MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W858430890

A U.S. Manager's Guide to Differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP: With the Greater Likelihood That You Will Face Situations That Require an Understanding of the Differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, the Odds Increase That You Will Also Have to Be Able to Estimate the Impact of These Differences

2007· article· en· W858430890 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan B. Hughes, James F. Sander

Notice bibliographique

RevueManagement accounting quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueAccounting Theory and Financial Reporting
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInternational Financial Reporting StandardsAccountingBusinessAccounting standardAuditCommissionFinancial accountingFinanceAccounting information system
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Accountants know that financial reporting standards differ by country or region. In the United States, financial accountants, auditors, and analysts are very familiar with U.S. GAAP. Accountants and auditors in other countries may be well-versed in their home-country GAAP, or they may be familiar with the requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). European Commission's adoption of IFRS for EU public company consolidated reports in 2005 required many preparers, auditors, and analysts to become familiar with the content and application of IFRS. Standards similar to IFRS were required in Australia for the first time in 2005 as well. It has been estimated that, during that year, 8,000 additional financial statements were based on IFRS. This number will continue to grow as more countries adopt IFRS or IFRS-equivalent financial reporting standards. Canada, for example, is expected to adopt IFRS effective January 1, 2011. (1) In today's global business environment, it is likely that U.S. businesses have customers, suppliers, or potential acquisition candidates that prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS. To evaluate the financial condition and net income of these companies appropriately, accountants familiar with U.S. GAAP need to understand where U.S. GAAP and IFRS differ and be able to estimate the potential impact of these differences. We will look at current differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS using three steps: 1. FASB and IASB identified short- and long-term convergence projects in their 2006 Roadmap for Convergence. (2) accounting topics mentioned in these convergence projects are listed in two tables, and key differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP are provided. 2. A few additional accounting topics not addressed by either convergence project are noted, and key differences are highlighted. 3. actual impact of the key differences on net income is illustrated using Form 20-F reconciliations of IFRS-based net income compared to that computed using U.S. GAAP. In 2006, the IASB announced that no major changes in IFRS will occur before 2009. (3) implementation dates for new standards adopted during the next two years will be delayed until then. This means that even if differences between the two sets of accounting standards are resolved through the FASB and IASB convergence projects, important differences in the existing financial reporting standards will continue for at least the next few years. There are other differences between the two sets of financial reporting standards that are not included in the convergence projects, and these differences may continue to exist indefinitely. SHORT- AND LONG-TERM CONVERGENCE PROJECTS Short-term Convergence Projects. Boards are working individually and jointly on nine short-term convergence projects. goal is to complete work on these specific standard-setting projects by the end of 2008. See Table 1 for a list of the short-term convergence projects. table provides information on which Board is examining the topic, the underlying differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP, and the status of the project as of July 2007. (4) As indicated in Table 1, three of the short-term convergence projects have been completed: IFRS 8, Operating Segments, was issued by the IASB in 2006; Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities--Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115, was issued by the FASB in 2007; and Revised IAS 23, Borrowing Costs, was issued by the IASB in 2007. Completion of these projects indicates that significant accounting differences in these topics no longer exist. For the six ongoing projects, the project status and key differences column of Table 1 describes the existing points of divergence between IFRS and U. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,303
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,029
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0050,006
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3030,293

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueManagement accounting quarterlyMême sujetAccounting Theory and Financial ReportingTravaux en français237 207