The Gap in the Perception of the GAAP

Israel Klein
{"title":"The Gap in the Perception of the GAAP","authors":"Israel Klein","doi":"10.1111/ABLJ.12106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Financial accounting is the language of the business world and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) comprise its terminology. The dictionary-like use of GAAP in business discourse conveys a conception of accounting standards as definitional rules, i.e., as rules that merely provide consensual definitions for financial discourse without affecting the content of the discourse. As such, GAAP is believed to be neutral and bias-free and consequently, promulgation of accounting standards and the content of the GAAP have not attracted much legal attention.This article challenges the prevailing legal indifference towards the GAAP and those promulgating it. By revealing GAAP's effects on corporate behavior and on the function of many social, political and financial systems that utilize accounting parameters, this article discusses the substantive power private parties gain through the promulgation of accounting standards and how these standards imply a biased agenda that prefers the investor perspective over other contrary perspectives, thereby establishing a skewed financial perception of reality, such that subordinates the social order entirely to investors’ objectives. While reviewing how the GAAP is perceived by the court, this article further argues that the existing legal perception of accounting standards as neutral definitional rules has yielded court rulings that relieved accounting standards promulgators from professional duties and has prevented judicial review of the standards themselves, leaving the GAAP and its promulgators practically immune to legal scrutiny.Attention is then drawn to a possible solution presented by a recent SEC proposal to allow domestic issuers to disclose supplemental IFRS-based financial results in addition to those required by the GAAP. It is suggested that such additional financial disclosure can curtail GAAP’s hegemony, curb its promulgators and partially ease some of the existing biases of financial accounting.","PeriodicalId":10698,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ABLJ.12106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Financial accounting is the language of the business world and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) comprise its terminology. The dictionary-like use of GAAP in business discourse conveys a conception of accounting standards as definitional rules, i.e., as rules that merely provide consensual definitions for financial discourse without affecting the content of the discourse. As such, GAAP is believed to be neutral and bias-free and consequently, promulgation of accounting standards and the content of the GAAP have not attracted much legal attention.This article challenges the prevailing legal indifference towards the GAAP and those promulgating it. By revealing GAAP's effects on corporate behavior and on the function of many social, political and financial systems that utilize accounting parameters, this article discusses the substantive power private parties gain through the promulgation of accounting standards and how these standards imply a biased agenda that prefers the investor perspective over other contrary perspectives, thereby establishing a skewed financial perception of reality, such that subordinates the social order entirely to investors’ objectives. While reviewing how the GAAP is perceived by the court, this article further argues that the existing legal perception of accounting standards as neutral definitional rules has yielded court rulings that relieved accounting standards promulgators from professional duties and has prevented judicial review of the standards themselves, leaving the GAAP and its promulgators practically immune to legal scrutiny.Attention is then drawn to a possible solution presented by a recent SEC proposal to allow domestic issuers to disclose supplemental IFRS-based financial results in addition to those required by the GAAP. It is suggested that such additional financial disclosure can curtail GAAP’s hegemony, curb its promulgators and partially ease some of the existing biases of financial accounting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对公认会计准则认知上的差距
财务会计是商业世界的语言,一般公认会计原则(GAAP)包括其术语。GAAP在商业话语中的词典式使用传达了会计准则作为定义规则的概念,即,作为仅为财务话语提供共识定义而不影响话语内容的规则。因此,公认会计准则被认为是中立和无偏见的,因此,会计准则的颁布和公认会计准则的内容并没有引起太多的法律关注。这篇文章挑战了对公认会计准则及其颁布者普遍存在的法律冷漠。通过揭示公认会计准则对企业行为的影响,以及对利用会计参数的许多社会、政治和金融系统功能的影响,本文讨论了私人各方通过颁布会计准则获得的实质性权力,以及这些准则如何暗示了一种偏向投资者视角而非其他相反视角的有偏见的议程,从而建立了对现实的扭曲的财务感知。使社会秩序完全服从于投资者的目标。在审查法院如何看待GAAP的同时,本文进一步认为,现有的会计准则作为中立定义规则的法律观念已经产生了法院裁决,这些裁决解除了会计准则颁布者的专业职责,并阻止了对准则本身的司法审查,使GAAP及其颁布者实际上不受法律审查的影响。随后,人们注意到美国证券交易委员会最近提出的一项可能的解决方案,即允许国内发行人在GAAP要求的基础上披露补充的基于ifrs的财务业绩。建议这种额外的财务披露可以削弱公认会计准则的霸权,遏制其传播者,并部分缓解一些现有的财务会计偏见。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Real Consequences of Macroprudential FX Regulations Will the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster a Sustainable Corporate Governance? Hedge Fund Management and Pricing Structure around the World Open Access, Interoperability, and the DTCC's Unexpected Path to Monopoly Indirect Investor Protection: The Investment Ecosystem and Its Legal Underpinnings
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1