Similarities and Differences Essay
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
Comparisons between the iGAAP and U.S. GAAP
There happens to be important resemblances and dissimilarities between International GAAP and the United States GAAP in the accounting for intangible assets. Resemblances as well as dissimilarities should not come at a surprise to the accounting profession. U.S. GAAP compared to any other entity has similarities and differences, so therefore the iGAAP is no different. It is estimated that corporate management spends around 50 to 90 percent on their time managing and measuring intangible assets CITATION Wil01 \l 1033 (Williams, 2001).
To begin knowing what GAAP stands for; Generally Accepted Accounting Principle and are shared establishment of accounting principles, standards, and procedures that companies use to compile their financial statements. There is a mixture of influential standards and generally accepted ways of recording and reporting the accounting data. iGAAP is the international generally accepted accounting principles (IFRS).
Among differences in the U.S.GAAP and the iGAAP in reference of the intangible assets is significant. International GAAP accepts a limited capitalization of internally generated intangible assets, if there happens to be a chance it is going to be an upcoming advantage and quantity can be consistently measured however the United States GAAP necessitates expensing of all costs related to internally generated intangibles CITATION Kei \l 1033 (Keiso, 2013).
International GAAP also necessitates an assessment of impairment to every reporting day or long-standing assets and intangibles as well as records. United States GAAP simply measures the additional of carrying quantity over the asset’s fair valueCITATION Kei \l 1033 (Keiso, 2013). International GAAP permits reversal of damaged losses when there were an alteration in economic situations or in the predictable use of the assets, but United States GAAP, diminishing losses can’t be reversed for assets to be detained and utilized.
However, iGAAP, corporations identify acquired in-process research and development (IPR&D) as a distinct intangible strength if it meets the meaning of an intangible asset and its fair value can be determined dependably, however United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles presently commands corporations to mark off acquired IPR&D CITATION Kei \l 1033 (Keiso, 2013). Similarities in the U.S. GAAP and iGAAP when discussing intangible assets are not as significant as the differences. The similarities do present a hurdle for accounting purposes between the two entities because intangibles can’t be stated on the balance sheet or even given due credit for having a part on the income statement CITATION Jar10 \l 1033 (Jarboe, 2010). U.S.GAAP says solitary intangibles purchased from external sources of the corporation can be encompassed in a corporation’s financial statement. Also, internally produced intangibles are precisely omitted.
The two entities are alike because of accounting for impairment of assets held for clearance CITATION Kei \l 1033 (Keiso, 2013). The two entities are similar because intangible assets acquired in a business blend. For example, “a business identifies an intangible asset independently from goodwill if the intangible signifies pledged or legal rights or is capable of being disconnected or separated and retailed, relocated, licensed, lent, or swapped” CITATION Kei \l 1033 (Keiso, 2013). There are future plans to help the two entities to converge on the subject of intangible assets. The project is early on in the process but would consider expansion of recognition of internally generated intangible assets.
The challenge for convergence between the two entities in reference to the intangible assets because of the established ban on capitalizing internally generated intangible assets and research and development in the United States GAAP. There is a chance that intangible assets will be recorded at cost for both entities. The main goal is to find an “international benchmark” policy CITATION Tar051 \l 1033 (Tarca, 2005) that will allow for commonality among the two entities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Jarboe, K. &. (2010). Intangible Assets: Innovative Financing for Innovation. Issues In Science & Technology, 75-80. Keiso, D. W. (2013). Intermediate Accounting . Hoboken: Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tarca, A. (2005). INTERNATIONAL CONVERGENCE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE USE OF IAS “OPTIONS” NOT ACCEPTABLE UNDER US GAAP. International Journal Of Business Studies, 67-86. Williams, K. (2001). Intangible Assets. Strategic Finance,, 19.