Rules, principles and judgments in accounting standards

The distinction between rules‐based and principles‐based standards is not well defined and is subject to a variety of interpretations (SEC, 2003, p. 5). Yet there is a commonly held view that the FASB's standards are rules‐based and the IASB's standards are principles‐based. This article i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAbacus (Sydney) Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 189 - 204
Main Authors Bennett, Bruce, Bradbury, Michael, Prangnell, Helen
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Melbourne, Australia Blackwell Publishing Asia 01.06.2006
Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
SeriesAbacus
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0001-3072
1467-6281
DOI10.1111/j.1467-6281.2006.00197.x

Cover

More Information
Summary:The distinction between rules‐based and principles‐based standards is not well defined and is subject to a variety of interpretations (SEC, 2003, p. 5). Yet there is a commonly held view that the FASB's standards are rules‐based and the IASB's standards are principles‐based. This article identifies the basis of this distinction. For research and development, the article compares the FASB standard with two principles‐based standards. For each standard we identify and classify rules and judgments, and observe the level of justifications for the rules and assistance to support the judgments. The three standards have rules, are based on principles, and require the exercise of professional judgment; the less conservative standard requires more judgments and, unexpectedly, more rules. The results suggest that the rules‐based versus principles‐based distinction is not meaningful, except in relative terms. We conclude that a relatively more principles‐based standards regime requires professional judgment at both the transaction level (substance over form) and at the financial statement level (‘true and fair view’ override). Furthermore, it is suggested that any FASB and IASB convergence will require agreement on the weightings given to the qualitative characteristics.
Bibliography:istex:55C2BAB3B07E9E7EED03FB20083C8ACBDD887107
ark:/67375/WNG-GRPPP2BW-X
ArticleID:ABAC197
Abacus (Sydney), v.42, no.2, June 2006: 189-204
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ISSN:0001-3072
1467-6281
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6281.2006.00197.x