中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-23 14:49
【摘要】：2001年安然破產(chǎn)事件的突然發(fā)生讓各界人士震驚,它的發(fā)生不但使安然公司走向滅亡,同時(shí)財(cái)務(wù)賬目問題也使當(dāng)時(shí)位列世界第一的安達(dá)信會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所走向衰敗,這其中重要的導(dǎo)火索就是安然公司的假賬問題。該公司的財(cái)務(wù)人員運(yùn)用嫻熟的財(cái)務(wù)知識(shí),聯(lián)合了安達(dá)信的審計(jì)人員,利用了會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的漏洞虛報(bào)利潤,隱瞞巨額債務(wù)。安然公司的倒閉不但給投資者帶來了巨大的損失,同時(shí)更為重要的是使人們意識(shí)到了完善的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的重要性,而會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的完善需要使用正確的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法,因此需要對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法進(jìn)行研究。 會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法分為兩種方法：原則導(dǎo)向制定方法和規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法。以原則為導(dǎo)向的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法運(yùn)用了實(shí)證分析的方法,雖然能精確反映公司財(cái)務(wù)的實(shí)質(zhì),但是不太偏重會(huì)計(jì)從業(yè)者倫理學(xué)方面的要求。以規(guī)則為導(dǎo)向的制定方法運(yùn)用了規(guī)范分析的方法,對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)從業(yè)者提出了很高的倫理學(xué)方面的要求,但是對(duì)公司財(cái)務(wù)實(shí)際運(yùn)行狀況等缺乏精確的分析。因此,在解決會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法的問題上要將實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析結(jié)合起來,科學(xué)哲學(xué)是對(duì)科學(xué)進(jìn)行反思的一門哲學(xué)分支。而會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)是科學(xué)的一個(gè)分支。所以,科學(xué)哲學(xué)有助于對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)及其會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法進(jìn)行反思。一方面,運(yùn)用科學(xué)哲學(xué)分析了原則導(dǎo)向準(zhǔn)則和規(guī)則導(dǎo)向準(zhǔn)則制定方法的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),并且分別以英國和美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法為例,進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析。另一方面。通過科學(xué)哲學(xué)的發(fā)展史的考察,尤其是對(duì)實(shí)證主義向歷史主義科學(xué)哲學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)變的具體分析。得出實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合的必然性。最終論述了會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法即原則導(dǎo)向制定方法和規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法相結(jié)合的科學(xué)哲學(xué)依據(jù)。 中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系主要是以會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法,因而缺乏原則導(dǎo)向制定方法的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。根據(jù)科學(xué)哲學(xué)的觀點(diǎn),本文重點(diǎn)分析了會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法存在的問題及解決的對(duì)策。 具體來說,本文的結(jié)構(gòu)如下：第一章為緒論。本章是對(duì)選題的研究背景、研究意義等進(jìn)行了簡要的概述。 第二章重點(diǎn)闡述了會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的概念、制定方法的種類和科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)其的影響。會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)賬目核算、會(huì)計(jì)報(bào)告的一套文件,是會(huì)計(jì)人員從事會(huì)計(jì)工作的規(guī)則和指南。會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法可分為兩種：原則導(dǎo)向制定方法、規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法。這兩種方法深受科學(xué)哲學(xué)的影響,通過科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析關(guān)系的分析,得出實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合才是最佳制定方法,這就要求將原則導(dǎo)向和規(guī)則導(dǎo)向這兩種制定方法相結(jié)合。 第三章是對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法的反思。依據(jù)科學(xué)哲學(xué),分別對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法——原則導(dǎo)向方法和規(guī)則導(dǎo)向方法進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析,這也論證了這兩者相結(jié)合的區(qū)別性。 第四章為英國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則導(dǎo)向存在的問題研究。英國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法是以原則為導(dǎo)向的制定方法,主要運(yùn)用了實(shí)證分析,因此存在著一定的缺陷,即缺乏規(guī)范細(xì)則等。通過科學(xué)哲學(xué)中實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合思想,把規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法融入進(jìn)英國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定中,進(jìn)而來解決英國制定中存在的問題。 第五章為美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法的問題研究。美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法以規(guī)則為導(dǎo)向,主要運(yùn)用的是規(guī)范分析方法,導(dǎo)致出現(xiàn)了不能精確反應(yīng)會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)等問題。根據(jù)科學(xué)哲學(xué)中的實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合,來解決美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定存在的問題。美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則導(dǎo)向的研究同樣對(duì)我國的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定導(dǎo)向具有重要的借鑒意義,因?yàn)槲覈臅?huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定導(dǎo)向同美國的極為相似,都是以規(guī)則為導(dǎo)向的制定方法。 第六章為中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法的問題研究。中國的規(guī)則制定方法主要以規(guī)范分析為主,因而存在不能精準(zhǔn)真實(shí)反映公司財(cái)務(wù)情況的問題,根據(jù)科學(xué)哲學(xué)中實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合的思想,將原則導(dǎo)向與規(guī)則導(dǎo)向相結(jié)合解決存在的問題。通過對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)從業(yè)人員的調(diào)查結(jié)合中國的實(shí)際國情,說明了中國的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則規(guī)范制定方法的確存在著不能精準(zhǔn)真實(shí)反映公司財(cái)務(wù)情況的問題,從而更加印證了兩種方法相結(jié)合的重要性。 本文的特色有：科學(xué)哲學(xué)中實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合的方法,以此解決會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法中存在的問題；其次,還采用了對(duì)比分析法,將英國和美國的制定方法進(jìn)行比較,提出更合理的中國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法；最后,對(duì)中國會(huì)計(jì)從業(yè)人員進(jìn)行了實(shí)際調(diào)研,印證了中國應(yīng)將原則導(dǎo)向制定方法與規(guī)則導(dǎo)向制定方法相結(jié)合的思想。
[Abstract]:The sudden occurrence of Enron bankruptcy in 2001 shocked people from all walks of life. It not only caused the Enron Corp to die, but also the financial account problem made the world's first Andersen accounting firm decline. The important fuse was the Enron Corp's false account problem. The company's financial staff used the adept. The financial knowledge of maturing, combined with Adachi Nobu's auditors, uses the loopholes in the accounting standards to disclose profits and concealment of huge debts. The failure of the Enron Corp has not only brought huge losses to investors, but also more important is to make people realize the importance of perfect accounting standards, and the perfection of accounting standards needs to be used positive. Therefore, it is necessary to study the accounting standard setting method.
The method of accounting standards formulation is divided into two methods: the principle oriented formulation method and the rule oriented formulation method. The principle oriented accounting standard formulation method uses the empirical analysis method. Although it can accurately reflect the essence of the company's finance, it does not attach much importance to the requirements of the accounting practitioners' ethics. The method uses the method of normative analysis and puts forward high ethical requirements for accountants, but it lacks accurate analysis of the actual operating condition of the company. Therefore, it is necessary to combine the empirical analysis with the normative analysis in solving the problems of accounting standards formulation. A branch of philosophy. Accounting is a branch of science. So philosophy of science helps to reflect on accounting and its accounting standards. On the one hand, it uses philosophy of science to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of principle oriented and rule oriented guidelines, and the United Kingdom and American accounting standards, respectively. For example, a detailed analysis is carried out. On the other hand, through the investigation of the history of the development of philosophy of science, especially the concrete analysis of the transformation from positivism to the historical philosophy of science, the inevitability of combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis is obtained. Finally, the principle oriented method and rule oriented system of accounting standards formulation is finally discussed. The scientific philosophical basis of combination of definite methods.
China's accounting standards system is mainly based on the accounting rules to formulate methods, and therefore lacks the advantages of the principle oriented formulation method. According to the philosophy of science, this paper focuses on the analysis of the existing problems and solutions of the accounting rule oriented formulation methods.
Specifically, the structure of this article is as follows: the first chapter is an introduction. This chapter is a brief overview of the research background and research significance of the topic.
The second chapter focuses on the concept of accounting standards, the types of formulating methods and the impact of the philosophy of science on them. Accounting standards are standard accounting accounts accounting, a set of documents of accounting reports, rules and guidelines for accountants to engage in accounting work. The methods of making accounting standards can be divided into two kinds: principle oriented formulation method and rule oriented method. The two methods are deeply influenced by the philosophy of science. Through the analysis of the relationship between the empirical analysis and the normative analysis by the philosophy of science, it is concluded that the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis is the best method of formulation, which requires the combination of the principle oriented and rule oriented two kinds of formulating methods.
The third chapter is a reflection on the method of formulating accounting standards. According to the philosophy of science, this paper makes a detailed analysis of the methods of formulating accounting standards, the principle oriented method and the rule oriented method, which also demonstrates the difference of the combination of the two.
The fourth chapter is the study of the problems in the guidance of the British accounting standards. The British accounting standards formulation method is a principle oriented method, mainly using the empirical analysis, so there is a certain defect, that is, the lack of rules and regulations. Through the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the rule oriented formulation is made. The method is integrated into the British accounting standards formulation, and then to solve the problems existing in the British formulation.
The fifth chapter is the study of the accounting standards formulation in the United States. The American accounting standards formulation method is guided by the rules, and the main use is the normative analysis method, which leads to the emergence of the problems that can not reflect the essence of accounting accurately. According to the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the existence of American accounting standards is solved. The study of American accounting standards is also of great significance to the guidance of China's accounting standards formulation, because the orientation of accounting standards in our country is very similar to that of the United States, and it is a rule oriented method.
The sixth chapter is the study of China's accounting standards setting method. China's rule making method is mainly based on normative analysis, so there is a problem that can not accurately reflect the financial situation of the company. According to the thought of combining the empirical analysis and the normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the principle orientation and the rule orientation are combined to solve the existing problems. Through the investigation of the accountants and the actual conditions of China, it shows that the method of formulating accounting standards in China does not accurately reflect the financial situation of the company. Thus, the importance of the combination of the two methods is more confirmed.
The characteristics of this paper are: the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science to solve the problems in the accounting standards formulation. Secondly, a comparative analysis is adopted to compare the formulation of the United Kingdom and the United States, and to put forward a more reasonable method for formulating China's accounting standards; finally, the accounting practice in China is made. The actual investigation has confirmed that China should combine the principle oriented approach with the rule oriented approach.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F233
本文編號(hào)：2139742
[Abstract]:The sudden occurrence of Enron bankruptcy in 2001 shocked people from all walks of life. It not only caused the Enron Corp to die, but also the financial account problem made the world's first Andersen accounting firm decline. The important fuse was the Enron Corp's false account problem. The company's financial staff used the adept. The financial knowledge of maturing, combined with Adachi Nobu's auditors, uses the loopholes in the accounting standards to disclose profits and concealment of huge debts. The failure of the Enron Corp has not only brought huge losses to investors, but also more important is to make people realize the importance of perfect accounting standards, and the perfection of accounting standards needs to be used positive. Therefore, it is necessary to study the accounting standard setting method.
The method of accounting standards formulation is divided into two methods: the principle oriented formulation method and the rule oriented formulation method. The principle oriented accounting standard formulation method uses the empirical analysis method. Although it can accurately reflect the essence of the company's finance, it does not attach much importance to the requirements of the accounting practitioners' ethics. The method uses the method of normative analysis and puts forward high ethical requirements for accountants, but it lacks accurate analysis of the actual operating condition of the company. Therefore, it is necessary to combine the empirical analysis with the normative analysis in solving the problems of accounting standards formulation. A branch of philosophy. Accounting is a branch of science. So philosophy of science helps to reflect on accounting and its accounting standards. On the one hand, it uses philosophy of science to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of principle oriented and rule oriented guidelines, and the United Kingdom and American accounting standards, respectively. For example, a detailed analysis is carried out. On the other hand, through the investigation of the history of the development of philosophy of science, especially the concrete analysis of the transformation from positivism to the historical philosophy of science, the inevitability of combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis is obtained. Finally, the principle oriented method and rule oriented system of accounting standards formulation is finally discussed. The scientific philosophical basis of combination of definite methods.
China's accounting standards system is mainly based on the accounting rules to formulate methods, and therefore lacks the advantages of the principle oriented formulation method. According to the philosophy of science, this paper focuses on the analysis of the existing problems and solutions of the accounting rule oriented formulation methods.
Specifically, the structure of this article is as follows: the first chapter is an introduction. This chapter is a brief overview of the research background and research significance of the topic.
The second chapter focuses on the concept of accounting standards, the types of formulating methods and the impact of the philosophy of science on them. Accounting standards are standard accounting accounts accounting, a set of documents of accounting reports, rules and guidelines for accountants to engage in accounting work. The methods of making accounting standards can be divided into two kinds: principle oriented formulation method and rule oriented method. The two methods are deeply influenced by the philosophy of science. Through the analysis of the relationship between the empirical analysis and the normative analysis by the philosophy of science, it is concluded that the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis is the best method of formulation, which requires the combination of the principle oriented and rule oriented two kinds of formulating methods.
The third chapter is a reflection on the method of formulating accounting standards. According to the philosophy of science, this paper makes a detailed analysis of the methods of formulating accounting standards, the principle oriented method and the rule oriented method, which also demonstrates the difference of the combination of the two.
The fourth chapter is the study of the problems in the guidance of the British accounting standards. The British accounting standards formulation method is a principle oriented method, mainly using the empirical analysis, so there is a certain defect, that is, the lack of rules and regulations. Through the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the rule oriented formulation is made. The method is integrated into the British accounting standards formulation, and then to solve the problems existing in the British formulation.
The fifth chapter is the study of the accounting standards formulation in the United States. The American accounting standards formulation method is guided by the rules, and the main use is the normative analysis method, which leads to the emergence of the problems that can not reflect the essence of accounting accurately. According to the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the existence of American accounting standards is solved. The study of American accounting standards is also of great significance to the guidance of China's accounting standards formulation, because the orientation of accounting standards in our country is very similar to that of the United States, and it is a rule oriented method.
The sixth chapter is the study of China's accounting standards setting method. China's rule making method is mainly based on normative analysis, so there is a problem that can not accurately reflect the financial situation of the company. According to the thought of combining the empirical analysis and the normative analysis in the philosophy of science, the principle orientation and the rule orientation are combined to solve the existing problems. Through the investigation of the accountants and the actual conditions of China, it shows that the method of formulating accounting standards in China does not accurately reflect the financial situation of the company. Thus, the importance of the combination of the two methods is more confirmed.
The characteristics of this paper are: the combination of empirical analysis and normative analysis in the philosophy of science to solve the problems in the accounting standards formulation. Secondly, a comparative analysis is adopted to compare the formulation of the United Kingdom and the United States, and to put forward a more reasonable method for formulating China's accounting standards; finally, the accounting practice in China is made. The actual investigation has confirmed that China should combine the principle oriented approach with the rule oriented approach.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F233
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 陸德明,邱昱芳;會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定:以原則為基礎(chǔ)還是以規(guī)則為基礎(chǔ)[J];財(cái)經(jīng)論叢(浙江財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2003年01期
2 黃微平;美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定方法的哲學(xué)思考[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2005年03期
3 車幼梅,吳小峰;美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則向“以原則為基礎(chǔ)”回歸述評(píng)[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2004年09期
4 謝獲寶,李忠;論會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定導(dǎo)向的選擇[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2004年16期
5 田娟;;基于經(jīng)濟(jì)后果觀的美國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定導(dǎo)向研究[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2010年06期
6 胡南薇 ,冀穎;會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則導(dǎo)向性再研究[J];財(cái)會(huì)月刊;2005年23期
7 李相德;;關(guān)于會(huì)計(jì)的哲學(xué)思考[J];財(cái)會(huì)月刊;2010年20期
8 陳宏明,林艷青;國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定導(dǎo)向的理性分析[J];長沙理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年03期
9 戴成莉;;我國會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則國際趨同模式和路徑探討[J];財(cái)政監(jiān)督;2011年08期
10 周英頂;安然事件引發(fā)的會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)思考[J];廣東審計(jì);2002年05期
，本文編號(hào)：2139742
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/kuaiji/2139742.html
最近更新
教材專著
