原则导向会计准则研究外文文献翻译 (含：英文原文及中文译文) 文献出处： Gary Kablake. The research of principle-oriented accounting standardsJ Compliance Week, 2016.6(4): 10-21.英文原文 The research of principle-oriented accounting standardsGary KablakeThe debate on principle-oriented accounting rules and rules-oriented accounting principles has been going on for decades. In the foreseeable future, this kind of argument cannot be ended. Of course, this is a useful argument. If the principles are set too high, there will be many issues such as comparability and other challenges; and overly detailed rules will lead to unnecessary complexity and induce the subject to conduct business. Structured design.In this area, I have spent forty years as an auditor and financial report editor in the United States. As a member of the International Accounting Standards Board, I have been involved for several years, so I can easily learn from it. A different perspective to observe this issue. In contrast, I think there is no doubt that using the principle-oriented approach to building accounting standards is a better and feasible way.However, the principle-oriented approach can only succeed if it has certain prerequisites for certain technologies and concepts. This is the central topic of this article.The starting point of principle-oriented accounting standards is the powerful conceptual frameworkBoth the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have a well-designed, closely-intuitive similar conceptual framework that provides a global umbrella for many aspects of financial reporting at a high level. Among other goals, the conceptual framework also provides guidance to financial report preparers and auditors in the absence of guidelines at the guideline level.For example, the concept framework of the International Accounting Standards Board is clear and the accounting policies formulated by the entity must produce clear and honest outcomes. The substantive emphasis is on form prioritization, neutrality, and impartiality. All available information is considered in its entirety and the results can be reviewed. Wait. The conceptual framework also provides a concise definition of the assets and liabilities.I can continue to give examples, but I would like to point out that in order to avoid rule-oriented accounting rules, there must first be a theoretically reasonable, sensible and understandable conceptual basis so that all participants can find guidance in them. This point, the International Accounting Standards Board has already achieved.Rules cant cover everythingIf the rules are all-encompassing, then a lot of accountants are not needed, and a computer with a decision tree can solve every problem. Fortunately, no one is enthusiastic about it. However, such a hypothetical question touches on a key point: How many detailed rules must be considered excessive?If the goal of formulating rules is to completely eliminate non-comparability, this is a daydream and cannot be achieved at all. Very detailed rules, the results of which can only lead to flexibility in the processing and structured design of the business, and the entity can always achieve its own purpose, Imagine 89.9% of the current lease accounting for 90% of this situation is enough. If you formulate a detailed rule to deal with it, this new rule will become another flexible operation opportunity.Where is the end? I remember that the “Derivative Financial Tools Application Group” once formulated rules for scrutiny and nitpicking as many as several hundred pages. The key point of the problem is that these detailed rules cannot answer all questions. When detailed rules do not solve the problem, professional judgments will debut and play a role.And dont forget that rules do not prevent well-planned bad behavior. Some of the largest financial accounting frauds that have occurred in the past 15 years include some marginal and ambiguous transactions. As a result, they have also become a typical case of technical compliance and technical compliance. In addition, if the mentality of engaging in bad behavior is “If you can stop me if you have the ability”, then it doesnt really matter what the rules say.I am not saying that the detailed rules are absolutely unnecessary. I mean, under normal circumstances, they cannot rely on detailed rules to consistently achieve their goals. Rules are often masked by their own red tape.Therefore, a strong conceptual framework is the appropriate starting point, and detailed rules often lose the overall goal. Then, where are the forward paths for formulating and implementing principle-oriented accounting standards to produce comparable results?I think that the answer will be found in the following three interrelated steps: the expression of accounting standards, respect for professional judgments, and understanding of the most important needs of the main users of fi