| Accountancy | |
|---|---|
| Key concepts | |
| Accountant · Bookkeeping · Cash and accrual basis · Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting · Cost of goods sold · Debits and credits · Double-entry system · Fair value accounting · FIFO & LIFO · GAAP / International Financial Reporting Standards · General ledger · Historical cost · Matching principle · Revenue recognition · Trial balance | |
| Fields of accounting | |
| Cost · Financial · Forensic · Fund · Management · Tax | |
| Financial statements | |
| Statement of Financial Position · Statement of cash flows · Statement of changes in equity · Statement of comprehensive income · Notes · MD&A | |
| Auditing | |
| Auditor's report · Financial audit · GAAS / ISA · Internal audit · Sarbanes–Oxley Act | |
| Accounting qualifications | |
| CIMA · ACCA · CA · CGA · CIMA · CMA · CPA · LCCI |
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are principles-based Standards, Interpretations and the Framework [1] adopted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).
Many of the standards forming part of IFRS are known by the older name of International Accounting Standards (IAS). IAS were issued between 1973 and 2001 by the Board of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). On 1 April 2001, the new IASB took over from the IASC the responsibility for setting International Accounting Standards. During its first meeting the new Board adopted existing IAS and SICs. The IASB has continued to develop standards calling the new standards IFRS.
IFRS are considered a "principles based" set of standards in that they establish broad rules as well as dictating specific treatments.
International Financial Reporting Standards comprise:
IAS 8 Par. 11
"In making the judgement described in paragraph 10, management shall refer to, and consider the applicability of, the following sources in descending order:
(a) the requirements and guidance in Standards and Interpretations dealing with similar and related issues; and
(b) the definitions, recognition criteria and measurement concepts for assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the Framework."
The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements states basic principles for IFRS.
The IASB and FASB Frameworks are in the process of being updated and converged. The Joint Conceptual Framework project aims to update and refine the existing concepts to reflect the changes in markets, business practices and the economic environment that have occurred in the two or more decades since the concepts were first developed.
Its overall objective is to create a sound foundation for future accounting standards that are principles-based, internally consistent and internationally converged. Therefore the IASB and the US FASB (the boards) are undertaking the project jointly.
Deloitte states:
In the absence of a Standard or an Interpretation that specifically applies to a transaction, management must use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy that results in information that is relevant and reliable. In making that judgement, IAS 8.11 requires management to consider the definitions, recognition criteria, and measurement concepts for assets, liabilities, income, and expenses in the Framework. This elevation of the importance of the Framework was added in the 2003 revisions to IAS 8.[2]
A financial statement should reflect true and fair view of the business affairs of the organization. As these statements are used by various constituents of the society / regulators, they need to reflect true view of the financial position of the organization.
The underlying assumptions used in IFRS are:
Accountants implementing the stable measuring unit assumption (traditional Historical Cost Accounting) during annual inflation of 25% for 3 years in a row would destroy 100% of the real value of all constant real value non-monetary items not maintained under the Historical Cost paradigm.
Qualitative characteristics of financial statements include:
The financial position of an enterprise is primarily provided in the Statement of Financial Position. The elements include:
The financial performance of an enterprise is primarily provided in an income statement or profit and loss account. The elements of an income statement or the elements that measure the financial performance are as follows:
An item is recognized in the financial statements when:
Par. 99. Measurement is the process of determining the monetary amounts at which the elements of the financial statements are to be recognised and carried in the balance sheet and income statement. This involves the selection of the particular basis of measurement. pa
Par. 100. A number of different measurement bases are employed to different degrees and in varying combinations in financial statements. They include the following:
(a) Historical cost. Assets are recorded at the amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the consideration given to acquire them at the time of their acquisition. Liabilities are recorded at the amount of proceeds received in exchange for the obligation, or in some circumstances (for example, income taxes), at the amounts of cash or cash equivalents expected to be paid to satisfy the liability in the normal course of business.
(b) Current cost. Assets are carried at the amount of cash or cash equivalents that would have to be paid if the same or an equivalent asset was acquired currently. Liabilities are carried at the undiscounted amount of cash or cash equivalents that would be required to settle the obligation currently.
(c) Realisable (settlement) value. Assets are carried at the amount of cash or cash equivalents that could currently be obtained by selling the asset in an orderly disposal. Assets are carried at the present discounted value of the future net cash inflows that the item is expected to generate in the normal course of business. Liabilities are carried at the present discounted value of the future net cash outflows that are expected to be required to settle the liabilities in the normal course of business.
Par. 101. The measurement basis most commonly adopted by entities in preparing their financial statements is historical cost. This is usually combined with other measurement bases. For example, inventories are usually carried at the lower of cost and net realisable value, marketable securities may be carried at market value and pension liabilities are carried at their present value. Furthermore, some entities use the current cost basis as a response to the inability of the historical cost accounting model to deal with the effects of changing prices of non-monetary assets.
A major difference between US GAAP and IFRS is the fact that three fundamentally different concepts of capital and capital maintenance are authorized in IFRS while US GAAP only authorize two capital and capital maintenance concepts during low inflation and deflation: (1) physical capital maintenance and (2) financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units (traditional Historical Cost Accounting) as stated in Par 45 to 48 in the FASB Conceptual Satement Nº 5. US GAAP does not recognize the third concept of capital and capital maintenance during low inflation and deflation, namely, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989.
Par. 102. A financial concept of capital is adopted by most entities in preparing their financial statements. Under a financial concept of capital, such as invested money or invested purchasing power, capital is synonymous with the net assets or equity of the entity. Under a physical concept of capital, such as operating capability, capital is regarded as the productive capacity of the entity based on, for example, units of output per day.
Par. 103. The selection of the appropriate concept of capital by an entity should be based on the needs of the users of its financial statements. Thus, a financial concept of capital should be adopted if the users of financial statements are primarily concerned with the maintenance of nominal invested capital or the purchasing power of invested capital. If, however, the main concern of users is with the operating capability of the entity, a physical concept of capital should be used. The concept chosen indicates the goal to be attained in determining profit, even though there may be some measurement difficulties in making the concept operational.
Par. 104. The concepts of capital in paragraph 102 give rise to the following concepts of capital maintenance:
(a) Financial capital maintenance. Under this concept a profit is earned only if the financial (or money) amount of the net assets at the end of the period exceeds the financial (or money) amount of net assets at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period. Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.
(b) Physical capital maintenance. Under this concept a profit is earned only if the physical productive capacity (or operating capability) of the entity (or the resources or funds needed to achieve that capacity) at the end of the period exceeds the physical productive capacity at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period.
The three concepts of capital defined in IFRS during low inflation and deflation are:
The three concepts of capital maintenance authorized in IFRS during low inflation and deflation are:
Par. 105. The concept of capital maintenance is concerned with how an entity defines the capital that it seeks to maintain. It provides the linkage between the concepts of capital and the concepts of profit because it provides the point of reference by which profit is measured; it is a prerequisite for distinguishing between an entity’s return on capital and its return of capital; only inflows of assets in excess of amounts needed to maintain capital may be regarded as profit and therefore as a return on capital. Hence, profit is the residual amount that remains after expenses (including capital maintenance adjustments, where appropriate) have been deducted from income. If expenses exceed income the residual amount is a loss.
Par. 106. The physical capital maintenance concept requires the adoption of the current cost basis of measurement. The financial capital maintenance concept, however, does not require the use of a particular basis of measurement. Selection of the basis under this concept is dependent on the type of financial capital that the entity is seeking to maintain.
Par. 107. The principal difference between the two concepts of capital maintenance is the treatment of the effects of changes in the prices of assets and liabilities of the entity. In general terms, an entity has maintained its capital if it has as much capital at the end of the period as it had at the beginning of the period. Any amount over and above that required to maintain the capital at the beginning of the period is profit.
Par. 108. Under the concept of financial capital maintenance where capital is defined in terms of nominal monetary units, profit represents the increase in nominal money capital over the period. Thus, increases in the prices of assets held over the period, conventionally referred to as holding gains, are, conceptually, profits. They may not be recognised as such, however, until the assets are disposed of in an exchange transaction. When the concept of financial capital maintenance is defined in terms of constant purchasing power units, profit represents the increase in invested purchasing power over the period. Thus, only that part of the increase in the prices of assets that exceeds the increase in the general level of prices is regarded as profit. The rest of the increase is treated as a capital maintenance adjustment and, hence, as part of equity.
Par. 109. Under the concept of physical capital maintenance when capital is defined in terms of the physical productive capacity, profit represents the increase in that capital over the period. All price changes affecting the assets and liabilities of the entity are viewed as changes in the measurement of the physical productive capacity of the entity; hence, they are treated as capital maintenance adjustments that are part of equity and not as profit.
Par. 110. The selection of the measurement bases and concept of capital maintenance will determine the accounting model used in the preparation of the financial statements. Different accounting models exhibit different degrees of relevance and reliability and, as in other areas, management must seek a balance between relevance and reliability. This Framework is applicable to a range of accounting models and provides guidance on preparing and presenting the financial statements constructed under the chosen model. At the present time, it is not the intention of the Board of IASC to prescribe a particular model other than in exceptional circumstances, such as for those entities reporting in the currency of a hyperinflationary economy. This intention will, however, be reviewed in the light of world developments.[6]
IFRS financial statements consist of (IAS1.8)
Comparative information is required for the prior reporting period (IAS 1.36). An entity preparing IFRS accounts for the first time must apply IFRS in full for the current and comparative period although there are transitional exemptions (IFRS1.7).
On 6 September 2007, the IASB issued a revised IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. The main changes from the previous version are to require that an entity must:
The revised IAS 1 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. Early adoption is permitted.
[7]. Much of its work is directed at convergence with US GAAP.
IFRS are used in many parts of the world, including the European Union, Hong Kong, Australia, Malaysia, Pakistan, GCC countries, Russia, South Africa, Singapore and Turkey. As of 27 August 2008, more than 113 countries around the world, including all of Europe, currently require or permit IFRS reporting. Approximately 85 of those countries require IFRS reporting for all domestic, listed companies. In addition, the US is also gearing towards IFRS. The SEC in the US is slowly but progressively shifting from requiring only US GAAP to accepting IFRS and will most likely accept IFRS standards in the longterm. [8]
For a current overview see IAS PLUS's list of all countries that have adopted IFRS.
The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) has issued 'Australian equivalents to IFRS' (A-IFRS), numbering IFRS standards as AASB 1–8 and IAS standards as AASB 101–141. Australian equivalents to SIC and IFRIC Interpretations have also been issued, along with a number of 'domestic' standards and interpretations. These pronouncements replaced previous Australian generally accepted accounting principles with effect from annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005 (i.e. 30 June 2006 was the first report prepared under IFRS-equivalent standards for June year ends). To this end, Australia, along with Europe and a few other countries, was one of the initial adopters of IFRS for domestic purposes (in the developed world). It must be acknowledged, however, that IFRS and primarily IAS have been part and parcel of accounting standard package in the developing world for many years since the relevant accounting bodies were more open to adoption of international standards for many reasons including that of capability.
The AASB has made certain amendments to the IASB pronouncements in making A-IFRS, however these generally have the effect of eliminating an option under IFRS, introducing additional disclosures or implementing requirements for not-for-profit entities, rather than departing from IFRS for Australian entities. Accordingly, for-profit entities that prepare financial statements in accordance with A-IFRS are able to make an unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS.
The AASB continues to mirror changes made by the IASB as local pronouncements. In addition, over recent years, the AASB has issued so-called 'Amending Standards' to reverse some of the initial changes made to the IFRS text for local terminology differences, to reinstate options and eliminate some Australian-specific disclosure. There are some calls for Australia to simply adopt IFRS without 'Australianising' them and this has resulted in the AASB itself looking at alternative ways of adopting IFRS in Australia
The use of IFRS will be required for Canadian publicly accountable profit-oriented enterprises for financial periods beginning on or after 1 January 2011. This includes public companies and other “profit-oriented enterprises that are responsible to large or diverse groups of shareholders.”[9]
All listed EU companies have been required to use IFRS since 2005.
In order to be approved for use in the EU, standards must be endorsed by the Accounting Regulatory Committee (ARC), which includes representatives of member state governments and is advised by a group of accounting experts known as the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. As a result IFRS as applied in the EU may differ from that used elsewhere.
Parts of the standard IAS 39: Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement were not originally approved by the ARC. IAS 39 was subsequently amended, removing the option to record financial liabilities at fair value, and the ARC approved the amended version. The IASB is working with the EU to find an acceptable way to remove a remaining anomaly in respect of hedge accounting. The World Bank Centre for Financial Reporting Reform is working with countries in the ECA region to facilitate the adoption of IFRS and IFRS for SMEs.
Starting in 2005, Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards (HKFRS) are identical to International Financial Reporting Standards. While Hong Kong had adopted many of the earlier IAS as Hong Kong standards, some had not been adopted, including IAS 32 and IAS 39. And all of the December 2003 improvements and new and revised IFRS issued in 2004 and 2005 will take effect in Hong Kong beginning in 2005.
Implementing Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards: The challenge for 2005 (August 2005) sets out a summary of each standard and interpretation, the key changes it makes to accounting in Hong Kong, the most significant implications of its adoption, and related anticipated future developments. There is one Hong Kong standard and several Hong Kong interpretations that do not have counterparts in IFRS. Also there are several minor wording differences between HKFRS and IFRS.[10]
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has announced that IFRS will be mandatory in India for financial statements for the periods beginning on or after 1 April 2011. This will be done by revising existing accounting standards to make them compatible with IFRS.
Reserve Bank of India has stated that financial statements of banks need to be IFRS-compliant for periods beginning on or after 1 April 2011...
The ICAI has also stated that IFRS will be applied to companies above Rs.1000 crore from April 2011. Phase wise applicability details for different companies in India:
Phase 1: Opening balance sheet as at 1 April 2011*
i. Companies which are part of NSE Index – Nifty 50
ii. Companies which are part of BSE Sensex – BSE 30
a. Companies whose shares or other securities are listed on a stock exchange outside India
b. Companies, whether listed or not, having net worth of more than INR1,000 crore
Phase 2: Opening balance sheet as at 1 April 2012*
Companies not covered in phase 1 and having net worth exceeding INR 500 crore
Phase 3: Opening balance sheet as at 1 April 2014*
Listed companies not covered in the earlier phases
On January 22, 2010 the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued the road map for transition to IFRS. It is clear that India has deferred transition to IFRS by a year. In the first phase, companies included in Nifty 50 or BSE Sensex, and companies whose securities are listed on stock exchanges outside India and all other companies having net worth of Rs 1,000 crore will prepare and present financial statements using Indian Accounting Standards converged with IFRS. According to the press note issued by the government, those companies will convert their first balance sheet as at April 1, 2011, applying accounting standards convergent with IFRS if the accounting year ends on March 31. This implies that the transition date will be April 1, 2011. According to the earlier plan, the transition date was fixed at April 1, 2010.
The press note does not clarify whether the full set of financial statements for the year 2011-12 will be prepared by applying accounting standards convergent with IFRS. The deferment of the transition may make companies happy, but it will undermine India’s position. Presumably, lack of preparedness of Indian companies has led to the decision to defer the adoption of IFRS for a year. This is unfortunate that India, which boasts for its IT and accounting skills, could not prepare itself for the transition to IFRS over last four years. But that might be the ground reality. Transition in phases Companies, whether listed or not, having net worth of more than Rs 500 crore will convert their opening balance sheet as at April 1, 2013. Listed companies having net worth of Rs 500 crore or less will convert their opening balance sheet as at April 1, 2014. Un-listed companies having net worth of Rs 500 crore or less will continue to apply existing accounting standards, which might be modified from time to time. Transition to IFRS in phases is a smart move. The transition cost for smaller companies will be much lower because large companies will bear the initial cost of learning and smaller companies will not be required to reinvent the wheel. However, this will happen only if a significant number of large companies engage Indian accounting firms to provide them support in their transition to IFRS. If, most large companies, which will comply with Indian accounting standards convergent with IFRS in the first phase, choose one of the international firms, Indian accounting firms and smaller companies will not benefit from the learning in the first phase of the transition to IFRS. It is likely that international firms will protect their learning to retain their competitive advantage. Therefore, it is for the benefit of the country that each company makes judicious choice of the accounting firm as its partner without limiting its choice to international accounting firms. Public sector companies should take the lead and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) should develop a clear strategy to diffuse the learning. Size of companies The government has decided to measure the size of companies in terms of net worth. This is not the ideal unit to measure the size of a company. Net worth in the balance sheet is determined by accounting principles and methods. Therefore, it does not include the value of intangible assets. Moreover, as most assets and liabilities are measured at historical cost, the net worth does not reflect the current value of those assets and liabilities. Market capitalisation is a better measure of the size of a company. But it is difficult to estimate market capitalisation or fundamental value of unlisted companies. This might be the reason that the government has decided to use ‘net worth’ to measure size of companies. Some companies, which are large in terms of fundamental value or which intend to attract foreign capital, might prefer to use Indian accounting standards convergent with IFRS earlier than required under the road map presented by the government. The government should provide that choice. Conclusion The government will come up with a separate road map for banking and insurance companies by February 28, 2010. Let us hope that transition in case of those companies will not be deferred further.
The Accounting Standards Board of Japan has agreed to resolve all inconsistencies between the current JP-GAAP and IFRS wholly by 2011.[11]
All listed companies must follow all issued IAS/IFRS except the following:
IAS 39 and IAS 40: Implementation of these standards has been held in abeyance by State Bank of Pakistan for Banks and DFIs
IFRS-1: Effective for the annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2004. This IFRS is being considered for adoption for all companies other than banks and DFIs.
IFRS-9: Under consideration of the relevant Committee of the Institute (ICAP). This IFRS will be effective for the annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013.
The government of Russia has been implementing a program to harmonize its national accounting standards with IFRS since 1998. Since then twenty new accounting standards were issued by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation aiming to align accounting practices with IFRS. Despite these efforts essential differences between national accounting standards and IFRS remain. Since 2004 all commercial banks have been obliged to prepare financial statements in accordance with both national accounting standards and IFRS. Full transition to IFRS is delayed and is expected to take place from 2011.
In Singapore the Accounting Standards Committee (ASC) is in charge of standard setting. Singapore closely models its Financial Reporting Standards (FRS) according to the IFRS, with appropriate changes made to suit the Singapore context. Before a standard is enacted, consultations with the IASB are made to ensure consistency of core principles.[12]
All companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange have been required to comply with the requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards since 1 January 2005.
The IFRS for SMEs may be applied by 'limited interest companies', as defined in the South African Corporate Laws Amendment Act of 2006 (that is, they are not 'widely held'), if they do not have public accountability (that is, not listed and not a financial institution). Alternatively, the company may choose to apply full South African Statements of GAAP or IFRS.
South African Statements of GAAP are entirely consistent with IFRS, although there may be a delay between issuance of an IFRS and the equivalent SA Statement of GAAP (can affect voluntary early adoption).
Turkish Accounting Standards Board translated IFRS into Turkish in 2006. Since 2006 Turkish companies listed in Istanbul Stock Exchange are required to prepare IFRS reports.
The following IFRS statements are currently issued: