Jens Wüstemann

Revenue Recognition under IFRS Revisited - Conceptual Models, Current Proposals and Practical Consequences

Abstract Since 2002, the FASB and the IASB have been undertaking a joint project on the revision and convergence of US GAAP and IFRS revenue recognition. Even though the outcome of the project is still open, the projects course as well as trends in recently published IFRS and other current IASB projects suggest that existing earnings-based and realisation-based IFRS revenue recognition criteria are likely to be replaced by a radically new approach. This paper demonstrates the inconsistencies in current IFRS revenue recognition that have triggered the project and then presents and discusses three conceptually different revenue recognition models that are internationally debated at present. The paper concludes that a major revision of existing IFRS revenue recognition as proposed by the FASB and the IASB is not required. It is argued that the perceived deficiencies should rather be solved on the basis of current transaction-based IFRS revenue criteria.

Normative Bilanztheorie und Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Gewinnrealisierung für Mehrkomponentenverträge

ZusammenfassungSowohl im Rahmen der Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Bilanzierung als auch der IFRS ist die Gewinnrealisierung bei Mehrkomponentenverträgen derzeit ungelöst. In diesem Beitrag wird zunächst aus dem handelsrechtlichen Bilanzzweck ein anwendungsscharfes Normsystem für die Gewinnrealisierung bei Mehrkomponentenverträgen dem Grunde und der Höhe nach abgeleitet. Im Rahmen der anschließenden Analyse der Ertragsvereinnahmung nach IFRS kommen die Autoren zu dem Ergebnis, dass eine direkte Übertragung der Regelungslösungen der US-GAAP, wie sie von deutschen Bilanzierenden in praxi betrieben werden mag, nicht nur im handelsrechtlichen Jahresabschluss und in der Steuerbilanz, sondern auch im IFRS-Abschluss deutscher Unternehmen inadäquat ist. Der Beitrag schließt mit der These, dass die hier abgeleitete Bilanzierungslösung in allen drei Regelwerken an die Stelle der US-GAAP-Regelungen treten kann.SummaryThe recognition of revenue in the case of multiple-element arrangements has yet neither been solved according to German accounting principles, nor according to IFRS. This article seeks to derive revenue recognition and measurement principles for multiple-element arrangements from the purpose of German accounting principles. In the context of the analysis of revenue recognition according to IFRS, the authors arrive at the conclusion that the US-GAAP revenue recognition guidance, which is presumably applied in the financial statements of German companies, is neither applicable in the individual accounts, nor in the tax balance sheet, nor in the financial statements of German companies drawn up in conformity with IFRS. The authors finally suggest that the revenue recognition and measurement principles as presented in this article may replace the US-GAAP guidance in all three types of financial statements.

Filling Gaps: Why Consistency of Accounting Standards Matters - Normative Evidence from the U.S. and Germany as Related to IFRS

Many accounting regimes, such as U. S. GAAP, IFRS, German GAAP (GoB) and Japanese GAAP, pursue internal consistency. One central methodical and practical problem in all regimes is how management shall develop and apply accounting policies when specific guidance relating to particular transactions and events does not exist. With regard to the so-called filling of gaps, we show that in an internally consistent regime management is required to choose and apply consistent accounting policies to comparable accounting issues in the absence of specific guidance. According to our analysis, the present IFRS regime fails to ensure this because IFRS dealing with comparable issues are partly inconsistent. We also find that the complete elimination of rules and the reliance on principles only − as requested by many in accounting theory − is not an adequate solution since broad principles do not provide a sufficient structure to frame managements judgment in the choice of accounting policies. We propose that accounting regimes should consist of principles as well as of rules and that the rules shall be consistently derived from high-level principles. Due to the required consistency between standards addressing comparable issues, managements discretion in the choice of adequate accounting policies would be, from a normative perspective, ideally limited to one acceptable accounting treatment. Our assessment includes arguments and propositions from the international discussion in accounting theory and also refers to other related fields of research, such as legal theory.

Das System der Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Buchführung nach dem Bilanzrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz

Mit der Veroffentlichung des „Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des Bilanzrechts (Bilanzrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz – BilMoG)– im Bundesgesetzblatt vom 28. Mai 2009 wurde die groste Reform des Bilanzrechts seit dem Bilanzrichtlinien- Gesetz von 1985 abgeschlossen. Die lange und wechselvolle Entstehungsgeschichte, deren Beginn zumindest bis zum Jahr 2004 zuruckreicht, ebenso wie die vielen, grundlegenden Anderungen vom Referentenentwurf uber den Regierungsentwurf bis hin zur endgultigen Verabschiedung, geben gleichermasen Zeugnis von Grose des Vorhabens wie von Schwierigkeiten der gesetzgeberischen Gestaltung: Radikale Vorschlage, die in das Bilanzrecht eingreifen sollten, wie etwa ein Wahlrecht zur Erstellung des Jahresabschlusses nach den internationalen Rechnungslegungsregeln (§ 264e HGB-E i. d. F. RefE), die Zeitwertbewertung bestimmter Finanzinstrumente fur alle Kaufleute (§ 253 Abs. 1 HGB-E i. d. F. RefE) und die Ansatzpflicht fur aktive latente Steuern (§ 274 Abs. 1 HGB-E i. d. F. RefE) wurden im Laufe des Gesetzgebungsverfahrens kassiert.

A Review of Bias Research in Auditing: Opportunities for Integrating Experimental Psychology and Experimental Economics

The objective of this paper is to show opportunities for integrating psychological and economics research in auditing. For this purpose, auditing research that employs both the methodologies of experimental psychology and experimental economics is collectively reviewed. The review is structured along three fundamental research questions: (1) Are auditors prone to biases; (2) what are the consequences of biased judgment in auditing; and (3) do features of the audit environment interact with the biased judgment? While both the research approach of experimental psychology and experimental economics are employed for addressing these resesarch questions, both approaches differ in their focus and their implementation. This review highlights these differences, outlines the main findings and identifies future research opportunities.