<<
>>

2.2. Research of consequences of transition on MSFO in various areas of state regulation

on MSFO in various areas go-sudarstvennogo regulations is expedient for beginning Research of consequences of transition with system of gosudarstven th statistics. This results from the fact that the primary goal of the state statistics decided at use of the financial reporting, the data and processing of the same indicators of the various organisations is.
Thereupon paramount requirement of statistical bodies is odnoob-razie the represented financial reporting, therefore the situation at which some systems of accounting standards are used, is undesirable.
In particular for statistics application MSFO on alter-nativnoj is undesirable to a basis along with national standards when the request from the financial reporting under national rules is cancelled concerning those organisations which make the reporting on MSFO. Such situation takes place now concerning consolidated fi-nansovoj the reporting thanks to the alternative granted in item 8 of Me-Todichesky recommendations about drawing up and submission summary buhgal-terskoj of the reporting, confirmed by the order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation from 30.12.1996 № 112. As a result the summary financial reporting of the Russian groups not pod-is given to processing by statistics bodies.
Besides unity of the accounting standards applied in the country, for statistics comparability of indicators of the Russian system of national indicators to similar indicators of foreign countries is important. For this purpose
84
It is necessary, that domestic indicators based on the same basis, as foreign. At the same time it is impossible to consider a problem of simultaneous application of various systems of standards of book keeping not decided. From the point of view of the state statistics it has technical character and is reduced to creation of accurate algorithms of interpretation of indicators. Further if concerning the same accounting indicator various rules were applied, the statistics can work with such indicators provided that these rules are formalized and shown on uniform algorithm.
At the analysis of effects of influence of accounting standards on the state statistics it is necessary to consider effects for users of the statistical information and first of all for the Ministry of economic development, Minpromenergo, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. The accounting information represented today by the Russian companies for statistical bodies of the country, has variety of the defects connected with poor quality of applied national standards of the account. Transition to rules of drawing up of the financial reporting according to requests MSFO will allow to make the statistical information of better, that in turn will improve forecasts of economic development and a state policy of management of economy.
Let's consider significance of introduction MSFO for antimonopoly regulation. Efficiency of activity of antimonopoly bodies depends on that, how much precisely they can simulate parametres, characteristic for a perfect competitiveness. Therefore for them the financial information is actual,
Expressly or by implication characterising parametres of absolutely competitive market and a deviation from them parametres of the real market.
In the main economic parametre which is of interest for antimonopoly regulation, the project ask price is.
Data about the prices, as is known, it is possible to receive not only from the financial reporting as such information is present and at other sources. Furthermore the key derivative indicators necessary for antimonopoly regulation, are formed, mainly, within the limits of the administrative account and do not join in the public financial reporting. The main thing from such indicators is elasticity of demand for company production in comparison with elasticity of demand as a whole in the product market. Antimonopoly bodies use the similar information which corporate experts in marketing use at formation of a price policy and a choice of volumes of production. Nevertheless, the public financial reporting remains the important source of the information for antimonopoly regulation.
Let's consider one more example - influence of introduction MSFO on distribution of the capital of company between shareholders. Directly the chapter bases on indicators of the financial reporting V «company Dividends» Federal law from 26.12.1995 № 208-FZ «On joint-stock companies» (further - the Law on joint-stock company). According to item 42 item 2 «the Order of payment by company of dividends» a source of payment of dividends is profit of company after the taxation (company net profit). The company Net profit is defined
According to company accounts. Net profit, on which
«About
The indicated norm refers, is classical total of the report on profits and losses. Nevertheless, the given reference comprises a serious share of uncertainty, and both in application current PBU, and in case of application MSFO.
The resulted reference establishes as a source Company accounts, not designating a concrete kind of the report. In particular, it is not defined, whether there is in a kind a static (balance) or dynamic (current) indicator of profit. Differently, the rights of shareholders can extend only on the profit received in year, to previous meeting of shareholders, or to extend on profit after the taxation without dependence from the moment of its reception, reflected in the balance sheet as a part of the capital.
In the minimum list of obligatory indicators of the report on profits and the losses, containing in item 23 PBU 4/99, the article «net profit (not-distributed profit) (the uncovered loss)» is indicated. Thus, the standard identifies concepts "net profit" and "Rest". The Same term "Rest" is used for a designation of the article of the balance sheet. Thereby two indicators with the same name appear in essentially different forms of account, and both approach under the reference of the Law on joint-stock company.
It is necessary to tell, that similar problems concern distributions of profit and restricted liability societies. According to item 1 of item 28 of the Federal law from 08.02.1998 № 14-FZ «About companies from the limited
8/
Responsibility »(further - the Law on Open Company) the company has the right quarterly, time in half a year or once a year to make the decision on distribution of the net profit between participants of company. The decision on definition of a part of profit of the company allocated between participants of company, starts general meeting of participants of company. From the given norm just as in a case from Open Society it is not clear, whether possibility of distribution of net profit only by net profit for the previous accounting period is limited.
There are indirect signs which indicate that in norms the profit indicator for the previous accounting period is meant. So, in item 1 of item 42 of the Law on joint-stock company it is indicated, that the company has the right by results of the first quarter, the half-year, and (or) by results of a fiscal year to make of nine months of fiscal year the decision to (declare) on payment of dividends. От-i parity is made following the results of all transferred periods, and this reporting joins balance and the report on profits and losses. Nevertheless, under the term "by results", probably, indicators of the report on profits and losses should be understood only, and balance data to be used only regarding their changes for the period. Though it is possible to consider as results and the general change of size of the ownership capital including all its total components, including balance Rest.
In the following offer of the quoted item it is indicated, that preferred dividends of certain types also can be paid for the account before the special funds of company generated for these purposes. If it was meant, that shareholders can distribute balan -
»8
\
sovuju Rest any creation of special funds it would not be required. We will notice, that the concept of funds of the Russian book keeping also is not defined. There is only a request of creation of the obligatory surplus fund, given in the Law on joint-stock company. Thus remains not clear in what process of "formation" of funds consists, except nominal, not generating any consequences of an account entry. In MSFO the balance Rest is considered simply as one of kinds of funds which is formed automatically as the rest after payment of dividends and creation of trust funds.
There are also indirect certificates and that all balance Rest is subject to distribution, and not just received in the current year. We will find acknowledgement of such item, if we will compare old and new edition of the Law on joint-stock company. In initial edition of item 2 of item 42 of the Law on joint-stock company it has been indicated, that dividends are paid from company net profit for a current year. The subsequent amendments introduced by the Federal law from 07.08.2001 № 120-FZ About modification and additions in the federal law "On joint-stock companies", and then the Federal law from 06.04.2004 № 17-FZ About modification of article 42 of the Federal law "On joint-stock companies" have eliminated instructions on a current year. It is possible to consider such changes as the certificate of that the legislator has directed distribution of the rights of shareholders on all balance Rest, and not just on received in the previous period. Nevertheless, accurately such
Conclusion from the present formulation of the Law on joint-stock company does not follow.
«At
Let's notice, that admissible distribution of dividends, from Rest of last years it is possible to consider on the basis of judiciary practice. So, in the decree FAS Northwest district from 28.11.2003 № А66-1598-03 it has been noticed, that the profit which has remained at the command of the enterprise, includes Rest, both an accounting period, and Rest of last years. This conclusion has been made for privilege calculation under the profit tax, however the conclusion is applicable and for a case of distribution of dividends. The same item has been stated in the decree FAS Northwest district from 27.10.2003 № А56-13554/03. Despite decisions of courts, it is necessary to notice, that in Russia not a case law as in the Anglo-Saxon countries, therefore the problem of borders for payment of dividends remains until there are no accurate standard definitions.
In MSFO (in particular in MSFO (IAS) 1 «Submission of the financial reporting») (§81) for information submission in the report on profits and losses is used the general concept «profit or the loss» without definitions "pure", "poslenalogovaja", etc. Nevertheless, clearly what exactly this total profit relates to application of considered norm of the Law on joint-stock company and other norms about profit distribution. Minimal requirements MSFO to balance articles at all do not provide the isolated disclosing of profit. The obligatory article of balance (§ 68) is the general size «the manufactured capital and the reserves concerning holders of share tools of the organisation». But in § 76 the request of structural disclosing contains
90
All components of the capital directly in balance, or in explanatories to the financial reporting [111].
Application MSFO at drawing up of the individual financial reporting by the Russian joint-stock companies will require separate sogla: sovanija requests of the Law on joint-stock company, and also laws on distribution of profit of the organisations of other organizational-legal forms with requests of the international standards. First of all, it is required to co-ordinate used terminology. It can be amendments to the quoted norms of the Law on joint-stock company and similar norms of other laws. Other variant as it is represented, the exposition of requests MSFO (IAS) 1 in the Russian standard documents so that is, not infringing requests MSFO, specificity of direct use of accounting indicators for a designation of sphere of the rights of shareholders (participants) on charge of dividends [137] was considered.
It is important to notice, that in a today's situation of the co-ordinated Russian legislation on distribution of dividends with requests Russian PBU also is absent, as existing norms can be treated doubly. Therefore, without dependence from what standards will be applied further, the given question demands special attention.
As securities are the basic tool of investments, there is a close interrelation of the financial reporting with a stock market (further - RTSB). In conformity MSFO investors are priority users of the financial reporting. Therefore in the majority of the western countries institutes of the share market take leading positions in
У1
The decision of questions of development of standards of the financial reporting. Distribution MSFO to the world occurred, mainly, by means of institutes of the share market. Necessity of application MSFO the organisations, including Russian, is connected mainly with an exit of the companies on various stock exchanges. Therefore experience of standard fastening MSFO in foreign countries, in particular in EU, shows, that as the basic criterion of allocation of the organisations from which submission of the financial reporting on MSFO is required, inclusion of securities of the company in listing of stock exchanges always acts.
In Russia a role of institutes of the share market in regulation of book keeping and drawing up of the financial reporting it is essential more low, than in the western countries, especially in comparison with the USA and the Great Britain. The tax orientation of the Russian book keeping differs, including, and in the mechanism of its regulation. Function of a methodological management by the book keeping, granted item 1 of item 5 of the Federal law from 21.11.1996 № 129-FZ «About book keeping» to the Government of the Russian Federation, is actually transmitted the Ministry of Finance of Russia, that is, to the department regulating budgetary sphere, including the taxation. Thus, one of the reasons of braking of process of reforming of the Russian book keeping according to MSFO still has a fiscal bias.
Efficiency of introduction MSFO in the Russian Federation, undoubtedly, will grow, if from the state this process supervises the state body which is responsible for effective functioning of the share markets. In on -
У2
The standing moment this role the Federal service on financial ryn-kam (FSFR executes Russia).
In the current Russian legislation regulating RTSB, big enough attention is given requests to granting by emitters of the financial information. The key role in demanded documents is played by the financial (accounting) reporting.
Among general requirements to the contents of the prospectus of the securities stated in item 1 of item 22 of the Federal law from 22.04.1996 № 39-FZ «About a stock market» (further - the Law about RTSB), it is indicated, that the prospectus of securities should contain accounts of the emitter along with other requests.
In a case with submission of the financial reporting on the Russian stock market, obviously, what registration standards for this purpose approach better. Priority MSFO before Russian PBU is conclusive, at least for the reason, that the share market always was priority for founders MSFO. The Russian standards of book keeping were formed in the conditions of compromise search between raznonapravlennymi interests where the purposes of participants of the share market took far not the first items.
However introduction MSFO in Russia, even at drawing up by the organisations of the financial reporting represented on the share market, can face some technical problems of application of unsuccessful formulations in the Russian laws.
93
Special attention it is necessary to pay that in comparison with many other things the state bodies analytical activity of the bodies supervising processes of an inconsistency and attending to financial improvement of the organisations, the most closely related with their financial otchetno-stju. At the same time interests of these bodies to the greatest degree coincide with interests of investors. In case of bankruptcy the state bodies vystu-pajut a regulator directed on probably more complete satisfaction of requests of creditors. To bankruptcy the state bodies osushchestvlja-jut measures under its prevention that is equitable to interests of investors.
The idea of occurrence MSFO was born in connection with necessity of creation of the tool of protection of interests of the users entering directly or kosven th in economic relations with the reporting organisation. For them vlo-zhenija in the organisation in all forms (from credits to a shareholding) are means of extraction of the income from own banking capital. It is necessary to take into consideration, that one of priority on-board requests MSFO always was the estimation financial was stable-sti the organisations and the prevention of its inconsistency. Russian buhgal-tersky the account historically did not put before itself similar problems. Therefore for the state bodies supervising processes of an inconsistency and fi-nansovogo of improvement of the enterprises, priority MSFO is conclusive. If pra-twisted the Russian standards will be brought into accord with rules MSFO the financial reporting of the Russian organisations becomes more useful to these bodies as at them essential coincidence of the purposes is observed with tse -
У4
ljami those categories of users under which initially formed MSFO.
Important advantage MSFO in comparison with RPBU with the purposes of inconsistency and improvement regulation is acceptance of separate standard MSFO (IFRS) 5 «Vneoborotnye the assets intended to sale, and the terminated activity» which provides essentially different ways of an estimation of the assets, continuity of activity receding from a principle. At use of this standard with the purposes of bankruptcy and improvement regulation accounting data will appear much more useful, than at use of common rules of the Russian book keeping. Russian analogue ПБУ16/2002 «the Information on terminated activity», confirmed by the Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation from 02.07.2002 № 66н (further - PBU 16/2002) owing to the low quality and become outdated pololseny on the majority of aspects cannot replace MSFO (IFRS) 5. The standard documents regulating processes of an inconsistency (bankruptcy) of the organisations, in some cases use terms of book keeping or refer to indicators of the financial reporting. In particular, definition of the size of liability insurance of arbitralsno th managing director is based on a book value of assets dolzh-nika. According to item 8 of item 20 of the Federal law from 26.10.2002 № 127-FZ «About an inconsistency (bankruptcy)» (further - the Law № 127-FZ) the arbitration managing director... Should insure in addition the responsibility on a case of causing of losses to the persons participating in business about bankruptcy, in the size depending on a book value of assets
The debtor as of last accounting date previous a Date of Introduction of corresponding procedure of bankruptcy... The descending scale where regress steps is the book value of assets of the debtor in 100 million, is applied To account of the size of insurance of 300 million and 1 billion roubles. The size of insurance is defined accordingly in 3 %, 2 % and 1 % of cost of assets of the debtor for each range.
Except use of concept "assets", the legislation on bankruptcy uses tajuke accounting concept of "obligation". And definition of the size of obligations is guided not by legal conditions of agreements, namely on book keeping as it is based on reflexion of obligations in the balance sheet. So, item 194 and 195 Laws № 127-FZ connect with the size of balance obligations the minimum size of maintenance of obligations of the debtor represented by petitioning persons in the course of financial improvement, and also in the course of external management of the strategic enterprises and the organisations.
Besides, definition of structure of creditors basically is based on balance data about organisation obligations and the size of obligations to them.
Rules MSFO and RPBU concerning a recognition and an estimation of obligations coincide in bolshej degrees, than concerning a recognition and an estimation of assets [178]. However here again there are essential divergences. Mainly they are connected with application MSFO (LAS) 37 «Reserves, contingent liabilities and conditional assets», and also Russian analogue GEBU 8/01 «the Conditional facts
Economic activities », confirmed by the Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation from 28.11.2001 N 96н (further - PBU 8/01). For the considered purposes application of rules MSFO is represented more adequate, than PBU. MSFO (IAS) 37 assumes a recognition in balance only so-called«provisions»which represent real-life obligations, it is exact not oprede-lennye in an estimation or terms. In turn, PBU 8/01 does not do distinctions I me-wait the conditional and existing obligation, bringing a recognition attention to the question re-zervov depending on probability of approach or nenastuplenija for is conditional th event. As a result under rules PBU can appear recognised in ba-lanse nonexistent obligations, it is equal as there can be not is recognised th real-life obligations. The Russian organisations on a prak-tic extremely seldom apply PBU 8/01, that leads to non-recognition of some obligations, and can lead to infringement of the rights of creditors at realisation of financial improvement and external management.
Having analysed noted above a problem, it is possible to draw the following conclusion: introduction MSFO in the Russian Federation will be reflected positively in the following about-lastjah state regulation:
For bodies of statistics and for users of the statistical information there will be favorable a reduction of the Russian accounting standard base in conformity with MSFO.
Drawing up of the financial reporting by the Russian organisations under rules MSFO, adjusted on requirement of investors. Besides,
97
Rules MSFO are more preferable in connection with necessity of comparison of the data made according to RPBU with data of other countries.
As MSFO have conclusive advantages before RPBU in their present kind for MSFO sellers of the capital are priority users of the financial reporting. Therefore in case of introduction MSFO in Russia the domestic capital market is demonopolized under the influence of internal influence, and sharing of antimonopoly bodies here it is not required.
Use in the Russian Federation of rules MSFO, in particular, approaches to understanding of articles of the capital as conditional categories, will allow to order system of interrelation of the legislation on activity of legal bodies and the accounting legislation that will essentially simplify rules, facet-chivajushchie profit distribution, and accountancy requirements of capital transactions.
The law about RTSB indirectly interferes in book keeping sphere, establishing terms of submission of the financial reporting, and also in the legislation on activity of legal bodies, establishing deadlines of realisation of meeting of shareholders. Therefore without dependence from applied accounting standards it is necessary to introduce updatings in the Law about RTSB.
At introduction MSFO in the Russian Federation the control over processes of bankruptcy of the organisations will be carried out.
At »
<< | >>
A source: Vladimirets Anastas Anatolevna. the THEORY And PRACTICE of CONVERGENCE of the ACCOUNT. 2008

More on topic 2.2. Research of consequences of transition on MSFO in various areas of state regulation:

  1. Chapter 2. STATE REGULATION of INFLATIONARY PROCESSES In the TRANSITION PERIOD And DIRECTIONS of ITS PERFECTION
  2. § 1. The state and municipal needs as conditions rezeryovirovanija and withdrawals of the ground areas
  3. 2.3. Problems of application MSFO in Russia
  4. § 1. Transition from new economic policy to it is state - to a planned economy
  5. § 2. The bases and an order of reservation of the ground areas for the state and municipal needs
  6. enforcement authorities in areas, cities and areas Republics Tajikistan
  7. 1.2. Features of application MSFO in the different countries
  8. § 3. Features of reservation of the ground areas selskohoyozjajstvennogo appointments for the state and municipal needs
  9. Chapter 2. RESERVATION of the GROUND AREAS FOR the STATE And MUNICIPAL NEEDS
  10. 2. Expansion of geography and sphere of application MSFO.
  11. § 2. Sources of legal regulation of reservation and izjayotija the ground areas
  12. International legal regulation of the status of the persons forcedly moved as a result of adverse consequences of change of a climate