会计学知识体系框架外文翻译文献Word下载.docx

1、在会计实务中运用原则性判断并不是一件新鲜事，并且是必要的，而不论会计准则是以规则，还是以原则为基础的。基于规则的准则写明会计师去做些什么，基于原则的准则更关注于决定如何去做。两者都需要在一定程度上进行判断，但后者较前者要求具有更高的判断水平。基于规则的准则最典型的例子是美国公认会计准则（U.S.GAAP）的SFAS 13 租赁事项的适当披露，根据这一准则，如果一项租赁符合四项测试中的一项，则被视为融资租赁，需要在承租人资产负债表的资产和负债中分别反映。否则，该租赁被视为经营租赁，不在承租人资产负债表中反映。至少要做两项测试租赁期是否占资产可使用年限的75%和未来租赁付款额的净现值是否占资产公允

2、价值的90%都需要会计师和审计师的职业判断。相反，与之对应的国际会计准则（IAS17，租赁），更多的是原则性准则，较少有具体指导。同SFAS 13一样，IAS17将融资租赁定义为在实质上转移一项资产所有权有关的几乎全部风险和报酬的一种租赁。但与SFAS 13不同的是，IAS17明确指出：租赁属于融资租赁还是经营租赁取决于交易的性质，而不是合同的形式。在这方面，IAS17包含五个广泛运用的判断指南，不包括像美国准则中的明确指导。国际会计准则也有少数例外和一些解释性指南，例如其中农业方面的准则，这在SFAS 13中是没有的。因此，与SFAS 13相比，IAS17给予和要求会计师在实务更高水平的职业

3、判断确认承租人是否承担与资产所有权有关的几乎全部风险和报酬。CIFR指出，制定一个公认的会计职业判断框架是必要的，因为该框架有以下四个好处：会计师和审计师遵循严格的程序所形成的职业判断，可以增强财务报表使用者对报表的信心。会计师和审计师的职业判断符合监管机构（例如SEC和CPAOB）的要求，能减少对其的怀疑。有利于财务报表使用者和执行原则性准则的审计师等不同利益主体，对报表形成更为基础的判断。有利于各利益主体对报表形成普遍一致的看法。虽然，最近CIFR短期地暂停了职业判断框架的研究，但他们建议SEC和CPAOB正式声明其判断政策的执行将为发展这样一个框架提供参数支持。如果没有该框架，基于原则的

4、会计准则是很难始终如一地贯彻实施的，甚至是不可能的。此外，职业判断框架是离不开道德成分的。如上文所述，CIFR认为：会计职业判断应基于一个重要的和理性的基础，以“公正、严谨、深思、慎重”的方式进行。公正的判断需道德原则的融入。国际会计准则委员会（IASB）主席大卫特威迪曾指出：我们基于原则的会计准则，要求所有的公司和他们的审计师以公众的利益为准，运用职业判断。准则要求会计师，对所出具的报表是否真实反映所有交易事项，提供有强有力的保障。准则保证审计师能抵抗来自客户的压力。离开这些约束条件，会计准则无法发挥应有的作用（银行委员会申明，英国议会，2002年9月2日）。会计判断中刺激因素的影响会计师承

5、诺提供真实的财务报告并不是影响会计判断的唯一因素。学术研究中已有大量证据表明：刺激因素在很大程度上影响会计师对财务报告的判断。进行原则性判断要达到明智决策的目的，涉及到确认和处理刺激因素的问题，刺激因素主要有三种：经济、社会、道德。经济刺激促使个体倾向于使自身利益最大化，一般形式是获取经济收益。例如：利用股票期权补偿的方式形成一股强大的经济刺激，使得高层主管报告过于乐观的财务状况。社会刺激促使个体厌恶被他人视为非法的行为。报告方的企业文化能形成正式和非正式两种社会刺激形式。避免法律的惩罚（如罚款，监禁，赔偿金），并避免不利的宣传是重要的社会刺激措施，可以限制个体从事欺诈行为。道德刺激促使个体厌

6、恶自己认为是错误的行为。道德刺激注重于职责、责任、义务。安然和世通事件中谢里 沃特金和辛西娅 库珀的揭发行为，分别的在一定程度上是他们职业道德中责任、义务等因素作用的结果。经济、社会刺激能够影响会计师的道德刺激因素。例如，20世纪90年代，会计师事务所在社会、经济环境方面发生了重大的变化，主要表现在：第一，法律变动（1995年的私营公司诉讼改革法案）使得会计师事务所在诉讼案件中处于劣势一个降低的社会阻碍因素。第二，非审计业务收入的大幅增长为会计师事务所带来了丰厚的经济利益。因此，与道德刺激相适应的，审计师出具对客户不利的审计意见，这种情况在减少。合理的、运用良好的会计判断能产生长远的经济效益。

7、准则标准的提升是有益处的，但其自身不足以过渡到基于原则的会计制度，这需要依赖会计师提高判断的能力。同样，职业判断的程序也需要改进，这将会改变会计师和审计师的态度、行为、专业知识。原则性判断决策的程序会计师和审计师进行职业判断是一个过程，该过程受到经济、法律、道德、伦理等因素的影响。第一步，运用决策模型陈述相关问题、可能的选择、面临的机会。整体上考虑所有利益相关者，以中立的立场来说明问题并将此延续到之后的分析中。每类问题都应考虑主要的刺激因素，以经济、法律、道德为分析基础。在经济分析中，以决策原则来确认替代方案，并选择行动方案，方案可以是使个人利润、个人收入或个人私利最大化。开放、自由、竞争的市

8、场个人私利的行为是以社会整体利益为前提的。从个体经济决策中所能得到的社会成果是什么？在选择使个体利益最大化的方案后，需衡量由个体决策方案引起的整个社会的经济后果（收益或成本）。最后，个体需考虑在特定的情况下，遵循纯粹的经济理论所做出的决策的有效性，现实情况在多大程度上符合经济理论的假设？是否所有的市场都是自由、开放、竞争的？是否所有成本费用都包括在内？法律分析是一种利用遵守法律这种正式的社会刺激形式来形成决策动机的这样一种分析。决策规则是所选择的方案一定要符合法律的规定。该逻辑是民主体制下法律领域内的集体道德标准。法律分析的最后一步是对当前情况进行法律上的确认和应用。除考虑现行适用的法律，还可

9、考虑法律应当是什么。这方面的法律分析是一个应用方面“无知之幕”的概念。如果法律不考虑利益相关者的立场而仅考虑社会利益，利益相关者是否会赞同？这防止利益相关者的立场和刺激因素偏离判断。比较现行法律和规范法律，意味着评估现行法律的有效性和公平性，缓解法律冲突，减少歧义。道德分析主要依赖于判断引导中道德刺激所产生的职责、责任、义务等因素。道德是每个社会成员所拥有的责任和义务。道德分析中的决策原则是选择符合伦理道德的方案。该分析中的挑战来自于确认不同的道德标准和不同利益相关者具备的道德水平。经济刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激、分析以及由此做出的决定应指导和支持最终的决策方案，应当怎样做？为什么这样做？对最终

10、决策方案进行实施后果的评估，同样影响方案选择的公平性。是什么影响了各利益相关者所提议的方案？方案如何实现利益（或损失）的公平分配和权利的行使（或放弃）？利益（或危害）。确认主要的个体或群体在多大程度上获得利益（或遭到损失）以及这种利益（或损失）的性质。权利的行使（或放弃）。确认拟定的方案将行使（或放弃）哪些权利，在多大范围内由谁行使（或放弃）权利。例如，法律规定的权利：合同权利或者权利性质：不可剥夺的人权。以上分析的影响因素，可能导致在消除不平等现象的过程中修改任何提出的决策方案，最终的决策方案应以下列几点为制定的基础：经济刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激和执行结果影响的公平分配。刺激因素影响判断在美

11、国CIFR已经提出了许多建议措施，试图通过降低财务报告编制过程的复杂性来提高报告的质量、有效性和透明度。关键的一个建议是：美国财务报告制度过渡到以原则为基础（目标为基础）的会计准则，与现行的以规则为基础的U.S.GAAP相比，这更加需要依赖会计师和审计师的职业判断。职业判断的增多，要求有更多的指南来指导会计师和审计师如何去做，怎样才能符合监管机构对他们的要求。笔者认为，经济刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激会在很大程度上影响会计师和审计师的职业判断。全面的原则性判断框架中包含这些刺激因素，例如上述的详细情况，将对他们起到相当大的影响作用。今后，在会计披露中职业判断将更为重要，会计师的后续和正式教育应当关

12、注于提高其原则性判断的能力，并且这种判断涉及到经济、法律、道德方面的问题。 Improved Judgment in Financial Accounting:A Principled ApproachBy C. William ThomasIn July 2007,the SEC chartered the Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting （CIFR） to examine the U.S. financial reporting system and to recommend changes that wo

13、uld improve the usefulness of reported financial information while reducing its complexity. In periodic progress reports, the CIFR has made several proposals, including the promotion of principles-based（or objectives-based） accounting standards in the United States that incorporate fewer bright-line

14、 tests, fewer exceptions, and greater reliance on preparer and auditor judgment than is required by present standard. To accommodate this recommendation the CIFR initially proposedand later significantly modifieda recommendation that would lead to the creation of a disciplined framework for the incr

15、eased use of professional judgment required to implement these standards.While the CIFR report contains many suggestions, the focus here is on twoadoption of principles-based accounting and guidance for application of accounting judgmentsthat could dramatically reshape financial reporting and auditi

16、ng. The following is a discussion of the importance of guidelines for making judgments in financial accounting and the potential impact of economic, legal, and ethical incentives on accounting judgments. The authors recommend a comprehensive model that considers these incentives in developing a theo

17、retical framework for making improvements in accounting and auditing judgments.The Necessity of a Framework for Judgment in AccountingThe application of principled judgment is not new to accounting, and is necessary regardless of whether accounting standards are rules-based or principles-based. Rule

18、s-based standards prescribe for the preparer what to do, while principles-based standards focus more on how to decide what to do. While the latter may require judgment at higher levels than the former, both require judgment at some level. One of the most rules-based examples in U.S.GAAP is SFAS 13 g

19、overning proper disclosure for leases. Under this standard, a lease is regarded as a capital lease, requiring recognition of both the asset and liability on the lessees balance sheet, if one of four bright-line tests is met. Otherwise, the lease is classified as an operating lease and is withheld fr

20、om the balance sheet. Application of at least two of these teststhe relationship of 75% of the lease term to the assets useful life and the relationship of the net present value of the future lease payments to 90% of the assets fair market valuerequire the application of judgment by both preparers a

21、nd auditors. In contrast, the corresponding international standard （IAS17, Leases） is much more principles-based, with less detailed guidance. Like SFAS 13.it defines a finance lease as one that transfers substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the property to the lessee. Unlike SFAS

22、 13. however. AS 17 makes it clear that whether a lease is classified as capital or operating in nature depends on the substance of the transaction rather than the form of the contract. It contains five broad guidelines for application of judgment in this regard, but none of the bright lines of its

23、U.S. counterpart. There are a few exceptions and some interpretive guidance, including one for the agricultural industry, but nothing approaching that of SFAS 13.Thus .IAS 17 both grants and requires the exercise of professional judgment at a far higher levelthat is, determining whether the lessee a

24、ssumes the risks and rewards of ownershipthan SFAS 13.The CIFR makes the point that an agreed-upon framework for making informed judgments is necessary because it provides the following four benefits:added confidence for users of financial statements that preparers and auditors are following a rigor

25、ous process in forming judgments;respect from regulators（i.e. ,the SEC and PCAOB）for the judgments of preparers and auditors, resulting in fewer cases of second-guessing;general agreement on the part of all parties as to the criteria upon which judgments will be based andgreater comfort on the part

26、of financial statement users and auditors in implementing principles-based standards. While the latest CIFR recommendations stop short of endorsing the development of such a framework, their recommendation that the SEC and PCAOB formally state their policies for evaluation of judgment will provide t

27、he parameters for the development of such a framework. Without this framework, consistent application of principles-based standards will be difficult, if not impossible.Furthermore, no framework for judgment is complete without an ethical component. As stated above, the CIFR has expressed its belief

28、 that accounting judgments should be based on a critical and reasoned evaluation made in good faith and in a rigorous, thoughtful, and deliberative manner. Good-faith judgments require the application of ethical principles. IASB Chair David Tweedie has stated: Ourprinciples-basedapproach requires bo

29、th companies and their auditors to exercise professional judgment in the public interest. Our approach requires a strong commitment from preparers to financial statements that provide a faithful representation of all transactions and a strong commitment from auditors to resist client pressures. It w

30、ill not work without these commitments （Statement Before the Committee on Banking, U.K. Parliament, September 2,2002）.The influence of Incentives on Accounting JudgmentsAn accountants commitment to providing a faithful representation is not the only factor influencing financial reporting judgments.

31、Academic research has provided substantial evidence that incentives significantly influence financial reporting judgments. Making principled judgments that result in sound decisions involves identifying and managing these incentives. Incentives take three primary forms: economic, social, and moral.Economic incentives involve individuals tendenc