Chapter Outline

I.

CHAPTER 11 WORLDWIDE ACCOUTING DIVERSITY AND INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

Accounting and financial reporting rules differ across countries. There are a variety of factors influencing a countrys accounting system. A. Legal systemprimarily relates to how accounting principles are established; code law countries generally having legislated accounting principles and common law countries having principles established by non-legislative means. B. Taxationfinancial statements serve as the basis for taxation in many countries. In those countries with a close linkage between accounting and taxation, accounting practice tends to be more conservative so as to reduce the amount of income subject to taxation. C. Providers of financingwhere shareholders are a major provider of financing, the demand for information made available outside the company becomes greater. In those countries in which family members, banks, and the government are the major providers of business finance, there tends to be less demand for public accountability and information disclosure. D. Inflationhas caused some countries, especially in Latin America, to develop accounting principles in which traditional historical cost accounting is abandoned in favor of inflation adjusted figures. E. Political and economic tiescan explain the usage of a British style of accounting throughout most of the former British Empire. They also help to explain similarities between the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly, the U.S. and Mexico. F. Cultureaffects a countrys accounting system in two ways: (1) through its influence on a countrys institutions, such as its legal system and system of financing, and (2) through its influence on the accounting values shared by members of the accounting sub-culture. Nobes developed a general model of the reasons for international differences in financial reporting that has only two explanatory factors: (1) national culture, including institutional structures, and (2) the nature of a countrys financing system. A. A self-sufficient Type I culture will have a strong equity-outsider financing system which results in a Class A accounting system oriented toward providing information for outside shareholders. B. A self-sufficient Type II culture will have a weak equity-outsider financing system which results in a Class B accounting system oriented toward protecting creditors and providing a basis for taxation. C. Countries dominated by a country with a Type I culture will use a Class A accounting system even though they do not have strong equity-outsider financing systems. D. Companies with strong equity-outsider financing located in countries with a Class B accounting system will voluntarily attempt to use a Class A accounting system to compete in international capital markets.

II.

III. Differences in accounting across countries causes several problems. A. Consolidating foreign subsidiaries requires that the financial statements prepared in accordance with foreign accounting rules must be converted into U.S. GAAP. B. Companies interested in obtaining capital in foreign countries often are required to provide financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting rules in that country, which are likely to differ from rules in the home country. C. Investors interested in investing in foreign companies may have a difficult time in making comparisons across potential investments because of differences in accounting rules across countries. IV. Harmonization is the process of reducing differences in financial reporting practices
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Hoyle, Schaefer, Doupnik, Advanced Accounting, 9/e The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 11-1

across countries. A. The European Union has attempted to harmonize accounting through the 4th and 7th Directives. 1. The 4th Directive deals with valuation rules, disclosure, and formats of financial statements. 2. The 7th Directive deals with the consolidation of financial statements. 3. The EU Directives caused significant change in accounting practice across Europe and reduced previous differences. However, because of considerable flexibility associated with allowed alternatives, the Directives did not achieve complete comparability across EU countries. 4. Since 2005, EU publicly traded companies have been required to use International Financial Reporting Standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board in preparing consolidated financial statements. Parent company statements continue to be prepared in accordance with national accounting standards based on the EU Directives. B. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) was formed in 1973 in hopes of improving and promoting the worldwide harmonization of accounting principles. It was superseded by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in 2001. 1. The IASC issued 41 International Accounting Standards (IAS) covering a broad range of accounting issues. Ten IASs have been superseded or withdrawn, leaving 31 in effect. 2. The membership of the IASC was composed of over 140 accountancy bodies from more than 100 nations. 3. The IASC was not in a position to enforce its standards. Instead, member accountancy bodies pledged to work toward acceptance of IASs in the respective countries. 4. Because of criticism that too many options were allowed in its standards and therefore true comparability was not being achieved, the IASC undertook a Comparability Project in the 1990s, revising 10 of its standards to eliminate alternatives. 5. The IASC derived much of its legitimacy as an international standard setter through endorsement of its activities by the International Organization of Securities Commissions. IOSCO and the IASC agreed that, if the IASC could develop a set of core standards, IOSCO would recommend that stock exchanges allow foreign companies to use IASs in preparing financial statements. The IASC completed the set of core standards in 1998, IOSCO endorsed their usage by foreign companies in 2000, and many members of IOSCO adopted this recommendation. V. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) replaced the IASC in 2001. A. The IASB consists of 14 members 12 full-time and 2 part-time. Full-time IASB members are required to sever the relationships with former employers to ensure independence. However, seven of the IASB members have a formal liaison responsibility with a national standard setter, such as the U.S. FASB. Technical competence is the most important criterion for selection as a Board member. B. IASB GAAP is referred to as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and consists of (a) IASs issued by the IASC (and adopted by the IASB), (b) individual International Financial Reporting Standards developed by the IASB, and (c) interpretations issued by the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC). C. In addition to 31 IASs and 8 IFRSs (as of January 1, 2007), the IASB also has a Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, which serves as a guide to determine the proper accounting in those areas not covered by IFRS. D. As of January 2007, more than 70 countries require the use of IFRS by all domestic publicly traded companies. Other countries allow the use of IFRS by domestic companies. Many countries also allow foreign companies that are listed on their securities markets to use IFRS. E. In November 2007, the SEC amended its rules to allow foreign registrants to prepare
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 Solutions Manual

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 11-2

financial statements in accordance with IFRS without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. In August 2007, the SEC issued a concept release to determine public interest in allowing U.S. companies to choose between IFRS and U.S. GAAP in preparing financial statements. F. In 2002, the IASB and FASB signed the so-called Norwalk Agreement to use their best efforts to (a) make their existing financial reporting standards fully compatible as soon as is practicable and (b) coordinate their work program to ensure that once achieved, compatibility is maintained. G. The FASB has six key initiatives to further convergence between IFRS and U.S. GAAP including a short-term convergence project and joint projects on broader accounting issues. As a result of the short-term convergence project, the FASB has revised several authoritative pronouncements that are part of U.S. GAAP, adopting the IASB treatment in those areas. H. Numerous differences exist between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. These include differences in recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure. Exhibit 11.9 lists several key differences. I. IAS 1, Presentation of Financial Statements, provides guidance with respect to the purpose of financial statements, components of financial statements, basic principles and assumptions, and the overriding principle of fair presentation. There is no equivalent to IAS 1 in U.S. GAAP. J. The IASB follows a principles-based approach to standard setting, rather than the socalled rules-based approach used by the FASB. The IASB tends to avoid the use of bright line tests and provides a limited amount of implementation guidance in its standards. VI. Even if all countries adopt a similar set of accounting standards, two obstacles remain in achieving the goal of worldwide comparability of financial statements. A. IFRS must be translated into languages other than English to be usable by nonEnglish speaking preparers of financial statements. It is difficult to translate some words and phrases into other languages without a distortion of meaning. B. Culture can affect the manner in which an accountant interprets and applies an accounting standard. Differences in culture can lead to differences in application of the same standard across countries.

Learning Objectives
Having completed Chapter Eleven, Accounting Diversity and International Financial Reporting Standards, students should be able to fulfill each of the following learning objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Describe some of the differences in financial reporting that exist internationally. Understand the major factors influencing the development of accounting systems. Describe a general model of the reasons for international differences in financial reporting. Discuss the problems that are created by the existence of different sets of accounting standards throughout the world. Explain the arguments for and the arguments against the international harmonization of accounting. Describe the approach taken in Europe to harmonize accounting Explain the approach that was taken by the International Accounting Standards Committee in its efforts to harmonize accounting principles. Describe the work of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and know what constitutes the IASBs body of standards known as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 11-3

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Hoyle, Schaefer, Doupnik, Advanced Accounting, 9/e

9.

Describe the ways and the extent to which IFRS are used around the world.

10. Describe the FASB-IASB convergence process and the FASBs initiatives to achieve convergence with IASB standards. 11. Identify several key differences in financial reporting between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. 12. Determine the impact that specific differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP have on the measurement of income and stockholders equity.

Answer to Discussion Question

Which Accounting Method Really is Appropriate? Students often assume that U.S. GAAP is superior and that all reporting issues can (or should) be resolved by following U.S. rules. However, the reporting of research and development costs is a good example of a rule where many different approaches can be justified and the U.S. rule might be nothing more than an easy method to apply. In the United States, all such costs are expensed as incurred because of the difficulty of assessing the future value of these projects. International Financial Reporting Standards, as well as countries such as Canada, Brazil, Japan, and Korea, allow capitalization of development costs when certain criteria are met. The issue is not whether costs that will have future benefits should be capitalized. Most accountants around the world would recommend capitalizing a cost that leads to future revenues that are in excess of that cost. The real issue is whether criteria can be developed for identifying projects that will lead to the recovery of those costs. In the U.S., the FASB felt that such decisions were too subjective and open to manipulation. History has shown that the amount of research and development costs capitalized tended to vary as a company experienced good years and bad. Conversely, under IFRS, development costs must be recognized as an intangible asset when an enterprise can demonstrate all of the following: (a) the technical feasibility of completing the intangible asset so that it will be available for use or sale; (b) its intention to complete the intangible asset and use or sell it; (c) its ability to use or sell the intangible asset; (d) how the intangible asset will generate probable future economic benefits. Among other things, the enterprise should demonstrate the existence of a market for the output of the intangible asset or the existence of the intangible asset itself or, if it is to be used internally, the usefulness of the intangible asset; (e) the availability of adequate technical, financial and other resources to complete the development and to use or sell the intangible asset; and (f) its ability to measure the expenditure attributable to the intangible asset during its development reliably. How easy is it for an accountant to determine whether the development project will result in an intangible asset, such as a patent, that will generate future economic benefits? For Korean businesses, research and development costs are capitalized when they are incurred in relation to a specific product or technology, when costs can be separately identified, and when the recovery of costs is reasonably expected. Can an accountant determine with appropriate accuracy whether the recovery of costs is reasonably expected? In the U.S., a conservative approach has been taken because of the difficulty of determining whether an asset has been or will be created. To ensure comparability, all companies are required to expense all R&D costs. As a result, some discoveries that prove to be very valuable to a company for years to come are expensed immediately. In other countries, companies will tend to capitalize a differing array of projects because of flexibility in their
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 11-4 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 Solutions Manual

guidelines. Do the benefits of consistency and comparability (each company expenses all costs each year) outweigh the cost of producing financial statements that might omit valuable assets from the balance sheet? No definitive answer exists for that question. However, the reader of financial statements needs to be aware of the fundamental differences in approach that exist in accounting for research and development costs before making comparisons between companies from different countries.

Answers to Questions
1. The five factors most often cited as affecting a country's accounting system are: (1) legal system, (2) taxation, (3) providers of financing, (4) inflation, and (5) political and economic ties. The legal system is primarily related to how accounting principles are established; code law countries generally having legislated accounting principles and common law countries having principles established by non-legislative means. In some countries, financial statements serve as the basis for taxation and in other countries they do not. In those countries with a close linkage between accounting and taxation, accounting practice tends to be more conservative so as to reduce the amount of income subject to taxation. Shareholders are a major provider of financing in some countries. As shareholder financing increases in importance, the demand for information made available outside the company becomes greater. In those countries in which family members, banks, and the government are the major providers of business finance, there tends to be less demand for public accountability and information disclosure. Chronic high inflation has caused some countries, especially in Latin America, to develop accounting principles in which traditional historical cost accounting is abandoned in favor of inflation adjusted figures. Political and economic ties can explain the usage of a British style of accounting throughout most of the former British empire. They also help to explain similarities between the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly, the U.S. and Mexico. Culture also is viewed as a factor that has significant influence on the development of a countrys accounting system. This influence is described in more detail in the answer to question 3.

2. Problems caused by accounting diversity for a company like Nestle include: (a) the additional cost associated with converting foreign GAAP financial statements of foreign subsidiaries to parent company GAAP to prepare consolidated financial statements, (b) the additional cost associated with preparing Nestle financial statements in foreign GAAP (or reconciling to foreign GAAP) to gain access to foreign capital markets, and (c) difficulty in understanding and comparing financial statements of potential foreign acquisition targets. 3. Gray developed a model that hypothesizes that societal values, i.e., culture, affect the development of accounting systems in two ways: (1) societal values help shape a countrys institutions, such as legal system and financing system, which in turn influences the development of accounting, and (2) societal values influence accounting values held by members of the accounting sub-culture, which in turn influences the development of the accounting system. Gray provides specific hypotheses with respect to the manner in which specific cultural dimensions will influence specific accounting values. For example, he hypothesizes that in countries in which avoiding uncertainty is important, accountants will have a preference for more conservative measurement of profit. According to Nobes, the purpose for financial reporting determines the nature of a countrys financial reporting system. The most relevant factor for determining the purpose of financial reporting is the nature of the financing system. Some countries have a culture, and accompanying institutional structure, that leads to a strong equity financing system with large numbers of outside shareholders. A country with a self-sufficient Type I culture will have a strong equity-outsider financing system which in turn will lead that country developing a Class A accounting system oriented toward providing information for outside shareholders. A self-sufficient Type II culture will have a weak equity-outsider financing system which results in a Class B accounting system oriented toward protecting creditors and providing a basis for taxation. 5. Arguments for international harmonization center around the comparability of financial statements across countries. Comparability would make it easier for investors to make foreign investment decisions, both portfolio investments made by individuals or funds as
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 11-5

4.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Hoyle, Schaefer, Doupnik, Advanced Accounting, 9/e

well as acquisition of companies made by multinational corporations. A single set of international accounting standards would also make it easier for companies to gain access to foreign capital markets. Both of these arguments relate to the "globalization of capital markets." Harmonization would also simplify the preparation of consolidated financial statements as GAAP conversions would be avoided. Arguments against harmonization include the enormous political costs associated with convincing countries to give up their own accounting principles in favor of international standards. It is also argued that it is unnecessary for all companies within a country to switch to international standards. It would be less disruptive if only those companies that would benefit from harmonization applied international standards on a voluntary basis. Another argument against harmonization is that differences in accounting across countries might be necessary and appropriate because of environmental differences. 6. The 4th and 7th Directives are supranational laws relating to accounting that were promulgated by the Commission of the European Union and which EU member nations were required to adopt into their national law. The 4th Directive, issued in 1978, provides rules for the valuation of assets and liabilities, establishes acceptable formats for the presentation of financial statements, and indicates what disclosures must be provided in a set of financial statements. The 4th Directive allows considerable flexibility with regard to asset valuation. The 7th Directive, issued in 1983, requires and provides rules for the preparation of consolidated financial statements. This was a significant innovation in European accounting because, previously, consolidated statements were rare. Several of the IASCs original standards were criticized for allowing too many alternative methods of accounting for a particular item. As a result, through the selection of different acceptable options, the financial statements of two companies following International Accounting Standards still might not have been comparable. To enhance the comparability of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standards, and at the urging of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the IASC systematically reviewed its existing standards (in the so-called Comparability Project) and revised ten of them by eliminating previously acceptable alternatives. A major difference between the IASB and IASC in the composition of the Board and the manner in which Board members are selected. IASB has 12 full-time members, the IASC had zero. Full-time IASB members must sever their employment relationships with former employers and must maintain their independence. Seven of the full-time members have a liaison relationship with a national standard setter. At least five members must have been auditors, three must have been financial statement preparers, three must have been users of financial statements, and at least one must come from academia. The most important criterion for appointment to the IASB is technical competence. (Although not stated in the body of the chapter, there was a perception that some appointments to the IASC were based on politics and not competence.) Some of the common features of the IASC and IASB are that both (a) issue/d international standards, (b) have/had their headquarters in London, and (c) use/d English as the working language, This statement is true in that EU publicly traded companies are required to use IFRS in preparing consolidated financial statements. It is false in that non-public companies are not required to use IFRS and publicly traded companies do not use IFRS in preparing their parent company only financial statements.

7.

8.

9.

10. The bottom panel of Exhibit 11.8 shows the countries that do not allow domestic companies to use IFRS in preparing consolidated financial statements. The economically important countries in this group include: Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, Korea (South), Mexico, Taiwan, and the United States. 11. The IASB and FASB have agreed to use their best efforts to (a) make their existing financial reporting standards fully compatible as soon as is practicable and (b) coordinate their work program to ensure that once achieved, compatibility is maintained. 12. The six key initiatives are: Short-term convergence project to eliminate differences where convergence is likely in the short-term. Joint projects on broader issues in which FASB and IASB share resources and work on
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 11-6 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 Solutions Manual

 Convergence research project to identify all substantive differences between IFRS and Liaison IASB member on site at FASB offices. Monitoring of IASB projects. Explicit consideration of convergence potential in FASB agenda decisions.
13. Potentially significant differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP related to asset recognition and measurement are: Acceptable use of LIFO under U.S. GAAP, but not IFRS. Definition of market in the lower of cost or market rule for inventory replacement cost under U.S. GAAP; net realizable value under IFRS. Reversal of inventory writedowns allowed under IFRS, but not U.S. GAAP. Possible revaluation of property, plant, and equipment under IFRS (allowed alternative), but not under U.S. GAAP. Capitalization of development costs as an intangible asset under IFRS, which is not acceptable under U.S. GAAP (except for computer software development costs). Difference in the determination of whether an asset is impaired. Subsequent reversal of impairment losses allowed under IFRS, but not U.S. GAAP. 14. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 required the SEC to study the possibility of the U.S. adopting a principles-based approach to accounting standard setting. In conducting this study, the SEC examined the IASBs approach to setting standards, which is considered to be principles-based. The SEC concluded that the IASBs standards did not represent a cohesive set of principles-based standards. Some of the IASBs standards are actually rules-based and others are principles-only standards. Thus, the SEC concluded that the IASBs approach is not a good model for the FASB. 15. Even if all countries adopt a similar set of accounting standards, two obstacles remain in achieving the goal of worldwide comparability of financial statements. First, IFRS must be translated into languages other than English to be usable by non-English speaking preparers of financial statements. It is difficult to translate some words and phrases found in IFRS into non-English languages without a distortion of meaning. Second, culture can affect the manner in which accountants interpret and apply accounting standards. Differences in culture can lead to differences in how the same standard is applied across countries. U.S. GAAP.

a similar time schedule.

Answers to Problems 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. B C D C B D C B
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 11-7

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Hoyle, Schaefer, Doupnik, Advanced Accounting, 9/e

9.

10. C Problems 11-15 are based on the comprehensive illustration. 11. (15 minutes) (Carrying inventory at the lower of cost or market) a. 1. In accordance with IAS 2, the company reports inventory on the balance sheet at the lower of cost and net realizable value. As a result, inventory will be reported on the December 31, 2009 balance sheet at its net realizable value of $98,000 and a loss on writedown of inventory of $2,000 will be reflected in 2009 net income. 2. Under U.S. GAAP, the company reports inventory on the balance sheet at the lower of cost or market, where market is defined as replacement cost (with net realizable value as a ceiling and net realizable value less a normal profit as a floor). In this case, inventory will be written down to replacement cost and reported on the December 31, 2009 balance sheet at $95,000. A $5,000 loss will be included in 2009 income. b. As a result of the differing amounts of inventory loss recognized under IFRS and U.S. GAAP, Lisali will subtract $3,000 from IFRS income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP income, and will subtract $3,000 from IFRS stockholders equity to reconcile to U.S. GAAP stockholders equity.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 11-8

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2009 Solutions Manual

12. (25 minutes) (Measurement of property, plant, and equipment subsequent to acquisition) a. 1. Under IFRS, the equipment would be depreciated by $8,000 in 2009 [($100,000 - $20,000) / 10 years], resulting in a book value of $92,000 at December 31, 2009. Under IAS 16s allowed alternative treatment, the equipment would be revalued on January 1, 2010 to its fair value of $101,000. The journal entry to record the revaluation on January 1, 2010 would be: Dr. Equipment $9,000 Cr. Revaluation surplus (stock. equity) $9,000 (To revalue equipment from carrying value of $92,000 to appraisal value of $101,000.) Depreciation expense on a straight-line basis in 2010, 2011, and beyond would be $9,000 per year [($101,000 $20,000) / 9 years]. The equipment would be reported on the December 31, 2010 balance sheet at $92,000 [$101,000 $9,000], and on the December 31, 2011 balance sheet at $83,000 [$92,000 $9,000]. 2. Under U.S. GAAP, the company would report the equipment at its depreciated historical cost. Straight-line deprecation expense is $8,000 per year [($100,000 $20,000) / 10 years]. The equipment would be reported at $92,000, $84,000, and $76,000, respectively, on the December 31, 2009, 2010, and 2011 balance sheets. The differences can be summarized as follows: Depreciation expense IFRS U.S. GAAP Difference Book value of equipment IFRS U.S. GAAP Difference 2009 $8,000 $8,000 $0 12/31/09 $92,000 $92,000 $0 2010 $9,000 $8,000 $1,000 12/31/10 $92,000 $84,000 $ 8,000 2011 $9,000 $8,000 $1,000 12/31/11 $83,000 $76,000 $ 7,000

b. There is no difference in net income between IFRS and U.S. GAAP in 2009, so no reconciliation adjustments are necessary in 2009. In 2010, the additional amount of deprecation expense of $1,000 related to the revaluation surplus under IFRS must be added to IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP income. The additional depreciation taken under IFRS causes IFRS retained earnings to be $1,000 less than U.S. GAAP retained earnings at December 31, 2010. Under IFRS, the revaluation surplus causes IFRS stockholders equity to be $9,000 larger than U.S. GAAP stockholders equity. The adjustment to reconcile IFRS stockholders equity to a U.S. GAAP basis is $8,000, the difference between the original amount of the revaluation surplus

($9,000) and the accumulated depreciation on that surplus ($1,000). $8,000 would be subtracted from IFRS stockholders equity to reconcile to a U.S. GAAP basis. In 2011, $1,000 again is added to IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP net income, and $7,000 is now subtracted from IFRS stockholders equity to reconcile to U.S. GAAP stockholders equity. $7,000 is the original amount of revaluation surplus ($9,000) less accumulated depreciation on that surplus for two years ($2,000). 13. (15 minutes) (Research and development costs) a. 1. In accordance with IAS 38, $350,000 [$500,000 x 70%] of research and development costs would be expensed in 2008, and $150,000 [$500,000 x 30%] of development costs would be capitalized as an intangible asset. The intangible asset would be amortized over its useful life of ten years, but only beginning in 2010 when the newly developed product is brought to market. 2. Under U.S. GAAP, $500,000 of research and development costs would be expensed in 2009. b. In 2009, $150,000 would be subtracted from IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP and the same amount would be subtracted from IFRS stockholders equity. In 2010, the company would recognize $15,000 [$150,000 / 10 years] of amortization expense on the deferred development costs under IFRS that would not be recognized under U.S. GAAP. In 2010, $15,000 would be added to IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP net income. The net adjustment to reconcile from IFRS stockholders equity to U.S. GAAP at December 31, 2010 would be $135,000, the sum of the $150,000 smaller expense under IFRS in 2009 and the $15,000 larger expense under IFRS in 2010. $135,000 would be subtracted from IFRS stockholders equity at December 31, 2010 to reconcile to U.S. GAAP. 14. (15 minutes) (Gain on sale and leaseback transaction) a. 1. In accordance with IAS 17, the entire gain of $50,000 on the sale and leaseback would be recognized in income in the year of the sale when the lease is an operating lease. 2. Under U.S. GAAP, the gain of $50,000 on the sale and leaseback transaction of is deferred and amortized to income over the life of the lease. With a lease period of five years, $10,000 of the gain would be recognized in 2009. b. In 2009, IFRS net income exceeds U.S. GAAP net income by $40,000, the difference in the amount of gain recognized on the sale and leaseback transaction. A negative adjustment of $40,000 would be made to reconcile IFRS net income and IFRS stockholders equity to a U.S. GAAP basis. In 2010, a gain of $10,000 would be recognized under U.S. GAAP that would not

exist under IFRS. As a result, $10,000 would be added to IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP. By December 31, 2010, $20,000 of the gain would have been recognized under U.S. GAAP and included in retained earnings, whereas retained earnings under IFRS includes the entire $50,000 gain. Thus, $30,000 would be subtracted from IFRS stockholders equity at 12/31/09 to reconcile to U.S. GAAP stockholders equity. 15. (20 minutes) (Impairment of property, plant, and equipment) a. 1. In accordance with IAS 36, an asset is impaired when its carrying value exceeds its recoverable amount, which is the greater of (a) value in use (present value of expected future cash flows), and (b) net selling price, less costs to dispose. The carrying value of the equipment at December 31, 2009 is $80,000; original cost of $100,000 less accumulated depreciation of $20,000 [$100,000 / 5 years]. The assets recoverable amount is $75,000, so the asset is impaired. An impairment loss of $5,000 [$80,000 - $75,000] would be recognized at the end of 2009, in addition to depreciation expense for the year of $20,000. The equipment will be carried on the December 31, 2009 balance sheet at $75,000. 2. Under U.S. GAAP, an asset is impaired when its carrying value exceeds the expected future cash flows (undiscounted) to be derived from use of the asset. Expected future cash flows are $85,000, which exceeds the carrying value of $80,000, so the asset is not impaired. Depreciation expense for the year is $20,000 [$100,000 / 5 years], and the equipment will carried be on the December 31, 2009 balance sheet at $80,000. b. An impairment loss of $5,000 was recognized in 2009 under IFRS but not under U.S. GAAP. Therefore, $5,000 must be added to IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP net income in 2009. The same amount would be added to IFRS stockholders equity at December 31, 2009 to reconcile to U.S. GAAP. In 2010, depreciation under IFRS will be $18,750 [$75,000 / 4 years], whereas depreciation under U.S. GAAP is $20,000. $1,250 would be subtracted from IFRS net income to reconcile to U.S. GAAP net income in 2010. To reconcile stockholders equity to a U.S. GAAP basis at December 31, 2010, $3,750 must be added back to IFRS stockholders equity. This is the difference between the impairment loss of $5,000 in 2009 taken under IFRS and the difference in depreciation expense recognized under the two sets of standards in 2010. It is also equal to the difference in the carrying value of the equipment at December 31, 2010 under the two sets of accounting rules: Cost Depreciation, 2009 Impairment loss, 2009 Carrying value, 12/31/09 Depreciation, 2010 Carrying value, 12/31/10 IFRS $100,000 (20,000) (5,000) $75,000 (18,750) $56,250 U.S. GAAP $100,000 (20,000) 0 $80,000 (20,000) $60,000

Answers to Develop Your Skills Cases Analysis CaseApplication of IAS 16 This assignment demonstrates the effect one difference between IFRS and U.S. GAAP would have on a company's net income and stockholders' equity over a 20-year period. Depreciation expense in Years 1 and 2 under both sets of rules: $10,000,000 / 20 years = $500,000 per year The building has a book value of $9,000,000 on January 1, Year 3. On that date, under IFRS, Abacab would revalue the building through the following journal entry: Dr. Building Cr. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Under IFRS, the revalued amount of the building will be depreciated over the remaining useful life of 18 years at the rate of $666,667 per year [$12,000,000 / 18 years]. a. Depreciation Expense IFRS U.S. GAAP Book Value of Building IFRS U.S. GAAP Difference Year 2 $500,000 $500,000 1/2/Y3 $12,000,000 $9,000,000 $3,000,000 Year 3 $666,667 $500,000 12/31/Y3 $11,333,333 $8,500,000 $2,833,333 Year 4 $666,667 $500,000 12/31/Y4 $10,666,666 $8,000,000 $2,666,666

b.

c.

Pre-tax income will be $166,667 smaller in each year (Year 3 -Year 20) under IFRS. Cumulatively, IFRS-pretax income will be $3,000,000 smaller than U.S. GAAP pretax income over this 18-year period. Stockholders' equity will be $3,000,000 greater under IFRS at January 1, Year 3. This difference will reduce by $166,667 each year (due to greater IFRS depreciation expense), such that stockholders' equity will be the same under both sets of rules at December 31, Year 20. The difference in stockholders' equity each year is equal to the difference in the book value of the building.

Research CaseReconciliation to U.S. GAAP Note to instructors: The SEC no longer requires a U.S. GAAP reconciliation from foreign companies using IFRS. As more foreign companies adopt IFRS over time, it will become increasingly more difficult for students to find foreign companies that provide a U.S. GAAP reconciliation in their Form 20F. Exhibit 11.8 can help in identifying countries not using IFRS. In addition, students may find EDGAR to be of limited use in accessing foreign company annual reports because few foreign companies file electronically with the SEC. Instructors might want to emphasize to their students that they might have more luck accessing the annual report of their selected company from the company's website. This assignment requires students to find the note in Form 20-F in which foreign companies reconcile net income and stockholders' equity from foreign GAAP to U.S. GAAP. The responses to this assignment will depend upon the company selected by the student to research. Examining the reconciliation from foreign GAAP to U.S. GAAP in Form 20-F is a good way to learn some of the major differences between foreign and U.S. GAAP. Students may be surprised to learn how few adjustments most foreign companies make in reconciling to U.S. GAAP. Communication CaseSEC Concept Release The responses to these questions will vary by student. Issues that might be discussed for each question are listed below.

What incentives would a U.S. company have to prepare IFRS financial statements? Preparing IFRS financial statements would make it easier for analysts to compare the company with foreign competitors that use IFRS. It also would make it easier to list on foreign stock exchanges that require IFRS. Principles-based standard might provide more flexibility in financial reporting. (This flexibility might make it easier for companies to manage earnings.)

What do companies believe the cost of converting from U.S. GAAP to IFRS would be? Direct costs would include (1) training accounting personnel to apply IFRS, (2) determining the general ledger adjustments needed to convert account balances from a U.S. GAAP-basis to IFRS in the year of transition, and (3) revising the accounting system to apply IFRS going forward.

What would be the effects on the U.S. public capital markets of some U.S. companies reporting in accordance with IFRS and some in accordance with U.S. GAAP?

Making comparisons across companies using different accounting standards would be more difficult. The increased uncertainty and confusion for investors could lead to a decline in share prices.

What factors, if any, might lead to concern about the quality of audits of IFRS financial statements? Auditors would need to determine if different standards and procedures are needed in auditing IFRS financial statements. If so, they would need to learn how to audit IFRS financial statements. Concern about audit quality might exist during this learning period. The fact that IFRS are more principles-based and contain less guidance than U.S. GAAP could be a cause of concern for auditors.

Internet CaseForeign Company Annual Report The responses to this assignment will depend on the company selected by the student. A comparison of the findings across companies selected by students can lead to a lively classroom discussion. The instructor might wish to complete this assignment for a non-U S. company of his/her choice to lead the discussion.