Question

英语高手 帮忙翻译一下 谢谢了！！！！！！！！

On the other hand, IFRS's principlesbased accounting pronouncements emphasize the spirit of the accounting standard rather than strict adherence to a written rule. Consequently, substance-over-form is the distinguishing factor between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. IFRS lends itself to the substance of the argument in that it attempts to capture the spirit and intent of an economic transaction. U.S. GAAP, on the other hand, tends to focus more on form, because following the letter of the standard is of the utmost importance, regardless of the possible differences between the reality of an economic transaction and the reporting of that transaction.
IAS 1 requires that transactions be accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and not merely their legal form. Conspicuous by its absence is the importance of similar treatment under U.S. GAAP. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts (SFAC) 2 states:
Substance over form is an idea that also has its proponents, but it is not included because it would be redundant. The quality of reliability and, in particular, of representational faithfulness, leaves no room for accounting representations that subordinate substance to form. Substance over form is, in any case, a rather vague idea that defies precise definition. [Appendix B, paragraph 160]
Because the concept of substance over form is not an enforceable rule under the AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 203, it appears to be relegated to a position of lesser importance.
Former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn Turner has opined: "When one goes to a more principles-based approach, one outcome is that you establish a basic principle and do not permit alternatives to the principle." True, rules-based accounting principles did not stop the recent spate of accounting fraud here in the U.S. However, principles-based accounting standards probably would not have thwarted such accounting shenanigans either. In a rules-based system, unscrupulous individuals can argue: "Show me in the rules where I cannot do that." A principles-based system however, leaves much room for interpretation and could potentially open the door for yet more accounting games.

Answer 1

另一方面,IFRS的principlesbased会计公告强调了精神的会计标准,而不是严格遵守书面统治。因此,substance-over-form之间的区别因素与美国会计。IFRSIFRS的物质的论据,它试图捕捉和意图的经济交易。美国公认会计准则的前提下,另一方面,往往更多地关注形式,因为以下文字上的标准是至关重要的,无论是现实的差异的一个经济交易和报告的交易。
IAS 1要求交易,按照他们的物质提出,不仅仅是他们的法律形式。因为它的重要性是没有类似的待遇。根据美国公认会计准则。财务会计概念的声明SFAC(2):
物质形态是在一种想法,也有它的支持者,但这并不是因为它将多余的。可靠的质量,尤其是信实的代表性,毋庸会计表现形式,下属的物质。物质在表格,在任何情况下,一个相当模糊的想法,难以精确的定义。[附录B款1.6]
因为这个概念的物质形态没有发生法律效力了统治下的同业的职业行为标准规则,它似乎是203号被放到一个较小的重要地位。
前美国证券交易委员会(SEC)总会计师林恩·特纳说:“有一个人去的时候,有更多的原则性方法的结果是你建立一个基本原理和不允许选择原则。”真的,有序的会计原则并未阻止近期财务欺诈在美国国内会计准则,大概不会有这样的会计骗局受挫。该系统中,没有人会争辩说:“给我在哪里,我不能这样做规则。”然而,一个原则性系统以更大的空间,同时还可能解释为更多的会计的游戏。

Answer 2

另一方面,IFRS的principlesbased会计公告强调了精神的会计标准,而不是严格遵守书面统治。因此,substance-over-form之间的区别因素与美国会计。IFRSIFRS的物质的论据,它试图捕捉和意图的经济交易。美国公认会计准则的前提下,另一方面,往往更多地关注形式,因为以下文字上的标准是至关重要的,无论是现实的差异的一个经济交易和报告的交易。
IAS 1要求交易,按照他们的物质提出,不仅仅是他们的法律形式。因为它的重要性是没有类似的待遇。根据美国公认会计准则。财务会计概念的声明SFAC(2):
物质形态是在一种想法,也有它的支持者,但这并不是因为它将多余的。可靠的质量,尤其是信实的代表性,毋庸会计表现形式,下属的物质。物质在表格,在任何情况下,一个相当模糊的想法,难以精确的定义。[附录B款1.6]
因为这个概念的物质形态没有发生法律效力了统治下的同业的职业行为标准规则,它似乎是203号被放到一个较小的重要地位。
前美国证券交易委员会(SEC)总会计师林恩·特纳说:“有一个人去的时候,有更多的原则性方法的结果是你建立一个基本原理和不允许选择原则。”真的,有序的会计原则并未阻止近期财务欺诈在美国国内会计准则,大概不会有这样的会计骗局受挫。该系统中,没有人会争辩说:“给我在哪里,我不能这样做规则。”然而,一个原则性系统以更大的空间,同时还可能解释为更多的会计的游戏。