Rules, Principles and Judgments in Accounting Standards
Rules, Principles and Judgments in Accounting Standards
复制标题
会计准则中的规则、原则和判断
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-6281.2006.00197.x
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Helen Prangnell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bruce Bennett Bruce Bennett;M. Bradbury;Helen Prangnell
基于规则的标准和基于原则的标准之间的区别没有很好的界定，有各种解释（SEC，2003年，第5页）。然而，人们普遍认为，FASB的准则是以规则为基础的，而IASB的准则是以原则为基础的。这篇文章确定了这种区别的基础。为了研究和发展，本文将FASB准则与两个原则基础准则进行了比较。对于每个标准，我们识别和分类规则和判断，并观察规则的合理性水平和支持判断的援助。这三个标准都有规则，都是基于原则的，需要运用专业判断;不那么保守的标准需要更多的判断，出乎意料的是，需要更多的规则。结果表明，基于规则与基于原则的区别是没有意义的，除了相对而言。我们的结论是，一个相对更以原则为基础的准则制度需要在交易层面（实质重于形式）和财务报表层面（“真实与公允反映”凌驾）的专业判断。此外，有人建议，任何FASB和IASB的趋同将需要协议的权重给予定性特征。
The distinction between rules-based and principles-based standards is not well defined and is subject to a variety of interpretations (SEC, 2003, p. 5). Yet there is a commonly held view that the FASB's standards are rules-based and the IASB's standards are principles-based. This article identifies the basis of this distinction. For research and development, the article compares the FASB standard with two principles-based standards. For each standard we identify and classify rules and judgments, and observe the level of justifications for the rules and assistance to support the judgments. The three standards have rules, are based on principles, and require the exercise of professional judgment; the less conservative standard requires more judgments and, unexpectedly, more rules. The results suggest that the rules-based versus principles-based distinction is not meaningful, except in relative terms. We conclude that a relatively more principles-based standards regime requires professional judgment at both the transaction level (substance over form) and at the financial statement level (‘true and fair view’ override). Furthermore, it is suggested that any FASB and IASB convergence will require agreement on the weightings given to the qualitative characteristics.