the adoption of IFRS in European Unio in 2005 following Reguiation No. 1606/2002 (European Parliament&council,2002),the so-ccailled IAS-Regulation,aimed to increase the comparability of publicly traded cornpanies'consolidated accounts. However,IFRS provide financial statement preparers with flexibility in the application of the standards due to explicit options, discretion in interpretation and the need for estimates that is inherent in financial reporting.Hence,the application of IFRS may vary from one firm to anther IFRS are applicd consistently;i.e.whether the de jure standardization of accounting rules of group accounts of publicly-traded companies in the EU has also led to de facto harmony. Amongst other, Nobes(2006) suggests that countryspecific factors identified in the past may still be relevant system, the national financing system, the national accounting regime and the national culture may have an influence on accountants and may result in different judgments being made even though the same set of rules is applied.
This paper addresses this question by testing via a survey whether German and British accountants,confronted with identical accounting cases,make interpretations and accounting estimates differently from ench other under IFRS. Our findings suggest the existence of only some international differences in the use of discretion under IFRS. For one out of three cases tested,we find significant evidence that German accountants are more conservative in their judgments than their British counterparts.For the remaining two case,accountants'judgments is mainly in contrast to prior studies that examined the use of explicit options as another type of flexibility under IFRS and that found clear differences between different countries,especially between Germany and the UK (Haller & Wehrfritz, 2013;KVAAL& Nobes,2010; kvaal & Nobes, 2012).
the adoption of IFRS in European Unio in 2005 following Reguiation No. 1606/2002 (European Parliament&council,2002),the so-ccailled IAS-Regulation,aimed to increase the comparability of publicly traded cornpanies'consolidated accounts. However,IFRS provide financial statement preparers with flexibility in the application of the standards due to explicit options, discretion in interpretation and the need for estimates that is inherent in financial reporting.Hence,the application of IFRS may vary from one firm to anther IFRS are applicd consistently;i.e.whether the de jure standardization of accounting rules of group accounts of publicly-traded companies in the EU has also led to de facto harmony. Amongst other, Nobes(2006) suggests that countryspecific factors identified in the past may still be relevant system, the national financing system, the national accounting regime and the national culture may have an influence on accountants and may result in different judgments being made even though the same set of rules is applied. This paper addresses this question by testing via a survey whether German and British accountants,confronted with identical accounting cases,make interpretations and accounting estimates differently from ench other under IFRS. Our findings suggest the existence of only some international differences in the use of discretion under IFRS. For one out of three cases tested,we find significant evidence that German accountants are more conservative in their judgments than their British counterparts.For the remaining two case,accountants'judgments is mainly in contrast to prior studies that examined the use of explicit options as another type of flexibility under IFRS and that found clear differences between different countries,especially between Germany and the UK (Haller & Wehrfritz, 2013;KVAAL& Nobes,2010; kvaal & Nobes, 2012).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""