Issues of Control in Accounting: A Comparative Analysis of IAS 27 and IFRS 10

Gubio Zanna Dalatu, Kwasau Ntyak Leah, L. O. Mustapha
{"title":"Issues of Control in Accounting: A Comparative Analysis of IAS 27 and IFRS 10","authors":"Gubio Zanna Dalatu, Kwasau Ntyak Leah, L. O. Mustapha","doi":"10.37745/ejaafr.2013/vol10n83947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Subsidiaries identification has always been a contentious issue in consolidation of financial statements and till date is one of the most challenging issues accounting standard setting bodies such as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have to contend with. The global financial crisis of 2007 and some prominent accounting scandals in recent history e.g., the Enron saga, have remarkably demonstrated the consequences of wrong application of consolidation rules on entities, investors, and other stakeholders. International Accounting Standard (IAS) 3 – Consolidated financial statements and IAS 27 – Consolidated and separate financial statements were respectively issued in 1976 and 1989 by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) to address these controversies. Additionally, In May 2011, the IASB which replaces the IASC in 2001, published International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 10 which came-up with a revised consolidation model replacing the provisions of IAS-27 and SIC-12. However, the consolidation criteria in IFRS 10 were adjudged as difficult to understand, even amongst experts and even more challenging to apply in practice. IFRS-10 is principled-based and is not only broader and more complex than IAS-27 and Standards Interpretation Committee (SIC) 12, but the structure remains questionable. In addition, the provisions of IFRS 10 contained several terms that were undefined and unspecified which are capable of subjective interpretation and application. In-depth understanding of the new provisions of IFRS 10 and its basic concepts are necessary to achieve the objective of the revised standard. Lack of adequate understanding of the new rules and its basic concepts will practically make it impossible to properly apply the new consolidation criteria. The research methodology adopted is therefore to review relevant literatures, practical and professional assertions by contrasting and comparing the provisions of the two standards.","PeriodicalId":166026,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37745/ejaafr.2013/vol10n83947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subsidiaries identification has always been a contentious issue in consolidation of financial statements and till date is one of the most challenging issues accounting standard setting bodies such as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have to contend with. The global financial crisis of 2007 and some prominent accounting scandals in recent history e.g., the Enron saga, have remarkably demonstrated the consequences of wrong application of consolidation rules on entities, investors, and other stakeholders. International Accounting Standard (IAS) 3 – Consolidated financial statements and IAS 27 – Consolidated and separate financial statements were respectively issued in 1976 and 1989 by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) to address these controversies. Additionally, In May 2011, the IASB which replaces the IASC in 2001, published International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 10 which came-up with a revised consolidation model replacing the provisions of IAS-27 and SIC-12. However, the consolidation criteria in IFRS 10 were adjudged as difficult to understand, even amongst experts and even more challenging to apply in practice. IFRS-10 is principled-based and is not only broader and more complex than IAS-27 and Standards Interpretation Committee (SIC) 12, but the structure remains questionable. In addition, the provisions of IFRS 10 contained several terms that were undefined and unspecified which are capable of subjective interpretation and application. In-depth understanding of the new provisions of IFRS 10 and its basic concepts are necessary to achieve the objective of the revised standard. Lack of adequate understanding of the new rules and its basic concepts will practically make it impossible to properly apply the new consolidation criteria. The research methodology adopted is therefore to review relevant literatures, practical and professional assertions by contrasting and comparing the provisions of the two standards.
会计控制问题:国际会计准则第27号与国际财务报告准则第10号的比较分析
子公司识别一直是财务报表合并中一个有争议的问题,也是国际会计准则理事会(IASB)等会计准则制定机构迄今为止必须应对的最具挑战性的问题之一。2007年的全球金融危机和近年来一些引人注目的会计丑闻(如安然事件)都清楚地表明,错误地将合并规则应用于实体、投资者和其他利益相关者的后果。国际会计准则委员会(IASC)分别于1976年和1989年发布了《国际会计准则第3号-合并财务报表》和《国际会计准则第27号-合并财务报表》,以解决这些争议。此外,2011年5月,IASB取代了2001年的IASC,发布了国际财务报告准则(IFRS) 10,其中提出了一个修订的合并模型,取代了IAS-27和SIC-12的规定。然而,《国际财务报告准则第10号》中的合并准则被认为难以理解,即使在专家中也是如此,而且在实践中应用更具挑战性。IFRS-10以原则为基础,不仅比IAS-27和准则解释委员会(SIC) 12更广泛、更复杂,而且其结构仍存在疑问。此外,《国际财务报告准则第10号》的规定包含若干未定义和未指明的术语,这些术语可能会被主观地解释和应用。深入了解《国际财务报告准则第10号》的新规定及其基本概念对于实现修订后准则的目标是必要的。缺乏对新规则及其基本概念的充分理解,实际上将不可能正确应用新的合并准则。因此,采用的研究方法是通过对比和比较两个标准的规定来回顾相关文献,实践和专业断言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信