INTEGRATING IFRS ACROSS THE ENTIRE CURRICULA
Three features of IFRS, vis a vis US GAAP, are noteworthy. First, principles-based IFRS is strongly wedded to its theoretical framework. As mentioned above, under IFRS, the framework is considered to have the same authoritative support as the specific IASs and IFRS standards. This support contrasts with US GAAP, which relegates its Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts to a lesser authority. In fact, a major part of IFRS standard setting process involves vetting individual standards against the backdrop of how well they support the substance and spirit of the relevant framework concept. Rather than force adherence to a rigid set of prescribed rules and “bright lines”, IASB allows considerable flexibility to the practitioner in evaluating how to apply particular standards. For example, most IAS and IFRS provide for alternative treatments, the selection of which is influenced by the nature and circumstances surrounding a transaction. Thus, IFRS standards consume much less paper space than their US counterpart. Second, while both regimes have similar objectives concepts, IFRS differs from US GAAP in terms of the greater emphasis that the former places on providing the user with financial statements and related footnotes that allow him/her to make optimal decisions. The use of accounting information for decision- making assumes a greater importance under IFRS than the stewardship and attests objectives of financial reporting. Third, the emphasis that IFRS places on assigning balance sheet elements (i.e., assets/liabilities) values reflective of their economic utility contrasts with the continued importance afforded the income statement over the balance sheet under US GAAP.
IFRS รวมทั้งหลักสูตรทั้งหมด Three features of IFRS, vis a vis US GAAP, are noteworthy. First, principles-based IFRS is strongly wedded to its theoretical framework. As mentioned above, under IFRS, the framework is considered to have the same authoritative support as the specific IASs and IFRS standards. This support contrasts with US GAAP, which relegates its Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts to a lesser authority. In fact, a major part of IFRS standard setting process involves vetting individual standards against the backdrop of how well they support the substance and spirit of the relevant framework concept. Rather than force adherence to a rigid set of prescribed rules and “bright lines”, IASB allows considerable flexibility to the practitioner in evaluating how to apply particular standards. For example, most IAS and IFRS provide for alternative treatments, the selection of which is influenced by the nature and circumstances surrounding a transaction. Thus, IFRS standards consume much less paper space than their US counterpart. Second, while both regimes have similar objectives concepts, IFRS differs from US GAAP in terms of the greater emphasis that the former places on providing the user with financial statements and related footnotes that allow him/her to make optimal decisions. The use of accounting information for decision- making assumes a greater importance under IFRS than the stewardship and attests objectives of financial reporting. Third, the emphasis that IFRS places on assigning balance sheet elements (i.e., assets/liabilities) values reflective of their economic utility contrasts with the continued importance afforded the income statement over the balance sheet under US GAAP.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..