Search

The 2015 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015 IASB CF ED) proposes a mixed valuation and transactions approach to income determination. Nevertheless, it does not clearly choose between single or dual concepts of profit, which renders the 2015 IASB CF ED’s financial accounting model somewhat incoherent. The 2015 IASB CF ED proposes a rebuttable presumption that profit or loss should be all-inclusive. Only the IASB can rebut this presumption, but the 2015 IASB CF ED provides no clear conceptual basis on which to rebut this presumption. In spite of considering dual measurement, the IASB believes that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to distinguish between profit or loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) on a conceptual basis. This paper suggests that the 2015 IASB CF ED’s approach to measurement can be improved by introducing a deprival value measurement rule in cases where fair value and historical cost are not appropriate. Furthermore, it argues that under dual measurement it is both necessary and possible to make a conceptual distinction between the realised items of income and expense in profit or loss and those recognised by accretion in OCI.

This paper has three aims. Firstly, to remind accounting academics, practitioners and standard setters of the origins and the substance of the equity theories and the debate surrounding them that took place from the late 19th century until the 1970s. Secondly, it seeks to understand why the equity theories do not play a role in current financial accounting and reporting theory, regulation and practice. It argues that never in history has there been a greater need to pick up the search for a comprehensive theory of financial accounting because international financial reporting standards are a reality in today’s world, and their development is in the hands of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Thirdly, it sketches the outline of a possible comprehensive theory of financial accounting and explains what we can and cannot expect from such a theory. We need a comprehensive theory of accounting because we need to improve our understanding of how different viewpoints of the publicly held corporation might impact income determination models and disclosure and valuation paradigms, and of the economic and social consequences that accounting and reporting according to the different viewpoints may have. Assuming that the IASB truly has the international public interest in mind, such understanding might impact the IASB Conceptual Framework and international financial accounting and reporting standards in the future.

We report on a case study of high Japanese student failure rates in an online MBA programme. Drawing on interviews, and reviews of exam and assignment scripts we frame the problems faced by these students in terms of a ‘language as social practice’ approach and highlight the students’ failure to understand the specific language games that underpin the course assessment approach. We note the way in which the distance learning and online context can make the challenges faced by international students less immediately visible to both students and institution.

The 2015 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015 IASB CF ED) proposes a mixed valuation and transactions approach to income determination. Nevertheless, it does not clearly choose between single or dual concepts of profit, which renders the 2015 IASB CF ED’s financial accounting model somewhat incoherent. The 2015 IASB CF ED proposes a rebuttable presumption that profit or loss should be all-inclusive. Only the IASB can rebut this presumption, but the 2015 IASB CF ED provides no clear conceptual basis on which to rebut this presumption. In spite of considering dual measurement, the IASB believes that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to distinguish between profit or loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) on a conceptual basis. This paper suggests that the 2015 IASB CF ED’s approach to measurement can be improved by introducing a deprival value measurement rule in cases where fair value and historical cost are not appropriate. Furthermore, it argues that under dual measurement it is both necessary and possible to make a conceptual distinction between the realised items of income and expense in profit or loss and those recognised by accretion in OCI.

We report on a case study of high Japanese student failure rates in an online MBA programme. Drawing on interviews, and reviews of exam and assignment scripts we frame the problems faced by these students in terms of a ‘language as social practice’ approach and highlight the students’ failure to understand the specific language games that underpin the course assessment approach. We note the way in which the distance learning and online context can make the challenges faced by international students less immediately visible to both students and institution.

This paper has three aims. Firstly, to remind accounting academics, practitioners and standard setters of the origins and the substance of the equity theories and the debate surrounding them that took place from the late 19th century until the 1970s. Secondly, it seeks to understand why the equity theories do not play a role in current financial accounting and reporting theory, regulation and practice. It argues that never in history has there been a greater need to pick up the search for a comprehensive theory of financial accounting because international financial reporting standards are a reality in today’s world, and their development is in the hands of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Thirdly, it sketches the outline of a possible comprehensive theory of financial accounting and explains what we can and cannot expect from such a theory. We need a comprehensive theory of accounting because we need to improve our understanding of how different viewpoints of the publicly held corporation might impact income determination models and disclosure and valuation paradigms, and of the economic and social consequences that accounting and reporting according to the different viewpoints may have. Assuming that the IASB truly has the international public interest in mind, such understanding might impact the IASB Conceptual Framework and international financial accounting and reporting standards in the future.