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。     

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective

The release of CLERP 9 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) requires the Financial Reporting Council and the Australian Accounting Standards Board to adopt International Accounting Standards (IAS) en bloc as domestic reporting standards by 1 January 2005. This article considers the current and future role and direction of the conceptual framework (CF) under the CLERP proposals and a potential IAS reporting environment after January 2005. It is argued that Australia, which has been a major innovator on CF issues, may suffer a major setback if the International Accounting Standards Board's CF is adopted in January 2005. Furthermore, while the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has been aggressively pursuing a set of global accounting standards, it remains unclear whether the IASB will, or can, develop an internationally relevant and generally accepted CF which can guide the development of a globally compatible set of accounting standards.     

Implications for the Conceptual Framework Arising From Accounting for Financial Instruments

This article describes some of the issues faced by standard setters in developing guidance on accounting for financial instruments and the implications these issues have for the conceptual framework (CF). The objective is to outline issues, not necessarily to resolve them, and to consider the implications they have for further developing the conceptual framework.
Given the current trend of harmonization and convergence of accounting practice towards international standards, it seems reasonable to assume that any policy implications will be most relevant to the CF inherited by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). ¹ Unless otherwise stated, references will be made to International Accounting Standards (IAS).     

Regulatory flexibility and management opportunism in the choice of alternative accounting standards: an illustration based on large French groups

Due to the flexibility of domestic accounting regulations, French groups are entitled to refer to international or American standards for their consolidation. The objective of this research paper is to focus on the choices made by the 100 largest French companies during the last 16 years (1985-2000). In practice, apart from the French rules, three “alternative” sets of standards are used: the International Accounting Standards (IAS), “international principles,” and the U.S. GAAP. The percentage of companies referring to alternative (i.e., non-French) standards rose in the first part of the period, then fell. Additionally, while the number of companies choosing U.S. GAAP increased over the period as a whole, the number preferring IAS or “international principles” has been in sharp decline since 1994-1995. Our results show that in this voluntary move towards international accounting harmonization, the choices made by French companies have clearly varied according to developments in French accounting regulations and the changing power balance between the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) and the SEC-FASB. This indicates a certain degree of opportunism by the management, who clearly keeps one eye constantly on the cost-benefit trade-off.     

The Conceptual Framework as a Coherent System for the Development of Accounting Standards

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) visualized a conceptual accounting framework as a 'coherent system of interrelated objectives and fundamentals that can lead to consistent standards that prescribes the nature, function, and limits of financial accounting and financial statements' (FASB, 1976). To Australian standard setters, the primary purpose of the conceptual framework (CF) was only to be used as a 'guide' in developing and reviewing accounting standards (AASB, 1995, para. 5). The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) diminished the role of a conceptual framework even further by openly acknowledging that some standards are inconsistent with the guidelines offered by the framework (IASC, 1989 para. 12). Even though the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) supposedly pursues a policy of harmonization of conceptual frameworks and accounting standards, there are also acknowledged inconsistencies in the conceptual frameworks of the IASC.
The aim of this article is to assess the coherence of the Australian (and IASC) conceptual framework. This analysis identifies confusion in drafting or construction of the conceptual framework, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistency with the legal framework within which business entities operate. Accordingly it is suggested that the adoption of a conceptual framework will not lead to consistent accounting standards, and inevitably the conceptual framework will lack credibility so long as it is inconsistent with legislation.     

On the global acceptance of IAS/IFRS accounting standards: The logic and implications of the principles-based system

The widespread acceptance of International Accounting Standards (IAS)/International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) makes it timely to examine their technical determinants as well as their implications for the accounting profession and the process of accounting harmonization. In this respect, we suggest that the principles-based approach to the standards and its inner flexibility enables the application of IAS/IFRS to countries with diverse accounting traditions and varying institutional conditions. Furthermore, the principles-based approach involves major changes in the expertise held by accountants and, hence, in their educational background, training programs, and in the organizational and business models of accounting firms. Finally, we submit that the standards set by the IAS/IFRS constitute a step forward in the process of accounting harmonization, although there is still far to go in the comparability of accounting measures across countries and regions.     

Measuring convergence of National Accounting Standards with International Financial Reporting Standards

This paper analyses three methods for measuring the success achieved in effecting convergence between any two sets of accounting standards. We begin by reviewing a measurement method based on the concept of Euclidean distances. We then propose two better measures (involving Jaccard's coefficients and Spearman's coefficients) to assess the progress of National Accounting Standards setting bodies in converging their standards with International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS]. For illustrative purposes, we measure the convergence of National Accounting Standards in Portugal with International Accounting Standards [IAS] and IFRS over the period 1977–2003.     

International harmonization of Japanese accounting standards

Historically, Japanese accounting standards have been quite distinct from International Accounting Standards (IASs) which have been perceived as being modelled on British-American accounting standards. However, in the 1990s, after the publication of E32 in 1989 and the IASC-IOSCO Agreement in 1995, the Business Accounting Deliberation Committee (BADC), the standards-setting body in Japan, has pursued a policy of harmonization with IASs. Accounting standards relating to consolidated financial statements of companies that make cross-border offerings of securities or operate worldwide are being revised drastically. This paper focuses on the development of international accounting harmonization and its impact on Japan.     

Examining the differences between United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Accounting Standards (IAS): implications for the harmonization of accounting standards

Current trends indicate continued movement towards the harmonization of accounting standards, but not without difficulty and concern. At times, the political and financial market pressure, push the movement in opposite directions. The paper discusses the conceptual framework used in establishing Global Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (International Accounting Standards, IAS) and U.S. GAAP. Numerous transactional examples are illustrated under both Global GAAP and U.S. GAAP treatment. Several country specific references are presented demonstrating the difficulty in achieving harmonization. Implications for harmonization of accounting standards include arguments “for” and “against” Global GAAP.     

A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) establishes accounting standards now used in some form in over 100 countries. Diverse geographical participation in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) standard-setting is seen as desirable as it may improve the consistency of IFRS applications, reduce criticism of regional over-influence, and promote the legitimacy of the IASB. This study investigates country participation and the regional and institutional factors that influence the geographic diversity of comment letters (CLs) in the IASB's standard-setting process. Using CLs regarding 57 IASB issues from 2001 through 2008, we find that countries with EU membership, G4+1 membership, donations to the IASB, and larger equity market development are associated with larger numbers of CLs and CL writers. Analysis of a subsample of more developed countries finds some evidence that countries with more historic divergence in accounting standards from IFRS also have more CL writers. In most countries, one of several major stakeholder interest groups, such as professional accountancy bodies, accounting standard-setters, and public accounting firms, send at least half of the CLs. While response levels for most countries vary greatly depending upon the nature or topic of an IASB issue, overall response levels remain low at just over 100 responses per issue and did not increase over time. While geographic diversity and response rates are greater than its predecessor the International Accounting Standards Committee, they are lower than those of many national standard-setters, possibly raising due process and legitimacy issues for the IASB.     

新会计准则对企业所得税的影响

2007年1月1日,我国上市公司率先实行新的会计准则,不久的将来则有更多的非上市公司也将实行新的会计准则。这套新会计准则体系起点高、范围大、创新多,标志着我国的会计准则与国际会计准则实现了实质性的趋同。新会计准则的实施,不仅影响企业的财务状况和经营成果,而且对企业的申报纳税也产生重大影响。本文以现行税法和新会计准则体系为依据,重点研究探讨新会计准则对企业所得税的影响。     

Fifty-Seven Serious Defects in 'Australian' IFRS

Australian accounting standards commonly used in the preparation of company financial reports have a controversial origin. Under a protocol adopted by the Financial Reporting Council, Australian accounting standards since 2005 substantially replicate the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) made by the International Accounting Standards Board. These standards' continued development is largely outside the control of Australian authorities. The standards examined are found to have such a large catalogue of conceptual and technical deficiencies that the authors call to question the adoption of an Australian IFRS protocol.     

GFC or KFC?: How Standard Setters Were Battered and Fried

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has exposed the fragility of both the alleged independence of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and their agreement to work together on major projects such as accounting for financial instruments. This paper outlines the events that have dogged the IASB and FASB in their attempts to respond to the GFC and explores the implications of the recent political pressures on accounting standard setting for the likelihood of ultimately achieving one global set of accounting standards.     

Assessing international accounting harmonization in Latin America

We draw on institutional theory and interviews with key informants to assess international accounting harmonization in the 13 countries of the Group of Latin American Accounting Standards Setters (GLASS). Some GLASS countries have effected full formal adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), but in others, IFRS are not permitted. In several GLASS countries, IFRS are supplemented by national standards for micro-entities and cooperatives. We conclude that it will be difficult to achieve material harmonization in GLASS countries due to a lack of trained accountants, unreliable enforcement systems, and competing institutional logics of taxation systems, banks and insurance companies.     

Convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards: The Case of Indonesia

Accounting professional bodies and governments in over 70 countries have supported the efforts made through the Indian Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in setting global accounting standards by adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for local financial reporting purposes. However, this has not happened in over 30 other countries due to various reasons. The US standard setters, for example, have decided to eliminate the differences between IFRSs and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) first as part of their convergence project with the IASB. Also, some emerging nations have not supported IFRSs due to other reasons. In Indonesia, for example, IFRSs are not permitted for domestic listed companies. The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the possible reasons for non-adoption of IFRSs in Indonesia by highlighting some of the important factors that are likely to influence the accounting environment in that country, taking an ecological perspective.     

Monopoly versus Competition in Setting Accounting Standards

Financial accounting standards are set by organizations granted a significant degree of monopoly power by various governments. While there has been considerable debate on the merits of national (e.g., US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)) versus international (International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)) monopolies, little attention has been paid to the merits of using competing standard‐setting organizations (SSOs) for setting accounting standards. We compare the standard‐setting processes of the FASB/IASB to the processes of four technology‐oriented SSOs to assess the role of competition. We also provide a case study of monopoly and competitive standards in telephony. Both telephony and accounting yield some gains from coordination, and similar arguments are used (under the labels of comparability and consistency of accounting) in debates about granting a monopoly to their respective SSOs. Our results show that a group of volunteers competing with the government‐sanctioned monopoly of International Telecommunications Union transformed the telephone industry. Thanks to this standards competition, we enjoy free video internet calling and massive cost savings. Implications for accounting standard setting are discussed.     

Mandatory Adoption of IASB Standards: Value Relevance and Country-Specific Factors

The objective of this study is to investigate if the value relevance of European-listed companies increased after the mandatory application of International Accounting Standards (IAS)/International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and how the value relevance of accounting information prepared under IAS/IFRS is shaped by the specific factors of the country in which companies are domiciled. Results show that the value relevance of financial information during the period companies applied mandatory IAS/IFRS is higher than for the period during which they applied local accounting standards. We also found that countries where accounting and tax are clearly separated show more relevant accounting information. Finally, we found that companies from countries with more legal and public enforcement mechanisms disclose less relevant accounting information under IAS/IFRS.     

我国会计标准建设与国际协调

本文对全球经济一体化背景下会计国际协调的必然性进行了分析 ,对我国会计国际协调过程中存在的认识误区和协调中应注意的一些问题进行了探讨 ,并提出了我国会计标准建设与会计国际协调的策略及建议。指出要正确分析我国会计标准与国际会计标准的差异 ,正确理解国际会计准则 ,积极参与国际会计准则的制定过程 ,并引导社会各界正确理解会计标准和运用会计信息     

The use of International Accounting Standards terminology, a survey of IAS compliance disclosure

This study examined where and how companies that purport to be using International Accounting Standards (IAS) are referring to IAS in their financial statements. Virtually all firms surveyed referred to IAS in the footnotes but referred to IAS in the audit report just under 50 percent of the time. The largest group of companies uses a combination of home-country and IAS standards. A significant number of firms report the use of IAS standards with exceptions. The majority of these firms do not discuss the dollar impact of those exceptions. Referencing IAS with home country standards or exceptions reduces comparability and transparency of financial statements. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) is referenced as the source of IAS in about half of the cases. Failure to reference the IASC as the source of IAS may result in ambiguity concerning what IAS means     

Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards

The perspective of public interest and interest group theories of regulation is adopted to consider the future of Australian accounting standards following major reforms proposed by the Australian Commonwealth government as part of its 1997 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP). Interest groups in the Australian environment are identified. Their lobbying had influenced the initial proposals; and their reactions when the CLERP proposals were published resulted in substantial modifications to the CLERP proposals, which had initially recommendedthat International Accounting Standards (IASs) be adopted as national standards from 1 January 1999.
The role of accounting standards and the structure of standard setting are explored. The political nature of standard setting is illustrated through a review of the CLERP proposals, submissions of various interest groups and the government's responses to them. The central arguments are that key assumptions underlying the CLERP proposals are flawed, and that the CLERP proposals could not achieve the outcomes desired of them.
It seems inevitable, however, that international standards eventually will supplant domestic standards. In the longer term, Australian standard setters seem destined to have a diminished role in the international standard setting arena.