Should Merger Accounting be Reconsidered?: A Discussion Based on the Chinese Approach to Accounting for Business Combinations
Should Merger Accounting be Reconsidered?: A Discussion Based on the Chinese Approach to Accounting for Business Combinations
复制标题
是否应该重新考虑合并会计？：基于中国企业合并会计方法的讨论
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.1303636
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Qiusheng Zhang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. R. Baker;Y. Biondi;Qiusheng Zhang
2006年，中国会计准则委员会发布了第20号声明，允许企业合并采用购买和权益汇集(或合并)会计方法。CASC在第20号声明中的决定与美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则委员会(IASB)的决定形成了鲜明对比，这两个委员会都取消了权益汇集法。由于CASC 20的发布，以及日本准则制定者和其他准则制定机构的类似声明，统一国际会计准则的目标在企业合并会计领域缺乏趋同。在这篇文章中，我们审查了这种缺乏趋同的原因，以便制定一个协调一致的框架。特别是，中国准则制定者寻求开发一种对企业合并进行会计处理的方法，以区分合并实体处于共同控制或不受共同控制的情况。使用相对较窄的共同控制定义，财务会计准则委员会和国际会计准则委员会都将受共同控制的实体之间的企业合并排除在各自声明的范围之外。本文的目的是通过比较FASB 141、IFRS 3和CASC 20的规定，分析中国会计准则制定者采取不同方法的原因。我们的分析将表明，这些准则之间的技术差异是基于对企业合并的基本经济学(Anthony，1987)的不同理解，从而导致对合并过程的不同表述。我们认为，坦率地认识到这些差异可能会导致在一个新的全面框架内重新考虑利益汇集和合并方法。
In 2006, the China Accounting Standards Committee (CASC) issued its Statement No. 20, which permits both the purchase and pooling of interests (or merger) method of accounting for business combinations. The decision of the CASC in Statement No. 20 stands in contrast to the decisions taken by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) which both eliminated the pooling of interests method. As a result of the issuance of CASC 20, along with similar pronouncements by the Japanese standard setters and other standards setting bodies, the goal of harmonizing international accounting standards has been faced with a lack of convergence in the area of accounting for business combinations. In this paper we examine the reasons for this lack of convergence in order to develop a reconciled framework. In particular, the Chinese standards setters have sought to develop an approach to accounting for business combinations which distinguishes between instances where the combining entities are under common control or not under common control. Using a relatively narrow definition of common control, both the FASB and the IASB have excluded business combinations among entities under common control from the scope of their respective pronouncements. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the reasons for the distinctly different approach taken by the Chinese accounting standards setters by comparing the provisions of FASB 141, IFRS 3 and CASC 20. Our analysis will show that the technical differences between the standards are based on different understandings of the underlying economics of business combinations (Anthony, 1987), which leads in turn to different representations of the combination process. We believe that a forthright recognition of these differences may lead to a reconsideration of the pooling of interests and merger methods in a new comprehensive framework.