|
Description:
|
Досліджено еволюційні зміни визначень понять “актив” і “зобов’язання” в Концептуальних основах фінансової звітності та причини, що їх обумовили. Розглянуто доцільність тлумачення активу як поточного економічного ресурсу, який контролюється суб’єктом господарювання в результаті минулих подій, а зобов’язання – як поточного обов’язку суб’єкта господарювання передати економічний ресурс, який контролюється ним у результаті минулих подій. Вивчено розуміння порогу ймовірності до і після змін у визначеннях цих понять. З’ясовано наслідки нових змін для погодженого
розуміння їх сутності розробниками і фахівцями-практиками. The purpose of this article is to investigate the evolutionary logic of defi ning assets and liabilities under the infl uence of changes in the Conceptual Framework of Financial Reporting, the causes, and consequences of these changes in a consistent understanding by developers and practitioners.
The evolutionary changes in the defi nitions of assets and liabilities in the Conceptual Framework of Financial Reporting and the reasons that led to these changes have been investigated. The reasons are different interpretations of probability and expected benefi ts; and asymmetric asset and liability identifi cation. The expediency of interpreting an asset as a current economical resource that is controlled by an entity as a result of past events and the obligation as a current obligation of the entity to transfer an economic resource as a result of past events have been interpreted. Found different formulations of these interpretations encourage a rethinking of past practices and move towards the symmetry of assets and liabilities identifi cation. The new criterion for defi ning obligatory such as “no practical ability to avoid” complicates the goal of changes because it requires the use of additional
valuation judgments in practice. Understanding of the probability threshold before and after changes in asset and liabilities definitions has been examined. It was found that the old asset and liabilities
defi nitions have no bearing on the judgment as to whether the asset existence. Participants use a higher probability threshold in assets recognition than in liabilities recognition. The implications of the changes for a consistent understanding between setters and practitioners have been identifi ed. In particular, new changes in asset and liability defi nitions improve the implementation of the IASB goals and better align participants’ judgments with setters’ intentions. It is established that IFRS is now suffi ciently complete to cover virtually all transactions and events within the scope of the direct standard, although it does not exclude the need to use the Conceptual Framework not only by the standards setters but also by experts, auditors, lawyers, scholars and economic students on economic faculties. |