, both client and operator accounting adopt the reasoning – familiar from leasing standards – of the allocation of risks and rewards between the parties to determine the party which should recognize the fixed asset on its balance sheet. The gap in IFRS with regard to operator accounting has been filled by the interpretation IFRIC 12 on service concession agreements: this moves the reasoning from risks and rewards to control, familiar from consolidation standards. The UK Treasury and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) have required/proposed the adoption of the mirror‐image treatment of IFRIC 12. In most, but not all, cases, control will be assessed to rest with the client, which will recognize property, plant and equipment, and not with the operator, which will recognize either a financial asset or an intangible asset on the basis of an assessment of which party bears the majority of risks and rewards. Under both UK GAAP and IFRS, accounting policy choices are strongly influenced by, for the client, governmental control frameworks, and for the operator, by the implications for the profile of distributable profits and for taxation. An important public policy issue is that the national accounts, which for European Union member states must comply with European System of Accounts 1995, will remain on a risks and rewards basis. It is these numbers that will be used in assessments of macro‐fiscal policy and fiscal risks, notwithstanding that the Eurostat version of risks and rewards is even more open to manipulation than were the national financial reporting standards.