دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی حسابداری برای کمک های دولتی: انتخاب استاندارد و حسابداری - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

This paper provides evidence on several matters relating to accounting for government grants under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Focusing on grants related to assets, we trace the development of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 20, outline some of the problems of current accounting practice, and suggest why these have not been addressed by the standard-setter. Then, by hand-collecting data relating to 559 firms from 15 countries, we empirically analyze several issues. We show that asset grants are economically important for some firms and that the frequency of grants is significantly different across the countries. For the nonfinancial firms in our sample, we identify the grant-related accounting policy choice: a firm can either show the grant as deferred income or net it against the asset. The options are roughly equally popular overall but the firm’s country of domicile is strongly associated with the choice. Further, as a key element of disclosure quality for this topic, we investigate whether or not the balance sheet-related numbers relating to grants are disclosed, finding that many firms do not disclose them. Disclosure quality is better for firms which use the ‘deferred income’ option, and it is also better in countries where a higher proportion of firms has received government grants. International differences and poor disclosure are detrimental to international comparisons, so we conclude that the policy choice should be removed from the accounting standard.

9. Summary and conclusions

Government grants are economically important in some firms, and financial statements can be significantly affected by the related numbers. Despite this, the topic has received little attention from standard-setters or from researchers. The general issue of nonreciprocal transfers is not addressed specifically in the IASB’s framework. The main accounting standard on government grants (IAS 20) has, since 1982, offered two options for asset grants (deferred income or deduction from asset) which are both inconsistent with fundamental aspects of the framework. A quite different solution (immediate recognition as income) was proposed for unconditional grants by standard-setters in 1999. This was implemented by the IASB in 2001 for grants relating to certain unusual assets (biological assets under IAS 41) and in 2009 for grants received by unlisted firms which use the special standard designed for them (IFRS for SMEs). Yet there are no current proposals to amend IAS 20. The standard-setters have been deterred from resolving the topic of grants because it is related to major conceptual problems, including the scope of liabilities/contingencies and the tension between matching and an asset/liability view.

Our research provides evidence about the frequency and size of grants in 15 countries. We show, for example, that in several countries the majority of firms in our sample receive asset grants, and that they are important for some firms. We also show that IAS 20’s two policy options for government grants are roughly equally popular. However, policy choice varies greatly from 100% treatment as deferred income in Australia to no such treatment in Canada. The choice is highly significantly related to country. We hypothesize and find that the deferred income treatment for government grants is more common in countries where it is or was required or recommended under national GAAP. There are few policy changes over time. This is all in line with previous research on other policy topics (e.g. Stadler and Nobes, 2014).