【摘要】：同一控制下企業(yè)合并的會計(jì)處理,在國內(nèi)外的理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界一直是一個(gè)有爭論的焦點(diǎn)話題。2004年國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則和2001年美國會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則分別將同一控制下企業(yè)合并以及權(quán)益結(jié)合法排除在準(zhǔn)則正文之外,2006年我國財(cái)政部頒布的《企業(yè)會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第20號——企業(yè)合并》(CAS 20)中規(guī)定將企業(yè)合并按照交易雙方是否屬于同一控制的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)劃分兩種類型,分別采用不同的會計(jì)方法。其中非同一控制下企業(yè)合并的會計(jì)處理基本與國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則一致,而同一控制下的企業(yè)合并采用權(quán)益結(jié)合法。2008年國際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則第3號(IFRS 3)和2007年美國會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第141號(FAS 141)修訂實(shí)施,同一控制下企業(yè)合并的相關(guān)問題仍然沒有被包含在上述文件中。世界上其他主要國家也不同程度地限制權(quán)益結(jié)合法的應(yīng)用。在這樣的國際背景下,我國的企業(yè)合并準(zhǔn)則依然較大范圍地保留了“權(quán)益結(jié)合法”,并在在資本市場中被大量運(yùn)用。在2016年國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(IASB)關(guān)于同一控制下企業(yè)合并問題的最新討論會議中,相關(guān)議題依然沒有實(shí)質(zhì)性進(jìn)展。因此,我國對于權(quán)益結(jié)合法保留的原因以及當(dāng)前實(shí)務(wù)應(yīng)用中是否存在可以改進(jìn)的地方,是值得探討和研究的。本文從相關(guān)概念和理論出發(fā),對同一控制下企業(yè)合并的會計(jì)方法在國際上、美國和其他國家以及在我國的發(fā)展歷史與現(xiàn)狀逐一進(jìn)行梳理和評述,并對準(zhǔn)則進(jìn)行比較分析。探討權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國存在的合理性,結(jié)合具體案例總結(jié)實(shí)務(wù)中暴露出的問題。通過闡釋對同一控制下企業(yè)合并商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)的理解,得出相關(guān)研究結(jié)論:我國保留權(quán)益結(jié)合法的選擇具有合理性,完全取消不可取;現(xiàn)階段我國企業(yè)合并中權(quán)益結(jié)合法的適用范圍和應(yīng)用方式存在不完善的地方。本文嘗試對我國同一控制下企業(yè)合并權(quán)益結(jié)合法的適用范圍重新界定:對于同一控制下的企業(yè)合并,具有商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)的,采用購買法,不再采用權(quán)益結(jié)合法;對于不具有商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)的,采用權(quán)益結(jié)合法。同時(shí)對合并中是否具有商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)的判斷提供一些參考以及理由。另外,文章提出其他幾個(gè)建議:完善權(quán)益結(jié)合法會計(jì)處理上的規(guī)定,如調(diào)整同一控制下處置子公司的相關(guān)規(guī)定,對于同一控制下處置子公司的情形,應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)同樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)判斷是否具有商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì),不具有商業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)的,不確認(rèn)損益;嚴(yán)格審核同一控制下合并后短時(shí)間對外處置子公司的交易行為,并且可以按照資產(chǎn)類別分別規(guī)定各類資產(chǎn)的限售期限,以減少合并后短期內(nèi)出售增值資產(chǎn)帶來的利潤操縱;取消對于同一控制下企業(yè)合并報(bào)表的比較數(shù)據(jù)必須進(jìn)行追溯重述的規(guī)定;加強(qiáng)對交易定價(jià)信息和會計(jì)方法選擇的披露,提高信息的有用性。
[Abstract]:The accounting treatment of the merger of enterprises under the same control, International Accounting Standards (IAS) 2004 and US Accounting Standards (2001) exclude the merger of enterprises under the same control and the combination of rights and interests from the main body of the standards, respectively, in the theoretical and practical circles at home and abroad. In CAS 20, issued by the Ministry of Finance of our country in 2006, two types of enterprise merger are divided according to whether the transaction parties belong to the same control standard or not, and different accounting methods are adopted, respectively, in which the enterprise merger is divided into two types according to the standard of whether the two parties belong to the same control or not. Among them, the accounting treatment of the merger of enterprises under the same control is basically consistent with the international accounting standards. IFRS 3 (IFRS 3) of 2008 and FAS 141 (US Accounting Standards of 2007) were amended and implemented, Issues related to merger under the same control are still not included in the above-mentioned document. Other major countries in the world also restrict the application of the combination of rights and interests to varying degrees. Under such an international background, our country's enterprise merger criterion still retains the "equity combination law" to a large extent, and has been widely used in the capital market. At the 2016 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) conference on merger under the same control, no substantial progress was made on the issue. Therefore, it is worth exploring and studying the reasons of the reservation of the combination of rights and interests in our country and whether there is any improvement in the application of the combination of rights and interests in our country. Starting from the related concepts and theories, this paper reviews the accounting methods of enterprise merger under the same control in the world, the United States and other countries, as well as the development history and present situation of our country one by one, and makes a comparative analysis of the standards. This paper discusses the rationality of the combination of rights and interests in our country, and summarizes the problems exposed in the practice with specific cases. Through explaining the understanding of the essence of enterprise merger business under the same control, the conclusion is drawn: the choice of the combination of reserved rights and interests in our country is reasonable, and it is not advisable to abolish it completely; At present, there are some imperfections in the scope of application and the way of application of the combination of rights and interests in the merger of enterprises in our country. This paper attempts to redefine the scope of application of the combination of rights and interests of enterprises under the same control: for the merger of enterprises under the same control, which has commercial essence, the purchase method is adopted, and the combination of rights and interests is no longer adopted; For those who do not have commercial substance, the combination of rights and interests shall be adopted. At the same time, it provides some references and reasons for the judgment of whether the merger has commercial substance or not. In addition, the article puts forward several other suggestions: perfect the provisions on accounting treatment of the combination of equity and interests, such as adjusting the relevant provisions on the disposal of subsidiaries under the same control, and dealing with the situation of the subsidiaries under the same control, Whether or not there is commercial substance or not should be judged according to the same criteria, and profit and loss shall not be recognized; Strictly examine the transaction behavior of the subsidiary company after the merger under the same control, and can stipulate the limit period of all kinds of assets according to the asset class, so as to reduce the profit manipulation caused by the short-term sale of the value-added assets after the merger; To eliminate the requirement that the comparative data of consolidated reports under the same control must be restated retroactively, and to strengthen the disclosure of transaction pricing information and accounting method selection, and to improve the usefulness of the information.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國財(cái)政科學(xué)研究院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：F275

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡瑋;權(quán)益結(jié)合法研究[J];宿州教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

2 龐玲;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國的應(yīng)用[J];合作經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技;2005年23期

3 申嫦娥,周靜;權(quán)益結(jié)合法的發(fā)展歷史綜述[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇;2005年04期

4 王鵬;;從權(quán)益結(jié)合法的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)分析其在我國繼續(xù)應(yīng)用的可行性[J];科教文匯(中旬刊);2007年05期

5 向志平;王婧;;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國的適用性研究[J];全國商情(理論研究);2012年18期

6 楊有紅;試論權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國的運(yùn)用[J];北京商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年05期

7 章家瑞;購受法和權(quán)益結(jié)合法的比較分析[J];商業(yè)會計(jì);2000年03期

8 郭晶,吳姝茜,仲崇剛;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國運(yùn)用的合理性[J];金融會計(jì);2002年06期

9 趙一明;對權(quán)益結(jié)合法取舍的思考[J];財(cái)會月刊;2003年22期

10 袁化新,白美麗;對權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國取舍的探討[J];財(cái)會研究;2003年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前9條

1 王滿;權(quán)益結(jié)合法：存還是廢？[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2003年

2 盧俠巍;權(quán)益結(jié)合法路在何方？[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2004年

3 盧俠巍;美國：取消權(quán)益結(jié)合法[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2004年

4 陳華亭;權(quán)益結(jié)合法與購買法誰更適合中國國情[N];國際商報(bào);2006年

5 鄭璐 單位系普天集團(tuán);企業(yè)并購的會計(jì)思考[N];中國企業(yè)報(bào);2002年

6 陳光明;合并會計(jì)的權(quán)益結(jié)合法與購買法[N];財(cái)會信報(bào);2008年

7 盧俠巍;我國上市公司為何逆水行舟[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2004年

8 賈學(xué)穎 李麗娜;百聯(lián)合并：“熱戀”中的冷思考[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2004年

9 卞聽韻;同一控制下收購再售回子公司控制權(quán)會計(jì)處理方法探索[N];中國會計(jì)報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張楠;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國合并企業(yè)中的經(jīng)濟(jì)后果分析[D];云南大學(xué);2016年

2 凌霄;同一控制下企業(yè)合并權(quán)益結(jié)合法的應(yīng)用研究[D];中國財(cái)政科學(xué)研究院;2017年

3 張玉新;合并會計(jì)處理方法對上市公司合并績效影響的實(shí)證研究[D];吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2017年

4 陳綺莉;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國應(yīng)用的合理性分析[D];暨南大學(xué);2006年

5 劉永杰;權(quán)益結(jié)合法：歷史、現(xiàn)狀與中國的實(shí)際[D];北京交通大學(xué);2007年

6 成佳;并購會計(jì)研究—權(quán)益結(jié)合法的適用性分析[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2005年

7 張軍;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在中國的實(shí)踐和發(fā)展方向[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

8 劉蕾;我國企業(yè)合并中權(quán)益結(jié)合法的適用性研究[D];北京交通大學(xué);2014年

9 王玉玨;同一控制下企業(yè)合并會計(jì)處理方法選擇研究[D];長安大學(xué);2012年

10 楊衡;權(quán)益結(jié)合法在我國企業(yè)合并中的應(yīng)用研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：2445210