指导美国作业:A comparision between U.S. and U.K. accoun_美国作业_留学生作业

这是一篇美国留学生指导作业范文，本文论述了美国和英国的一个著名案例，首先考察了两国的金融相关环境，包括政治、经济和法律制度。比较试图找出报告两国差异的原因。在此之后，对这两个报告系统的主要区别进行了更详细的描述。然后，本文介绍了IBM公司的一个实际案例。
This article deals with an eminent case of U.S. and U.K. It will first look into the financial relevant environments of the two countries, including political, economic and legal systems. The comparison tries to locate the reasons behind reporting differences of the two countries. Following this, a more detailed description is given on the major distinctions of the two reporting systems. The article then presents a practical case of IBM Company.

相关金融环境
一般来说，美国和英国在许多方面都非常相似。两国之间的历史联系导致了相似的政治、经济和法律制度。作为民主国家，美国和英国都有相似的政治价值观。尽管值得注意的是，美国在联邦名单制度下运作，而英国的政治结构更加集中。因此，美国公司更有可能受到联邦和州两级监管。从经济角度看，两国的基本精神是建立一个相对自由的市场，最大限度地减少政府参与的作用，而政府参与的作用通常被称为“不干涉经济”。确保机会和竞争的平等是自由市场框架的基础。在这些经济体中，政府不太可能制定统一的强制性会计法规。相反，这种权力被授予市场层面，这也有很强的激励，以确保会计职业的适当发展。事实上，美国和英国的情况正是如此。美国和英国的法律体系处于普通法框架之下，这意味着它们更多地依赖先例而不是既定的法规。在普通法制度下，立法对会计职业的影响较小。

Relevant Financial Environments
Generally speaking, U.S. and U.K. are very similar in many aspects. The historical links between the two countries result in similar political, economic and legal systems. Both as democratic countries, U.S. and U.K. share similar political values. Although it is also important to note that U.S. operates under a federal list system while UK’s political structure is more concentrated. As a result, U.S. companies are more likely to be subject to two levels of regulation, the federal level and the state level. From an economic perspective, the essential spirits of the two countries are both to create a relatively liberal market and minimize the role of government involved, which is often referred to as a hands-off economy. To ensure equality of opportunity and competition is the foundation of a liberal market framework. In such economies, it is less likely that government will set up a uniform compulsory accounting regulation. Instead, this power is delegated to the market level, which also has strong incentive to insure a proper development of accounting profession. This is actually exactly the case in U.S. and U.K. The law systems in U.S. and U.K. are under common law framework, which means they rely more on precedential cases rather than established statutes. Under the common law system, the emphasis is usually on shareholders and legislative has less influence on accounting profession.

尽管美国和英国的财务环境非常相似，但欧洲一体化进程对英国的会计发展也有很大影响。与英国不同，欧洲大陆采用了一套不同的会计原则。为了更好地融入欧盟，英国正在对其财务报告制度进行许多改革。

In spite of the fact that U.S. and U.K. have very similar financial environments, the process of European integration also has large influences on the accounting development of U.K. Unlike U.K., continental Europe adopts a different set of accounting principles. To better fit into the European Union, U.K. is making many changes to its financial reporting systems.

监管框架
概念框架指的是目标和原则的连贯系统。一个框架将阐明财务会计的性质、功能和局限性。一致性框架的存在对于确保商业实践中财务报告的一致性至关重要。在美国，公司通常遵循公认会计原则，这是公认会计原则的简称。公认会计准则包括会计人员在记录和汇总以及编制财务报表时遵循的标准、惯例和规则。其规则和公告主要来自一个非营利组织：财务会计准则委员会，由私营部门设立，以促进一致报告制度的发展（FASB，2011年）。在英国，2005年之前，所有公司都采用英国公认会计准则，其主要制定者是会计准则委员会。然而，2005年之后，由于欧洲法律要求所有欧洲上市公司应根据国际财务报告准则（IFRSS）进行报告（Jermakowicza&Gornik Tomaszewski，2006年），英国公认会计准则的主导地位被削弱。未上市公司可以选择国际财务报告准则和英国公认会计准则。值得注意的是，最近发布的英国公认会计准则在很大程度上转向了国际财务报告准则，这大大减少了两者之间的差异。

国际财务报告准则和公认会计准则在许多方面都有很大的不同。从概念上讲，国际财务报告准则的主要目标是确保财务报表的可理解性、可比性、相关性和可靠性（国际财务报告准则，2011年），而美国公认会计准则则更注重相关性和可靠性。美国公认会计准则更基于规则，它在许多情况下提供了具体的指导。但国际财务报告准则更基于原则。更具体的定义差异包括，国际财务报告准则仅定义收入和支出，而公认会计准则区分收入、支出、收益和损失。

Regulatory Framework
A conceptual framework refers to a coherent system of objectives and principles. A framework will clarify the nature, the function and limits of financial accounting. The existence of a coherent framework is important to assure consistent financial reporting in commercial practice. In the United States, companies generally follow GAAP, which is short for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. GAAP includes the standards, conventions, and rules accountants follow in recording and summarizing, and in the preparation of financial statements. Its rules and announcement mostly come from a non-profit organization: Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is established by the private sector to promote the development of a consistent reporting system (FASB, 2011). In U.K., before 2005, all companies adopt the UK GAAP, whose primary setter is Accounting Standards Board. However, after 2005, the dominance of UK GAAP is diminished as European Law requires that all listed European companies should report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) (Jermakowicza & Gornik-Tomaszewski, 2006). Companies that are not listed have the option to choose between IFRS and UK GAAP. It is important to note that recently issued UK GAAP has largely moved towards IFRSs, which greatly reduced their differences.

IFRS and GAAP are very different in many aspects. Conceptually, IFRSs’ primary goal is to insure understandability, comparability, relevance and reliability of financial statements (IFRS, 2011) while US GAAP concentrates more on relevance and reliability. US GAAP is more rule-based that it provides specific guidance in many cases. But IFRS is more principle-based. More specific definition differences include that IFRS only define income and expenses while GAAP differentiates between revenue, expenses, gains and losses.

会计准则和会计方法的重大差异
两种财务会计系统的一个显著区别是存货的处理方式。根据国际财务报告准则，存货的计量以实际的实际存货流量为基础。它假设先购买或生产的存货也先出售。在此假设下，可采用先进先出（FIFO）法和平均成本法（国际财务报告准则，2011年）。相反，在美国，后进先出（lifo）更受欢迎，这导致收入减少，从而减少税收（gaap 2011）。但国际财务报告准则禁止后进先出法。除了测量存货流量的不同方法外，GAAP也不允许存货价值（GAAP 2011）在减记后的恢复，而国际财务报告准则确认存货价值的后续恢复（国际财务报告准则，2011年）。

国际财务报告准则和美国公认会计准则的另一个重要区别是，公认会计准则不允许对财产和设备进行任何向上的重估。但就国际财务报告准则而言，这些固定资产可以向上重估。它们在重估日以公允价值减去重估后的累计折旧进行报告。如果重估价超过原减记额，超出部分将直接调整为权益（国际财务报告准则，2011年）。

Major Differences of Accounting Rules and Methods
One distinct difference between the two financial accounting systems is the way inventory is treated. Under IFRS, inventory measurement is based on the actual physical inventory flow. It assumes that inventory that is purchased or produced first is also sold first. Under this assumption, first-in, first-out (FIFO) method and the average cost method can be used (IFRS, 2011). On the contrary, in the United States, last-in, first-out (LIFO) is more popular used, which results in lower revenue and thus fewer taxes (GAAP 2011). But LIFO is prohibited in IFRS. Except for the different ways of measuring inventory flow, GAAP also does not allow the recovery of inventory value (GAAP 2011) once it is written down while IFRS recognizes subsequent recovery in the inventory values (IFRS, 2011).

Another important measurement distinction between IFRS and US GAAP is that GAAP doesn’t allow any upward revaluations of property and equipment. But in the case of IFRS, these fixed assets can be revalued upward. They are reported at fair value at the revaluation date less the accumulated depreciation since revaluation. If the revaluation exceeds the original written down, the exceeding part will be adjusted directly to equity (IFRS, 2011).#p#分页标题#e#

在损益表部分，一般公认会计准则和国际财务报告准则对建造合同的会计处理是不同的。根据国际财务报告准则，如果公司不能可靠地估计项目的结果，则只能在项目完成时确认利润（国际财务报告准则，2011年）。在美国公认会计准则下，可接受的会计方法包括完工百分比法和完工合同法。当计算折旧时，如果公司选择改变根据国际财务报告准则允许的折旧方法，GAAP不允许进行预期调整。在测量非经常项目时，GAAP将非经常项目视为性质上不寻常且不经常发生（GAAP，2011年）。它们在损益表中报告，扣除税款，低于持续经营的收入。但国际财务报告准则不允许非经常项目的概念。在研发的情况下，GAAP通常会支出研发成本（软件除外），而国际财务报告准则允许在满足某些标准的情况下资本化这些成本。

In the Income Statement Part, GAAP and IFRS are different in accounting for construction contracts. Under IFRS, if the firm cannot reliably estimate the outcome of the projects, profits can only be recognized at project completion (IFRS, 2011). While under US GAAP, acceptable accounting method includes percentage-of-completion method and completed-contract method. When accounting for depreciation, GAAP does not allow for prospective adjustment if firm chooses to change depreciation method, which is permissible under IFRS. In measuring nonrecurring items, GAAP treats an extraordinary item as both unusual in nature and infrequent in occurrence (GAAP, 2011). They are reported in the income statement, net of tax, below income from continuing operations. But IFRS does not permit the idea of extraordinary items. In the case of R&D, GAAP usually expense R&D costs except for the case of software while IFRS allow capitalizing these casts if certain criteria are met.