國際會(huì)計(jì)第七版課后答案第四章作者弗雷德里克.doc

《國際會(huì)計(jì)第七版課后答案第四章作者弗雷德里克.doc》由會(huì)員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)《國際會(huì)計(jì)第七版課后答案第四章作者弗雷德里克.doc（14頁珍藏版）》請(qǐng)?jiān)谘b配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

第四章 比較會(huì)計(jì):美洲和亞洲 討論問題 1。公共和私營部門機(jī)構(gòu)參與調(diào)節(jié)和執(zhí)行財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告在美國。財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)是一個(gè)私人的身體決定美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)原則。美國證券交易委員會(huì)有權(quán)決定美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則對(duì)上市公司來說,但FASB推遲。FASB和秒有一個(gè)密切的工作關(guān)系,確保FASB SEC標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是可以接受的。美國證券交易委員會(huì)對(duì)上市公司實(shí)施財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告規(guī)則。公司積極審查申請(qǐng)。審計(jì)師的執(zhí)法者非公有制企業(yè)舉行。 發(fā)布的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則在墨西哥是財(cái)務(wù)信息標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的研究和發(fā)展委員會(huì)(CINIF),一個(gè)獨(dú)立的美國FASB公私部門的身體后圖案。墨西哥的權(quán)威發(fā)布會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是國家銀行和證券委員會(huì)認(rèn)可的政府機(jī)構(gòu),調(diào)節(jié)墨西哥證券交易所。歐盟委員會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行上市公司財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則。然而,目前尚不清楚如何主動(dòng)的委員會(huì)在調(diào)查其接收到的文件。執(zhí)行財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告為非上市公司有效取決于審計(jì)師。 日本會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則由私營部門機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置,日本的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)。ASBJ的建立是最近在日本發(fā)展。以前,會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定是政府活動(dòng)。財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告的執(zhí)行有效取決于審計(jì)師。證券交易所監(jiān)管的金融服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu),政府機(jī)構(gòu)。然而,目前尚不清楚如何主動(dòng)FSA在監(jiān)測(cè)由日本公司財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。 在中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定是政府的活動(dòng)。中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)在財(cái)政部負(fù)責(zé)制定會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。中國證券監(jiān)督管理委員會(huì)是中國的政府機(jī)構(gòu)監(jiān)管的兩個(gè)股票交易所。中國證監(jiān)會(huì)還負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行上市公司財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。許多中國執(zhí)行機(jī)制的有效性問題。 印度特許會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì),一個(gè)私營部門的專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu),在印度發(fā)展會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。印度證券交易委員會(huì)財(cái)政部的一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu),調(diào)節(jié)印度22證券交易所和負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告規(guī)則。然而,目前尚不清楚如何主動(dòng)的董事會(huì)是由印度公司在監(jiān)督財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。 總的來說,五個(gè)國家不同的私人和公共部門負(fù)責(zé)管理和執(zhí)行財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。在若干國家執(zhí)法是可疑的。美國最強(qiáng)大的機(jī)制來調(diào)節(jié)和執(zhí)行五個(gè)國家的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。 2。美國和印度是普通法國家,面向公允表達(dá)的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。墨西哥也有面向公允表達(dá)的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告,因?yàn)槊绹挠绊懥?。此?墨西哥通貨膨脹會(huì)計(jì),與其他四個(gè)國家。日本是一個(gè)代碼法律的國家,其會(huì)計(jì)歷來保守和與特征,就像其他代碼法系國家(如法國和德國第三章中討論)。然而,它正在公允表達(dá),因?yàn)樗铝τ谌毡緯?huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則與國際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則趨同。中國同樣是朝著面向公允表達(dá)的中國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則會(huì)計(jì)采用國際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則。盡管采用公允表達(dá)原則,一個(gè)人可以質(zhì)疑中國實(shí)現(xiàn)應(yīng)用程序。有一個(gè)嚴(yán)重缺乏訓(xùn)練有素的會(huì)計(jì)師在中國和行業(yè)仍未開發(fā)。會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)強(qiáng)在其他四個(gè)國家,包括印度和墨西哥的“發(fā)展中”國家。 3。本章討論的審計(jì)監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu): 答:美國公共公司會(huì)計(jì)監(jiān)督委員會(huì) b .日本——注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)監(jiān)督委員會(huì) 最近成立的獨(dú)立審計(jì)師監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)在美國和日本是由于最近全球會(huì)計(jì)丑聞。都代表收緊控制審計(jì)。 4。稅收立法支付有限的作用在所有五個(gè)國家,除了日本。在美國,除了后進(jìn)先出財(cái)務(wù)和稅務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)是獨(dú)立的。稅收立法對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告實(shí)踐在墨西哥幾乎沒有影響。例如,財(cái)務(wù)和稅務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)之間有很多差異,比如銷售成本的計(jì)算,折舊和攤銷商譽(yù)。稅收立法歷來的一面“三角法律制度”在日本,日本會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則施加影響。然而,稅收下降的影響與IFRS日本會(huì)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的一致性。幾年前,在中國稅收立法有一些影響,但這已經(jīng)減弱為中國發(fā)展一個(gè)更完整的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則。印度,像其他普通法國家,將財(cái)務(wù)和稅務(wù)會(huì)計(jì). 5．這個(gè)問題一直是學(xué)術(shù)界的興趣持續(xù)很長一段時(shí)間。會(huì)計(jì)專業(yè)知識(shí)是經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的必要前提,或者一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的進(jìn)步?jīng)]有?看起來,經(jīng)濟(jì)不能走的太遠(yuǎn),沒有會(huì)計(jì)專業(yè)知識(shí)。但可能是雙向的關(guān)系,就像供給創(chuàng)造需求,反之亦然。 中國的例子展示了發(fā)展中會(huì)計(jì)的重要性(標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、知識(shí)等)。會(huì)計(jì)是一個(gè)在中國市場(chǎng)改革計(jì)劃的一部分,所以需要從一開始就已經(jīng)認(rèn)出了。墨西哥和印度一直以市場(chǎng)為導(dǎo)向的超過中國,和他們的會(huì)計(jì)更發(fā)達(dá)。但是,很明顯,這兩個(gè)國家會(huì)計(jì)支持經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展。 6。英國標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(第3章)和IFRS(第八章),以反映以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),美國標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(本章)是基于規(guī)則的。一般來說,以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定總體目標(biāo)和基本面和需要專業(yè)判斷實(shí)施。他們更靈活的基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和在實(shí)踐中可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致更多的分歧。基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更為具體的要求和詳細(xì)的實(shí)施指導(dǎo)比以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。可能導(dǎo)致更多的可比性不是以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但據(jù)說培養(yǎng)“復(fù)選框”的心態(tài)。章說,美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則“可能比世界其他國家的總和還多,比其他任何國家更詳細(xì)?！耙虼?我們可以認(rèn)為,美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是基于規(guī)則的 7。英國和美國都遵循會(huì)計(jì)公允表達(dá),反映經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)而不是法律形式。英國“真實(shí)而公平”和美國“禮物相當(dāng)“反映公允表達(dá)。然而,英國有一個(gè)真正的和公平的覆蓋——會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則可以覆蓋在必要時(shí)達(dá)到一個(gè)真正的和公平的視圖。在美國,提出了相當(dāng)意味著遵循公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)原則 8。最重要的(即協(xié)調(diào)項(xiàng)目。,墨西哥和美國會(huì)計(jì)最重要區(qū)別)與一般物價(jià)水平會(huì)計(jì)在墨西哥的使用。嚴(yán)格的使用歷史成本在美國一章中提到的另外兩個(gè)差異(一)墨西哥應(yīng)用權(quán)益法為10%,而美國適用20%和(b)在墨西哥開發(fā)費(fèi)用資本化和攤銷后技術(shù)建立了可行性;在美國,他們被轉(zhuǎn)移。 a. 9。日本泡沫經(jīng)濟(jì)的破滅在1990年代促使日本財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。很明顯,許多會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)踐實(shí)際上藏嚴(yán)重許多日本企業(yè)是如何做的。會(huì)計(jì)“大爆炸”旨在使日本公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況更加透明,使日本會(huì)計(jì)更符合國際慣例。 b. 實(shí)踐的變化包括以下: c. 答:要求上市公司報(bào)告現(xiàn)金流量表。 d. b .子公司合并基于控制而不是所有權(quán)。 e. c .附屬企業(yè)使用權(quán)益法核算基于影響而不是所有權(quán)。 f. d .證券投資價(jià)值的市場(chǎng),而不是成本。 g. e .遞延稅是完全提供。 h. f .養(yǎng)老金和其他退休義務(wù)應(yīng)計(jì)。 i. j. 9。全面、完整的信息披露可靠、公平的信息有必要開發(fā)一個(gè)公平和有效的股票市場(chǎng)。會(huì)計(jì)的“盎格魯-撒克遜”模式(第2章中討論),強(qiáng)調(diào)公平的財(cái)務(wù)狀況和結(jié)果,強(qiáng)調(diào)管理,也促進(jìn)公平和有效的股票市場(chǎng)的發(fā)展。這個(gè)會(huì)計(jì)方向的國家(如美國和英國)活躍,公平和有效率的股票市場(chǎng)。還有一個(gè)法律結(jié)構(gòu)和有效的執(zhí)行法律和會(huì)計(jì)披露所有的工作。 k. 中國正在發(fā)展會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則與股票市場(chǎng)取向上面所討論的。所以中國是正確的——標(biāo)準(zhǔn)本身將支持股市的發(fā)展。此外,投資者必須有信心,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)被跟蹤,即。,信息傳播公司是可靠的。因此,良好的審計(jì)由訓(xùn)練有素的會(huì)計(jì)專業(yè)很重要。中國可能有困難發(fā)展中會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè),進(jìn)而成為阻礙證券市場(chǎng)的發(fā)展。中國還必須克服共產(chǎn)主義下的保密文化發(fā)達(dá)。 a. 9。本章提到的一些例子,中國會(huì)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與世界一流的實(shí)踐是一致的。選擇性列表,更重要的是以下幾點(diǎn): b. 答:比較合并財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表,包括資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表,損益表,現(xiàn)金流量表,筆記。 c. b .權(quán)責(zé)發(fā)生制識(shí)別收入與費(fèi)用、匹配和一致性。 d. c .采購業(yè)務(wù)組合年度減值測(cè)試方法。 e. d . nonconsolidated子公司的權(quán)益法。 f. e .使用歷史成本。 g. f .融資租賃大寫。 h. 12。英國在印度對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)的影響是顯而易見的。印度的普通法法律制度和公平的陳述會(huì)計(jì)隨之而來。像英國,財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表必須給一個(gè)真正的和公平的視圖和有一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的自動(dòng)調(diào)整的會(huì)計(jì)行業(yè)。專業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師(審計(jì)師)被稱為注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師在這兩個(gè)國家。本章中所描述的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告和會(huì)計(jì)測(cè)量對(duì)印度非常類似于第三章中描述的英國。 a. 練習(xí) b. 1。美國 c. 財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)。 d. 證券交易委員會(huì)。 e. 墨西哥 f. 答:理事會(huì)財(cái)務(wù)信息標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的研究和開發(fā)。 g. 沒有明確的執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)。然而,國家銀行和證券委員會(huì)調(diào)節(jié)墨西哥證券交易所。 h. 日本 i. 日本會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)。 j. b .金融服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)上市公司在證券法律和司法部,當(dāng)涉及到公司法。 k. 中國 l. 答:中國財(cái)政部會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)。 m. b .中國注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)根據(jù)財(cái)政部、管轄調(diào)節(jié)審計(jì)。 n. 印度 o. 印度特許會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)。 p. 印度特許會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)。 q. 2。在撰寫本文時(shí),下面的組織與IFAC的網(wǎng)站: 美國 管理會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì) 美國注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì) 會(huì)計(jì)協(xié)會(huì)的董事會(huì) 墨西哥 Instituto Mexicano德康塔葡萄牙日?qǐng)?bào) 日本 日本注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì) 中國 中國注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì) 2。五個(gè)表達(dá)式的問題、術(shù)語或短語不熟悉或不尋常的學(xué)生的祖國。以美國為祖國,這里是十二: A .三角法律系統(tǒng)——的描述會(huì)計(jì)監(jiān)管在日本公司法組成的相互作用,證券交易法律,企業(yè)所得稅法。 b .社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì),在中國使用來描述其計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)與市場(chǎng)適應(yīng)性。 c .土地和工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán),仍屬于中國政府,私人公司獲得使用這些工業(yè)資產(chǎn)的權(quán)利。 d .比索的目前的購買力——一個(gè)術(shù)語來描述一般物價(jià)水平會(huì)計(jì)在墨西哥。 e .稅務(wù)合規(guī)審計(jì)報(bào)告——墨西哥審計(jì)師必須證明沒有違規(guī)行為觀察關(guān)于遵守稅法。 財(cái)務(wù)狀況變動(dòng)表-墨西哥的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表相對(duì)應(yīng)的現(xiàn)金流量表。然而,財(cái)務(wù)狀況變動(dòng)表是準(zhǔn)備在不斷比索(通脹調(diào)整后的),而現(xiàn)金流量表使用歷史成本。 g .資歷溢價(jià)——在墨西哥賠償終止就業(yè)基于員工工作多長時(shí)間。 在日本h集團(tuán)公司——連鎖巨頭企業(yè)。 即“關(guān)系”文化在中國的關(guān)系,基于相互關(guān)系和相互職責(zé)。 jb股,外國投資者在中國上市公司股票。 k .真正的和公平的觀點(diǎn)——印度的需求,財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表存在一個(gè)真正的和公平的觀點(diǎn)來自英國。 l .融合——在印度使用的術(shù)語合并。 4。最重要的財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)踐或原則與國際準(zhǔn)則差異可能是以下幾點(diǎn): 美國——后進(jìn)先出。由于稅法考慮,沒有其他國家使用后進(jìn)先出后進(jìn)先出在美國發(fā)現(xiàn)的程度降低公布業(yè)績。因?yàn)槟挲g的增長,降低庫存成本是顯示在資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上,債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率會(huì)更高。公司使用后進(jìn)先出必須報(bào)告所謂后進(jìn)先出儲(chǔ)備,使分析師將后進(jìn)先出相當(dāng)于FIFO。 墨西哥——通貨膨脹調(diào)整。世界上大多數(shù)國家資產(chǎn)價(jià)值在歷史成本和相關(guān)費(fèi)用;一些國家將通貨膨脹調(diào)整。通貨膨脹調(diào)整,收益將較低,可能會(huì)降低資產(chǎn)負(fù)債率。不太可能分析師將能夠調(diào)整墨西哥賬戶歷史成本。當(dāng)然,這種調(diào)整是不明智的,因?yàn)楦咄洝? 日本——利益池方法業(yè)務(wù)組合,沒有一個(gè)政黨獲得控制。國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)所有業(yè)務(wù)組合作為一個(gè)購買。購買會(huì)計(jì)相比,池導(dǎo)致更高的收入和更低的資產(chǎn)價(jià)值。因此,債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率會(huì)更高。分析師將無法調(diào)整會(huì)計(jì)方法。 中國——顯示土地使用權(quán)和工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)歸政府作為無形資產(chǎn)。中國在多大程度上是很不尋常的政府擁有土地和工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)。只要這些無形資產(chǎn)相當(dāng)重視,將沒有影響公布財(cái)報(bào)收益或資產(chǎn)負(fù)債比。然而,分析師必須意識(shí)到無形資產(chǎn)在中國公司的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表是有形資產(chǎn)的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上來自其他國家的公司。 印度——池的利益(合并)融合的方法。如上所述,日本,國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是對(duì)所有業(yè)務(wù)組合購買。購買會(huì)計(jì)相比,池導(dǎo)致更高的收入和更低的資產(chǎn)價(jià)值。因此,債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率會(huì)更高。分析師將無法調(diào)整會(huì)計(jì)方法。 5. At the time of writing, the following numbers are reported by the World Federation of Stock Exchanges:  Country No. of domestic listed firms No. of foreign listed firms United States: American SE Nasdaq NYSE 495 2,832 1,818 100 332 452 Mexico 150 176 Japan: Osaka Tokyo 1,063 2,323 1 28 China: Shanghai SE Shenzhen SE 833 544 0 0 India: Bombay National 4,763 1,034 0 0 The significant number of listed companies in India may be surprising. It may also be surprising that the number of listed Japanese companies matches the numbers for the United States. Another potential surprise is the fact that the Mexican Stock Exchange has more foreign listed firms than domestic listed firms. Students will probably speculate that most of the foreign listed firms in Mexico are from other Latin American countries, a statement that is in fact true. The lack of foreign listed firms in China and India has two possible explanations – either the government does not allow foreign firms to list on domestic exchanges, or companies do not see these stock markets as an attractive place to raise capital. The latter explanation is why there are so few foreign listed firms in Japan. 3. A comparison of the countries in Exhibit 4-5 reveals few differences among the United States, Mexico, and China. Thus, all three countries can claim that their GAAP are comparably oriented toward equity investors. However, of the three countries, the United States can probably claim to have GAAP most oriented toward equity investors. The chapter notes that the U.S. has the most voluminous and detailed accounting requirements in the world and that they are rigorously enforced. Thus, the nod goes to the United States. India and Japan both allow pooling of interests accounting, an accounting treatment now at variance with international norms. The treatment of goodwill in these two countries is also at variance with international norms. In addition, Japan’s lease accounting treatment is at variance with international norms. Thus, Japan seems to be the country whose GAAP is least oriented toward equity investors. 4. At the time of writing, the following companies are listed on the New York Stock Exchange from Mexico, Japan, India, and China: Mexico America Movil Cemex Coca-Cola FEMSA Desarrolladora Homex Empresas ICA Fomento Economico Mexicano GRUMA Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste Grupo Casa Saba Grupo Radio Centro Grupo Televisa Grupo TMM Industrias Bachoco Telefonos de Mexico Vitro Japan Advantest Cannon Hitachi Honda Motor Konami Kubota Kyocera Matsushita Electric Industrial Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Mizuho Financial Group Nidec Nippon Telegraph and Telephone NIS Group Co. Nomura Holdings NTT DoCoMo Orix Sony TDK Toyota Motor India Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories HDFC Bank ICICI Bank Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Patni Computer Systems Satyam Computer Services Tata Motors Videsh Sanchar Nigam Wipro WNS Holdings China Aluminum Corporation of China American Oriental Bioengineering China Eastern Airlines China Life Insurance China Mobile China Netcom Group China Petroleum and Chemical China Southern Airlines China Telecom China Unicom Guangshen Railway Huaneng Power International Mindray Medical International New Oriental Education and Technology PetroChina Semiconductor Manufacturing International Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Suntech Power Holdings Trina Solar Yanzhou Coal Mining Mexico has 16 companies listed on the NYSE, ranking third after Brazil (35) and Chile (17). This is perhaps surprising given the strong economic links between the United States and Mexico discussed in the chapter. One would expect Mexico to have the most of any Latin American country. Of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region, China has the most number of companies listed on the NYSE (20); Japan is second (19); and India is third (10). As discussed in the chapter, the economies of China and India are growing rapidly. The relatively large numbers of NYSE listed Chinese and Indian companies probably reflect a need for capital by their larger companies. That Japan has approximately the same number of NYSE listed companies as China is perhaps surprising. However, the chapter discusses how debt financing dominates equity financing in Japan. 8. a. The two major areas of difference are asset valuation and accounting for goodwill. In the U.K., assets may be valued at historical cost, current cost, or a mixture of the two. When fixed assets are revalued, depreciation and amortization must be calculated using the revalued amounts. Only historical cost is allowed in the U.S. In the U.K., goodwill can be impairments tested, as in the U.S., but may also be amortized over 20 years or less. Other differences between U.K. and U.S. GAAP relate to LIFO and the calculation of long-term deferred taxes. LIFO is rarely used in the U.K., but is relatively more common in the U.S. In the U.K., long-term deferred taxes may be valued at discounted present value. Finally, opportunities for income smoothing are probably greater in the U.K. than in the U.S. b. Research has documented that U.S. GAAP earnings is systematically more conservative than U.K. GAAP earnings (see, for example, P. Weetman and S.J. Gray, International Financial Analysis and Comparative Corporate Performance: The Impact of U.K. versus U.S. Accounting Principles on Earnings, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting (Summer & Autumn 1990), pp. 111-130). However, many of the accounting principles on which this research study is based have now changed. Goodwill accounting should result in a more conservative income amount for U.K. companies if they systematically amortize it over 20 years. However, the occasional impairments write-downs that U.S. companies will have will result in a lower income amount in the year of write-down. The use of LIFO in the U.S. will result in more conservatively measured U.S. income amount. However, U.K. companies will report lower earnings if assets are revalued, because corresponding depreciation charges will be higher. The effects of U8。答:差異的兩個(gè)主要領(lǐng)域是商譽(yù)的資產(chǎn)評(píng)估和會(huì)計(jì)。在英國、資產(chǎn)價(jià)值歷史成本,目前的成本,或兩種的混合物。當(dāng)固定資產(chǎn)重估、折舊及攤銷必須使用重估金額計(jì)算。只允許歷史成本在美國在英國,商譽(yù)減值測(cè)試,在美國,但也可能是攤銷超過20年或更少。 其他英國和美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則之間的差異與后進(jìn)先出和長期遞延稅款的計(jì)算。在英國很少使用后進(jìn)先出,但在英國相對(duì)更常見的在美國長期遞延稅可能價(jià)值貼現(xiàn)現(xiàn)值。最后,收入平滑的機(jī)會(huì)可能是在英國比在美國 b .的研究已經(jīng)證明,美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則收入比英國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則收入系統(tǒng)更為保守(見,例如,p . Weetman S.J.灰色,國際金融公司業(yè)績分析和比較:英國與美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的影響收入,《國際財(cái)務(wù)管理與會(huì)計(jì)(1990年夏季和秋季),頁111 - 130)。然而,很多這個(gè)研究是基于會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則已經(jīng)改變了。 商譽(yù)會(huì)計(jì)應(yīng)該導(dǎo)致一個(gè)更保守的英國企業(yè)的收入金額如果他們系統(tǒng)攤銷超過20年。然而,偶爾障礙減記,美國公司將會(huì)導(dǎo)致較低的收入金額減記。使用后進(jìn)先出在美國將導(dǎo)致更保守的美國收入金額來衡量。然而,英國公司將報(bào)告收入降低如果資產(chǎn)升值,因?yàn)橄鄳?yīng)的折舊費(fèi)用會(huì)更高。英國平滑活動(dòng)的影響尚不清楚,但似乎公司更傾向于順利走向更高的收益,而不是更低。總的來說,我們認(rèn)為,美國公司將會(huì)更加保守的盈利數(shù)額,但U。K和美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則趨同。 .K. smoothing activities are unclear, but it seems likely that companies would be more inclined to smooth toward higher earnings rather than lower. On balance, we think that U.S. companies will have somewhat more conservative earnings amounts, but U.K and U.S. GAAP are converging. 9. 答:大公司必須準(zhǔn)備合并財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表,而不僅僅是列出的。 b .上市公司必須報(bào)告現(xiàn)金流量表。 整合是基于控制而不是所有權(quán)。 d .使用權(quán)益法是基于重大影響,而不是所有權(quán)。 e .商譽(yù)計(jì)算凈資產(chǎn)公允市場(chǎng)價(jià)值的基礎(chǔ)上獲得的,而不是賬面價(jià)值。 f .商譽(yù)攤銷超過20年,而不是五年。這也是減值測(cè)試。 g .證券投資價(jià)值公允市場(chǎng)價(jià)值,而不是成本。 h .存貨按較低的成本或凈變現(xiàn)價(jià)值,而不是成本。 即遞延稅現(xiàn)在完全提供。 j .退休養(yǎng)老金和其他義務(wù)現(xiàn)在完全積累。 k .目前研究和開發(fā)費(fèi)用化,而不是延遲在某些情況下。 收入與費(fèi)用的l .外幣翻譯現(xiàn)在翻譯的平均速度(而不是選擇年終或平均匯率)和股東權(quán)益的翻譯調(diào)整(而不是顯示為一個(gè)資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債)。 10. The chapter identifies the following major changes that have occurred in Chinese accounting since the 1990s: a. The ASBE issued in 2006 represent a comprehensive set of Chinese accounting standards that are substantially in line with IFRS. b. The ASBE issued in 2006 also contains auditing standards similar to International Standards on Auditing. All Chinese accounting firms and auditors are required to follow these audit standards. c. A cash flow statement is now required. d. Goodwill is impairments tested rather than amortized. e. Use of the equity method is based on influence rather than ownership percentage. f. Consolidation of subsidiary companies is based on control rather than ownership percentage. g. Foreign currency translation of overseas subsidiaries is based on the primary economic environment in which they operate. h. Tangible assets are depreciated over their expected useful lives rather than based on tax law. i. Lower of cost or market is now used to value inventory. j. LIFO is no longer an acceptable inventory costing method. k. Finance leases are now capitalized. l. Deferred taxes are now provided in full for all temporary differences. m. Contingent obligations are now provided for when they are both probable and a reliable estimate can be made of their amount. 11. Accounting profession Users/Preparers Organized Labor Tax Authorities Commercial Law Securities Commissions Stock Market United States Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Mexico Yes Yes No No No No No Japan Yes Yes No Yes (some) Yes Yes No China No No No No Yes Yes No India Yes Yes No No Yes No No 12。答:日本和印度允許池,而其他人沒有。池通常導(dǎo)致較低的非流動(dòng)資產(chǎn)數(shù)量和更高的收入。善意和隨后的攤銷也排除在池。在某種程度上,池被日本和印度公司,他們可能會(huì)有更高的債務(wù)股本和債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率。分子(返回)和分母(產(chǎn)權(quán))兩個(gè)盈利能力比率應(yīng)該更高,但對(duì)比例的影響仍不確定。流動(dòng)比率應(yīng)不受影響。 b .日本和印度都需要大寫的商譽(yù)攤銷。這應(yīng)該不會(huì)影響流動(dòng)比率。攤銷將導(dǎo)致較低的收入將留存收益。因此,債務(wù)/股本比例將高于沒有攤銷。債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率也將更高。對(duì)盈利能力比率的影響尚不清楚。分子(收入)將低于沒有攤銷。然而每種情況的分母(資產(chǎn)和股票)也將更低。 c使用權(quán)益法在所有五個(gè)國家,所以沒有影響比較比率。 d .價(jià)格水平調(diào)整會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)踐在墨西哥和印度公司可能重估其有形資產(chǎn)的當(dāng)前值。結(jié)果是更高的資產(chǎn)價(jià)值,更高的股票,和更低的收入(因?yàn)楦叩恼叟f和銷貨成本費(fèi)用),與歷史成本相比。當(dāng)前的比例會(huì)更高,但現(xiàn)金流流動(dòng)負(fù)債業(yè)務(wù)不會(huì)受到影響。償債能力比率會(huì)降低,因?yàn)樗麄兊姆帜?資產(chǎn)和股票)會(huì)更高。盈利能力比率會(huì)降低。分子(收入)將降低,而分母(產(chǎn)權(quán))將更高。 在日本e .折舊是稅收,這是通常高于基于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)折舊。這將減少收入和降低盈利能力比率。固定資產(chǎn)的快速注銷將導(dǎo)致較低的總資產(chǎn)價(jià)值。因此,債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率應(yīng)該更高。負(fù)債與股東權(quán)益比率,流動(dòng)比率應(yīng)不受影響。 f .在美國使用后進(jìn)先出。在日本這是允許的,但不能廣泛使用。公司使用后進(jìn)先出應(yīng)該收入較低,所以降低盈利能力比率。庫存可能會(huì)降低,導(dǎo)致債務(wù)資產(chǎn)比率增加,流動(dòng)比率減少。流動(dòng)負(fù)債現(xiàn)金流將不受影響。用更少的收入將留存收益,債務(wù)/股本比例會(huì)更高。 g .可能的損失應(yīng)計(jì)在所有五個(gè)國家,所以沒有影響比較比率。 h .并非所有的金融租賃在日本是大寫。公司將報(bào)告相對(duì)較低的非流動(dòng)負(fù)債和非流動(dòng)資產(chǎn)。收入也會(huì)受到影響,但可能是無形的。流動(dòng)比率應(yīng)不受影響。償債能力比率應(yīng)該降低和資產(chǎn)回報(bào)率會(huì)更高。對(duì)凈資產(chǎn)收益率的影響可能是無形的。 即遞延稅應(yīng)計(jì)在所有五個(gè)國家,所以沒有影響比較比率。 j .一些收入平滑的機(jī)會(huì)存在于印度。收入平滑有不確定的影響在任何給定的收入。因此它是不可能知道盈利能力比率的影響。創(chuàng)建儲(chǔ)備的影響是改變數(shù)量,否則在留存收益準(zhǔn)備金賬戶。因?yàn)檫@兩個(gè)是在股東權(quán)益,這總不受影響。因此,償債能力比率很可能不受影響。這兩個(gè)流動(dòng)性比率將不受影響。 Case 4-1 Standing On Principles 1。以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定總體目標(biāo)和基本面和需要專業(yè)判斷實(shí)施。他們更靈活的基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更為具體的要求和詳細(xì)的實(shí)施指導(dǎo)比以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。許多會(huì)計(jì)師認(rèn)為,基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)導(dǎo)致更多類似的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。然而,其他會(huì)計(jì)師認(rèn)為恰恰相反。他們聲稱,基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)導(dǎo)致更嚴(yán)格的和一致的應(yīng)用程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的意圖,因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)定義良好的原則允許少數(shù)例外和“亮線?！边€說,基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)侵蝕編制和審計(jì)人員,因?yàn)樗麄兊膶I(yè)培養(yǎng)“復(fù)選框”的心態(tài)在會(huì)計(jì)師。根據(jù)以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),編制和審計(jì)人員退一步,必須考慮會(huì)計(jì)是否真的公平的公司的運(yùn)營和財(cái)務(wù)狀況。也表明,基于規(guī)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)允許金融和會(huì)計(jì)工程結(jié)構(gòu)交易“周圍”規(guī)則,從而繞過的意圖和精神的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。以原則為基礎(chǔ)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將提高全球會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的趨同的可能性。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者可以來協(xié)議原則比他們可以更快的詳細(xì)規(guī)則。 2. The main reason why U.S. GAAP has evolved into a rules-based approach is the litigiousness of U.S. society. Following detailed rules is easier to defend in court than professional judgment. U.S. preparers and auditors demand details in order to defend themselves against lawsuits. Another reason is the standard setting process in the United States. Compromises are inevitable to balance the need for decision-useful information with the practical concerns of the FASB’s constituents. Thus, exceptions are often written into standards. As discussed next, the legalistic environment found in the U.S. would have to change to make principles-based standards effective there. 3. To make principles-based standards effective in the U.S., there would need to be a change in ethos – not only among preparers and auditors, but also among regulators and users of financial statements. A principles-based approach requires a strong commitment from preparers that their financial statements are a faithful representation of all transactions. It also requires a strong commitment from auditors to resist client pressures. Both groups would need to exercise greater professional judgment than they do now. Regulators and users of financial statements would have to learn to be tolerant of the consequences of applying professional judgment, including possible greater diversity in practice. If lawyers and regulators continually second guess honest judgments made by preparers and auditors, the demand for rules will arise. Finally, the litigious nature of U.S. society would need to change, including the system of laws. 2. In your authors’ opinion, there is no unequivocal answer to whether investors and analysts are better served by rules-based or principles-based accounting standards. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The nature of society, including how the legal system settles disputes, impacts the effectiveness of either approach. Until recently, the U.S. seemed to be reasonably well served with a rules-based approach. As noted above, moving to principles-based accounting standards would require substantial change in ethos in the U.S. While principles-based standards may be less complex than rules-based standards, the fact is that the modern economy is full of complex transactions. Accounting standards reflect this reality. Case 4-2 Casino Capital 1. The conditions necessary to develop a stock market in an emerging economy include the following: a. Accounting that emphasizes fair presentation. b. Full and complete disclosure of reliable, evenhanded information about companies’ operations and financial condition. c. Competent, well-trained professional accountants both in industry and the auditing profession. d. Investor confidence that reporting and disclosure requirements are being followed and financial reporting is relevant and reliable. e. Legal structure and effective enforcement of laws and accounting disclosures. f. Good corporate governance, including effective monitoring and oversight of management. g. Sufficient wealth among the population to engage in stock market activity. In general, the stock market should be seen as a way to save instead of just making a quick profit from trading. h. Prohibition of insider trading. 2. As discussed in the chapter, China has adopted accounting standards consistent with IFRS. In other words, China’s standards are focused on fair presentation. However, from the chapter and the case it is clear that few of the other conditions enumerated above are present in China. The case says that balance sheets of Chinese companies are a “joke,” that “numbers are whatever the key man wants them to be,” and that levels of disclosure are “poor.” A 2002 survey revealed that 10 percent of listed Chinese companies “doctored” their books. The chapter discusses the current shortage of well-trained Chinese accountants. If trading is driven “almost entirely on rumor,” it is difficult to believe that investors have much confidence in the quality of financial reporting by Chinese companies. The legal infrastructure is not yet fully developed and the enforcement of accounting and other standards is weak. The case also mentions weak corporate governance and the lack of qualified independent directors to chair audit committees. It also states that investors are concerned with “trading not ownership.” Finally, the case states that “insider trading is still rife on a heroic scale.” 3. Until the problems listed above and in the case are solved, China will not develop a stock market with fair trading. 4. Reforms include resolving the problems noted above. Students can be expected to concentrate on accounting training, accounting standard setting, and rules, laws, an