会计中实质重于形式的衰落

Pub Date : 2021-04-27 DOI:10.1515/ael-2019-0052
Dov Fischer, Ortal Ellman, Sholom Schochet
{"title":"会计中实质重于形式的衰落","authors":"Dov Fischer, Ortal Ellman, Sholom Schochet","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Substance over form” is a traditional accounting maxim that has also influenced legal thinking and has its roots in classical philosophy. “Substance over form” states that accountants do not record transactions based on the outward form of the transaction but discern its economic substance and report accordingly. Nevertheless, “substance over form” has been deemphasized by the FASB’s conceptual framework in recent decades, to the point that an internal debate now rages over whether accountants and auditors have a right and responsibility to put substance over form. FASB must therefore make its position clear on where it stands in this debate.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Decline of Substance over Form in Accounting\",\"authors\":\"Dov Fischer, Ortal Ellman, Sholom Schochet\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ael-2019-0052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract “Substance over form” is a traditional accounting maxim that has also influenced legal thinking and has its roots in classical philosophy. “Substance over form” states that accountants do not record transactions based on the outward form of the transaction but discern its economic substance and report accordingly. Nevertheless, “substance over form” has been deemphasized by the FASB’s conceptual framework in recent decades, to the point that an internal debate now rages over whether accountants and auditors have a right and responsibility to put substance over form. FASB must therefore make its position clear on where it stands in this debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要“实质重于形式”是一条传统的会计准则,它对法律思想也产生了影响,其根源可以追溯到古典哲学。“实质重于形式”指出,会计人员不根据交易的外在形式记录交易,而是辨别交易的经济实质并据此进行报告。然而,近几十年来,FASB的概念框架已经不再强调“实质重于形式”,以至于内部对会计师和审计师是否有权利和责任将实质重于形式展开了激烈的辩论。因此,美国财务会计准则委员会必须明确其在这场辩论中的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
The Decline of Substance over Form in Accounting
Abstract “Substance over form” is a traditional accounting maxim that has also influenced legal thinking and has its roots in classical philosophy. “Substance over form” states that accountants do not record transactions based on the outward form of the transaction but discern its economic substance and report accordingly. Nevertheless, “substance over form” has been deemphasized by the FASB’s conceptual framework in recent decades, to the point that an internal debate now rages over whether accountants and auditors have a right and responsibility to put substance over form. FASB must therefore make its position clear on where it stands in this debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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