Ifrs Adoption Affects Taxes, The Mergence Or Adoption Of The International Financial Reporting Standards

In 2014, a study from PricewaterhouseCoopers pointed that American investors are looking over-seas’ capital market for investment opportunities, and foreign investors are also looking for investing opportunities in America. According to the research from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2014, an estimates shows that there are around seven trillion US dollars are invested in foreign stock markets, and American markets are open to non-US firms too. Many of the foreign companies use IFRS rule without any reconciliation to GAAP.

The United States is currently going through a big decision. It is deciding on whether to fully adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or to stay with the current U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Since this is such a major decision, now would be an opportune time to take a look at what the pros and cons would be of switching to this new way of financial reporting, and in doing so, show why I believe the costs (both financial and otherwise) are too high to adopt a new set of reporting standards.

The issue of adoption of international financial reporting standards (IFRSS) in Australia has been controversial issue since the first time Australian Financial Reporting council (FRC) announced the policy in 2002. Many believe that IFRSS adoption will lead to great advantages such as enhance financial report comparability, improve quality of financial reporting, attract more foreign investor, and other significant advantages. However, some also believe that the adoption merely result in disadvantages and cost for Australian business, accounting profession and even Australian government.

LIFO was the hardest for me to grasp because of the logic and that it could provide a tax break for the company. I had trouble understanding the concept of the LIFO because I kept thinking of the concept backwards. I also had a hard time understanding the tax break because I didn’t understand why it happened. After reading the material again I noticed that where costs of inventory become high over time the LIFO method created a condition in which the less expensive inventory was recorded. This showed that the more expensive items were recently purchased creating a lower profit and a smaller income that could be taxed.

There are four accepted inventory methods: Specific Unit Cost, Average Cost, FIFO, and LIFO. Unique inventory items are recorded in inventory by the cost of that unit or specific unit cost. Non-unique items use one of the other 3 methods. The average-cost method is: average cost = cost of goods available / number of units available. The first-in, first-out (FIFO) method assigns the first costs into inventory to the first cost of goods sold. The last-in, first-out (LIFO) method assigns the last costs into inventory to the first cost of goods sold. Since inventory costs can vary, companies may choose an inventory method based on tax advantages. When prices are falling, FIFO will have the lowest taxable income. When prices are rising, LIFO has the lowest taxable

e LIFO cost flow method of inventory costing (Martin, J. R.). From Harry Davis’ article, a search for alternatives of the base stock method started, because of the base stock method was no longer apply to the income tax purposes, the acceptance of LIFO by professional groups represents the last part its early development. If the idea of LIFO was not being permitted, there will be a huge loss on the development of the accounting tools. Nobody will know that there is a method of inventory management could help company for the tax purpose. According to Steven Bragg’s article, nowadays, the LIFO method is not applying for IFRS. Although IRS allows the LIFO method, but it must apply for all parts of the financial reports (July, 2017). The Treasury claimed that is hard for them to management and regulate the information if LIFO were applied to a large group of people that using LIFO for the tax purposes. Congress compensated some industries with LIFO, because some of industries was unsuccessful in getting the internal revenue service to recognize of their business practices. The hearings for the 1938 Revenue Act indicate that LIFO was considered appropriate only under the conditions listed

LIFO results in the matching of current costs with current revenues and produces higher quality earnings than either FIFO or average cost. Inventory accounting system used is described in the note that details accounting policies or the note that discusses inventory.

“The uproar over fair value accounting practices, which some critics have blamed for the depths of the global financial crisis, threatens to sink a long-sought move by countries around the world toward a single set of international financial reporting standards (IFRS). The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been working with London's International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) since 2002 toward what accounting professionals call convergence. The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to announce its road map for conversion sometime this month, which will probably include early adoption in 2010 for about 110 of the largest U.S. companies with business operations throughout the world. The key difference between U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and IFRS is that U.S. standards are based on explicit rules while the international standards' reliance on principles gives companies more room to use their judgment in deciding how to recognize revenue and other key metrics. Adoption of IFRS would also probably trigger a big tax hike for U.S. companies, which would no longer be able to use the last-in-first-out [LIFO] inventory accounting method, which doesn't exist under the international standards. The LIFO method assumes that goods purchased most recently are sold first and that the

Since 2002, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) have been working toward “convergence” of US General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). They have made significant progress in efforts to converge critical accounting standards such as those dealing with revenue recognition, financial instruments and leases. Once these projects are complete, the "era" of convergence will be at an end. Nevertheless, the benefits for investors of eventually getting to consistently applied, high-quality, globally accepted accounting

States. Companies should report income, liability, equity, and assets. Many people (stockholders, investors, etc.) who have a stake in the company want to know this information before providing a service. In this paper, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) will be compared for

The following research paper is about the new joint revenue recognition principles that were unveiled by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which standardizes generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) on recognition of revenue in the United States. The new joint revenue recognition principle was created to increase the financial transparency and the comparability within the industries in the United States of America, and as well as the industries throughout the world. The companies in the United States currently use the GAAP standards and the rest of the world uses the IFRS. But each country

How inventory costs are handled is another area in which the IFRS and U.S. GAAP differ. Under U.S. GAAP, a company can either use the last-in, first-out (LIFO) or the first-in, first-out (FIFO) inventory method. Under IFRS, the LIFO method is not allowed to be used. The advantage to having one accounting standard is enhanced comparability between countries. It also removes the need to have to adjust LIFO inventories to FIFO inventories in comparison analysis between companies that use different accounting standards.

The multiple differences between GAAP and IFRS have been the biggest struggle for the IASB, FASB, and SEC because it has elongated the completion of the Convergence Project. The first difference between the two is that GAAP permits last in first out (LIFO), while IFRS prohibits LIFO (Kemp & Waybright, p. 260). The FASB and IASB have attempted to minimize this difference by switching all programs to first in first out (FIFO). This could affect U.S. companies because they could no longer move the costs of products from inventory to the cost of goods sold. A second difference is that IFRS has different accounting policies than GAAP. IFRS does not require uniform accounting policies between parent and subsidiary, while GAAP does. In order to minimize this difference, the FASB and IASB have been working towards the IFRS approach. This could affect U.S. companies because they would have to allow certain policies that they did not have before. The third difference is that IFRS uses a single-step method for impairment write-downs rather than the two-step method used in GAAP. The FASB and IASB have been pushing towards to single step method. This would particularly affect those Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) who work for U.S.

With complete notion and awareness of how each country has their set of rules, “the goal of IFRS is to provide a global framework for how public companies prepare and disclose their financial statements” (Rouse, 2011). This view is meant to provide general guidelines, as well as international comparisons through conventional and edifying means. To bring broader and vivid objectives, IFRS replaced IAS, the older standards, in order to bring a more comprehensive and simplified accounting procedures.

The study focused on the adoption process of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on a developing economy, with particular reference to Nigeria. The paper is based on the data obtained from literature survey and archival sources in the context of the globalization of International Financial Reporting and the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).Nigeria has embraced IFRS in order to participate in the benefits it offers, including attracting foreign direct investment, reduction of the cost of doing business, and cross border listing. In implementing IFRS Nigeria will face challenges including the development of a legal and regulatory framework, awareness campaign, and training of personnel.