外文翻譯---國(guó)內(nèi)的會(huì)計(jì)和國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則

1、附錄Observations on measuring the differences betweendomestic accounting standards and IASChristopher W. Nobes *University of London, Royal Holloway, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW200EX, United KingdomKeywords:International

2、accounting differences,Rules versus practices,Biases in dataAbstract: In an earlier edition of this journal, Ding et al. use data in GAAP 2001 to assess determinants and effects of differences between domestic and intern

3、ational standards. This paper examines whether those data are suitable for the purposes of academic research by outlining the biases and particular features of GAAP 2001. The main problem with the data for research is th

4、at the differences from IAS that it records, which focus on rules, are of varying importance for accounting practice. This raises questions about the equal weighting applied by Ding et al. This paper also questions their

5、 distinction between absence of IAS requirements and divergence from those requirements. Some doubts are also raised about the independent variables.1. IntroductionDing et al. (2007) use the data of Nobes (2001) in order

6、 to assess the determinants and effects of differences between domestic and international accounting standards (IAS). Many other authors1 refer to the same data for various purposes. As Ding et al. report, the data relat

7、e to the accounting rules in force at the end of 2001 in 62 countries, of which they choose 30 countries. The original data for each country were divided into four categories: absence of recognition/measurement rules (co

8、mpared to IAS), absence of disclosure requirements, inconsistencies in rules (compared to IAS) affecting many enterprises, and inconsistencies affecting certain enterprises. Ding et al. add the first two categories toget

9、her as ‘‘a(chǎn)bsence”, and the second two as ‘‘divergence”.As the preparer of the data (called hereafter ‘GAAP 2001’), I comment here on (1981) is that differences in the rules (de jure differences) are mixed with those rela

10、ting to practices (de facto differences). How does the GAAP 2001 data compare? GAAP 2001 does not suffer from this problem. It records only de jure differences between national and IAS rules, not de facto differences bet

11、ween national and IAS practice. Although not so serious a limitation as would be created by mixing rules and practices, the concentration in GAAP 2001 on rules rather than practices could cause problems for research, whi

12、ch Ding et al. do not discuss. For example,if a nation’s rules do not require a particular item to be disclosed but companies often disclose it in practice, then this ‘‘a(chǎn)bsence” of a rule should perhaps be ignored. Or, i

13、f a national system (unlike IAS 38) allows internally-generated research costs to be capitalized but in practice companies do not capitalize, then the ‘‘divergence” in rules is perhaps irrelevant. Another aspect of this

14、is that some de jure differences do not lead to de facto differences in a particular country because the issue is irrelevant. For example, the absence of rules on pension accounting is of little importance in China becau

15、se Chinese companies do not generally run defined benefit pension plans. More subtly, both ‘‘inconsistency” categories in GAAP 2001 (see the first paragraph of this paper)contain two types of inconsistency with IAS: (i)

16、where the national rule and the IAS is incompatible (e.g. if the national rule required LIFO but IAS required FIFO), and (ii) where the national rule would not ensure IAS compliance (e.g. if the national rule allowed eit

17、her LIFO or FIFO, but IAS required FIFO).The former inconsistency is more serious. Indeed, the latter may be of no practical importance (e.g. if companies using the national rule choose not to use LIFO).2.3. An IAS biasT

18、he GAAP 2001 data were based on looking at accounting rules from one direction: the content of IAS. So, if a national system had more rules or more restrictive rules than IAS had, this did not show up. For example, US GA

19、AP covered many issues on which IAS was silent (e.g. oil and gas accounting); and UK GAAP did not allow LIFO whereas IAS did. Since these types of difference are not covered by GAAP 2001, they were not included by Ding e