Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
52 Seiten, Note: 1,0
List of abbreviations
II Revenue Recognition under IFRS
1. Purpose of International Financial Reporting Standards
a) Information function
aa) General objective of decision usefulness
bb) Limited role of stewardship
b) Qualitative characteristics of financial statements
aa) Relevance as the dominating criterion
bb) Reliability within the concept of faithful representation
cc) Enhancing qualitative characteristics
2. Revenue recognition under IFRS - Two competing approaches
a) Asset-liability view
b) Revenue-expense view
c) Inconsistencies in revenue recognition under IFRS
III Analysis of the impact of IFRS 15 on the construction industry
1. Characteristics and risks related to construction and real estate
2. Department of construction contracts into separate performance obligations.
a) Scope and definition of contracts with customers
b) Identification of separate performance obligations
aa) Distinct goods and services as the key criteria for separability
bb) Combined output through integrating services - A relevant exception
cc) Little guidance on separation of performance obligation under old revenue standards
3. Satisfaction of performance obligations based on the concept of control
a) Concept of control
b) Distinction between different types of performance obligations
aa) Revenue recognition at point in time
bb) Revenue recognition over a period of time - Often the case of construction contracts
aaa) Simultaneous receipt and consumption of benefits
bbb) Performance and enhancement of an asset under customers control
ccc) Creation of an asset with no alternative use and an enforceable right to payment
i) Explanation and meaning
ii) Expansion of the Percentage-of-completion method- A critical evaluation
iii) Consequences for the sale of real estate
4. Measuring progress towards completion
a) Reasonable measures of progress
b) Input methods experience stronger regulations under IFRS 15
c) Output methods
5. Capitalization of pre-contract incremental costs
References for quoted literature
Documents from standard-setting bodies
References for standard setting documents
References for quoted laws
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The world economy is characterized by increasing globalization and mutually interconnected financial and capital markets. Since 2005 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have become mandatory for all capital market-oriented entities with consolidated accounts resident in the EU. Revenue is one of the most decisive items of financial statements as it often forms the fundamental basis for investment decision-making. Meanwhile, improper revenue recognition is found to be the most frequent source of fraudulent accounting (1998-2007). On 28th May 2014 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published a new principles-based standard on revenue recognition, the IFRS 15 Revenue Recognition for Contracts with Customers. The new IFRS is the result of the joint convergence project in the area of revenue recognition between the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that started in 2002. The project aims at eliminating the differences and inconsistencies between and within US GAAP and IFRS to promote a “single set of high-quality globally accepted accounting standards” that allows for comparability of firms within an industry and on a global financial market. Furthermore, the standard targets at incorporating the changes made to the theoretical basis of IFRS (e.g. focus on asset-liability-approach by IASB ) that took place during recent years with the project on the Conceptual Framework (FW) and other important standards. Existing IFRS standards provided little guidance on important topics such as the revenue recognition for multiple-element arrangements whereas US GAAP contained broad guidance on revenue recognition for distinct industries leading to different accounting treatments of economically similar transactions. In December 2008 the Boards (IASB and
FASB) published the Discussion Paper (DP) Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers which received more than 200 comment letters. Consistently with the earlier proposal the later exposure draft (ED/2010/6) published in June 2010 proposed a new model for contract-based revenue recognition. The new approach is based on a five step model with the core principle for an entity to recognize revenue when or as it fulfils performance obligations by transferring control of goods and services to the customer (IFRS 15.IN7). Performance obligations, which are defined as promises to transfer goods and services to a customer (IFRS 15.IN7a) arise from enforceable customer contracts. The measurement of performance obligations is derived from the transaction price, allocated to these performance obligations based on their stand-alone selling price (IFRS 15.IN7d). The transaction price is the amount the entity expects to be entitled with by the customer when fulfilling the contract obligations (IFRS 15.IN7c). IFRS 15 becomes effective for financial years starting on January 1st 2017, earlier application permitted (IFRS 15.IN2).  According to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) EU endorsement is expected by the second quarter of 2015. However, due to the FASB’s recent intention to amend Topic 606 to provide further guidance “divergence is about to creep in” before the mandatory effective date. This may interrupt the implementation process and desired convergence between IFRS 15 and Topic 606. IFRS 15 will replace the old standards and various interpretations on revenue recognition including IAS 11 Construction Contracts, IAS 18 Revenue, IFRIC 13, IFRIC 15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate, IFRIC 18, SIC 31 (IFRS 15.IN3) and constitutes a single comprehensive standard for all contracts with customers across all sectors. The new standard with increased requirements on disclosures, a high regulatory density but however strong need for discretion and professional judgment will certainly bring changes to nearly every entity depending on the industry and current accounting practice. Especially the practical and theoretical consequences for the construction and building industry have been subject to intense discussion by accounting practitioners, auditing firms and academic literature. Since the majority of long-term construction contracts by nature span more than one accounting period, the entity has to determine how to allocate contract revenue and contract expenses over the accounting periods in which work is performed.  Therefore, the issue arises from the fact, that at balance sheet date only part of the work is performed. According to IAS 11 revenue and costs from construction contracts are to be recognized as revenue and expenses respectively according to the Percentage-of- Completion method (PoC) (IAS 11.22), if the criteria for a construction contract specified in IAS 11.3 and IFRIC 15.11 are met and the outcome can be measured reliably (IAS 11.23/24). If the outcome cannot be measured reliably, the entity shall apply the Zero-Profit method (ZPM) (IAS 11.32/33) similar to the Completed- Contract method (CCM) in accordance with German GAAP. Whereas under the ED/2010/6 the PoC was threatened with extinction the later ED/2011/6 and IFRS 15 allow for revenue recognition over time if certain criteria for the identification and satisfaction of performance obligations are met. Hence, there is no automatic right for continuous revenue recognition for construction contracts. These differences can lead to the acceleration or delay of revenue recognition depending on the particular case creating far-reaching consequences with regards to bank covenants, contract design, earnings management and incentive payments.
The following work investigates the theoretical and practical consequences of IFRS 15 on revenue recognition from construction contracts. Firstly, the purpose and basic concepts of IFRS will be carved out and demonstrated. Secondly, the two dominating revenue recognition approaches are presented in further detail, providing the basis
for further discussion. The following main part will analyze the impact of IFRS 15 with special focus on selected topics that are of particular relevance for the real estate and construction industry, without any claim to completeness. Particular attention will be devoted to the role of the PoC under the new standard. The work concludes with a comprehensive summary on the main findings.
The Conceptual Framework (FW), which is currently under revision in the scope of a convergence project between IASB and FASB, forms the theoretical and conceptual basis for international accounting according to IFRS. Besides other purposes the FW shall assist the IASB “in the development of future IFRSs and in its review of existing IFRSs”. The overriding principles and purpose of IFRS financial statements can therefore be derived directly from the FW. The general objective of “financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors in making” (FW.OB2) resource allocation decisions. Those economic decisions comprise buying, selling or holding equity and debt instruments (FW.OB2). Thereby the general purpose of providing decision-useful and future-oriented information as well as the primary users of financial statements are clearly defined. Hereby, the revised framework follows a different approach by limiting the range of primary users of financial reporting to participants in capital markets Information that allows for the assessment of expected future return and therefore “the amount, timing and uncertainty of future net cash flows to the entity” (FW.OB3) are fundamental to those primary users (valuation purpose ). To assess the economic prospects of the entity, primary users need “information about the resources of the entity [assets], claims against the entity [liabilities], and how efficiently and effectively the entity’s management” has fulfilled its responsibility to use the entity’s resources (FW.OB4 i.c.w. FW.OB12). Thereby, the IASB underlines the focus on the asset-liability-approach with the general objective of financial reporting to measure the financial position (assets and liabilities) of an enterprise.
Besides the general objective of decision usefulness, financial statements should also comply with the stewardship function (IAS 1.9). Financial reporting based on stewardship generally contributes to resolving the principle-agent-problem between owner and management which is based on the asymmetry of information and potentially contrary interests by both parties. Thus, this control function particularly requires backward-looking information in order to make future decisions on how to monitor the entity’s management. In line with FW.OB4, information on how the management has used the entity’s resources is necessary to assess an entity’s prospects for future net cash flows. Therefore, the needs of stewardship and decision usefulness typically overlap. However, external financial reporting should support the stewardship function only to the extent that it is useful in making resource allocation decisions. This argumentation by the Boards underlines that stewardship cannot not be seen as a separate objective of financial reporting, but rather is a supplementary criterion to decision usefulness. Thus, the stewardship function is clearly subordinated to the criteria of decision usefulness which results in a downgrading of the stewardship function compared with the FW from 1989 (F.14). IASB’s and FASB’s original claim, that the objective of decision usefulness would comprise the supply of information relevant to the stewardship function published in the discussion paper (DB OB28), received massive criticism.   Consequently, the exposure draft published in 2008 contained both items as separate objectives (ED OB 12). This was reversed, both paragraphs combined and the zra stewardship function subsumed in the final version published in 2010 (FW.OB4). Furthermore, the Boards decided not to use the term “stewardship” in the new Conceptual Framework because there would be difficulties in translating the term into other languages. Critics argue that the reduced role of stewardship in the new FW would bring about different accounting principles and that information useful for future-oriented valuation purposes is not necessarily useful for the stewardship function.
The qualitative characteristics identify the information that is likely to be the most useful to the primary users of financial statements when making their resource allocation decisions (FW.QC1). The IASB FW differentiates between fundamental and enhancing qualitative characteristics. Relevance and faithful representation are highlighted as fundamental characteristics (FW.QC4/5).
Information is relevant if it is able to influence users when making decisions by confirming, predicting or revising estimates on future outcomes (FW.QC6-10). In the context of relevance, information is material if its omission could influence decisions made by users of financial statements (FW.QC.ll). Based on the primary objective of decision usefulness, information is especially relevant if it is future- oriented and therefore allows for the estimation of future net cash flows, thus for the return on a potential investment. This supports the strong trend by the IASB towards fair-value accounting as fair-values reflect the potential future benefit of assets within the economic situation and thus, are an appropriate basis for decisionmaking. “Information must be both relevant and faithfully represented if it is to be useful” (FW.QC17). By providing a clear guidance on how and in which order to apply the fundamental characteristics (FW.QC18), the Boards clearly demonstrate the dominance of relevance over the criterion of faithful representation.
To be useful, information must not only be relevant but also faithfully represent economic phenomena  (FW.QC12). A faithful representation demands for information that is “[...] complete, neutral and free from error” (FW.QC12). While complete information comprises all information necessary for the user to make well- grounded decisions (FW.QC13), neutrality is characterized by the selection of information in the absence of bias (FW.QC14). Generally, conservative financial reporting in reference to prudence could be considered a bias since it often leads to first understatement and later overstatement of financial reporting items. Consequently, the Boards excluded the prudence principle (F.37) from the revised FW. Free from error does not mean perfectly accurate but rather the complete depiction without omissions for each economic phenomena. Therefore, an estimate is free from error if the estimation process with all its limitation and assumptions is correctly performed and depicted clearly (FW.QC15).
The Boards argue for the indispensability of the replacement of the term reliability by faithful representation adducing that various connotations existed and the old framework did not successfully transmit the meaning of reliability. However, critics are afraid that standard-setters would resolve the conflict of objectives between relevance and reliability with regards to the depiction of economic transactions by emphasizing the former through hierarchical revaluation of relevance. This would mean that the replacement of the term reliability by the term faithful representation collapses reliability into relevance. This is also supported by Dobler (2007) et al. since the faithful representation with its sub-elements completeness, neutrality and freedom of error on its own does not take up on the comprehensive requirements of reliability. Under the old IASB FW of 1989 reliability was defined by representational faithfulness, verifiability (implicitly included ), neutrality, prudence (FW.37) and completeness (FW.38). “By demoting verifiability from fundamental to secondary importance, and purging the proposed framework of reliability, the Boards can more easily preserve and advance fair-value accounting.” Moreover, in the new framework the meaning of verifiability was widened by introducing direct (e.g. by observation) and indirect (checking inputs and recalculating outputs) verification (FW.QC27). In agreement with this definition, verifiability “only requires that the information has been arrived at by a method that has been applied correctly, not that the method itself is appropriate or reliable or that it has been applied to reliable data.” Others like Power (2010) and Barth (2007) see the replacement of reliability by faithful representation as a change in notion from the traditional transaction-based view (historical cost measurement) closely related to verifiability to a market-based valuation (fair-value measurement) process. The adjustment made to the FW can be seen as a combination of the Boards’ commitment to the asset-liability-approach and a stronger focus on fair-value measurement. However, the increasing trend towards fair-value measurement creates an inconsistency with the IASB’s aim “to reduce subjective judgments and thus increase verifiability.”
Comparability, verifiability, timeliness and understandability are indicated as enhancing characteristics (FW.QC19) which support and complement the decision usefulness derived from the two fundamental criteria. Comparability enables the user to identify similarities and differences between economic activities (FW.QC21). Consistency does not mean uniformity since different economic phenomena shall be depicted differently (FW.QC23). Verifiability is described such that different observers “could reach consensus, although not necessarily complete agreement, that a particular depiction is a faithful representation” (FW.QC26). Timeliness indicates the depiction of information before it has lost its value to the user (FW.QC29). The enhancing criteria do not show a hierarchical order but are meant to be applied in an incremental process and “maximized to the extent possible” (FW.QC33). Finally, the information function by financial reporting is limited by cost constraints. It is therefore important to evaluate if the benefits of additional information outweigh the cost related to the respective effort (FW.QC35).
The new Conceptual Framework clearly specifies the asset-liability-approach also referred to as balance-sheet-approach, by focusing on the appropriate measurement of the entity’s resources (assets) and claims (liabilities) (FW.OB13). Periodic changes of those economic resources and claims result from the entity’s performance (FW.OB15). Whereas the balance sheet items assets and liabilities measure the enterprise’s financial position interpreted as the entity’s wealth, the income statements items such as income and expenses are deemed to measure the entity’s performance. In the asset-liability-approach the recognition of income statement items is a direct consequence of changes in assets and liabilities. Consistently, the balance sheet items embody “expected future economic benefits” that can be estimated most suitably on the basis of fair-values (market values). Deferred debits and credits are not recognized as they do not meet the definitions of assets and liabilities. In the Boards’ opinion, this model leads to a more faithful and more consistent depiction of the underlying economic phenomena than the earnings process model (revenue-expense-approach). Even though it is argued that the focus on asset-liability-approach will imply an extension of the fair-value measurement, the balance-sheet-approach is not restricted to any particular measurement practice, and hence performance obligations could be measured at fair-value or alternatively at customer consideration. Between 2002 and 2004, under the joint convergence project, the Boards have developed an approach to revenue recognition that focused on the changes in assets and liabilities arising from contracts with customers measured at fair-value. The application of such model would in some cases have led to revenue recognition at contract inception without any performance by the entity. In contrast to the general trend, the FASB and IASB afterwards rejected the measurement of performance obligations at fair-value in their joint Discussion Paper (2008) and the later exposure draft (ED/2011/6). The estimation of fair-values would be too complex, difficult to verify (e.g. lack of active market ) and lack practicability. This could be interpreted as a reinforcement of the original transaction-based reliability definition.
“Under the revenue-expense view [also known as the income-statement-approach] the objective of financial statements is to measure the enterprise’s performance.” It follows from this objective that revenue und expenses are recognized when goods or services are exchanged for cash or receivables (realization principle), to match costs with the associated revenues (matching principle) and to recognize economic transaction in the period when they occur (accrual principle). Consistently, Paton and Littleton (1940) argue that balance sheet items are only “revenue charges in suspense” which are generally measured at historical cost. In the case of construction contracts, this would advocate the allocation of revenue and expenses to the period in which work is performed (accrual principle) in line with the Percentage-of-Completion method to provide “[decision]-useful information on the extent of contract activity and performance during a period” (IAS 11.25)  and allow for comparability of financial statements. In some instances this would lead to the recognition of deferred debits and credits that do not meet the definition criteria of assets and liabilities.
According to Wustemann and Kierzek (2005a) in the case of construction contracts a strict adherence to the asset-liability-approach would lead to the recognition of incurred costs as inventory (unfinished goods or work-in-progress) according to
IAS 2 and zero-profit contract accounting on a net basis until a partial approval or the final acceptance by the customers occurs. However, critics argue that the asset- liability-approach not properly depicts most business operations and recognizing profit only at contract completion would not faithfully reflect the entity’s performance and business model that are central to the firm’s success and value creation. Nonetheless, due to the substantial scope of discretion in determining the stage-of-completion as well as the estimation of related expenses and revenues, the more faithfully representation of the entity’s performance is highly questionable. While the Conceptual Framework already defines income as the “inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities” in line with the static asset- liability-approach, the older standards on revenue recognition IAS 18 Revenue and IAS 11 Construction Contracts are rather consistent with the income-statement approach. Especially the dynamic concept of revenue recognition with reference to the stage-of-completion (PoC) manifests strong compliance with the revenue- expense-approach.  Accordingly work-in-progress is not recognized as an unfinished asset but rather receivables are recognized during construction, even though no claim towards the customer exists.
Due to severe problems with defining earnings processes (i.e. the sufficient completion of the earnings process) the DP published under the joint revenue recognition project in 2008 and later the IFRS 15 feature an asset-liability- approach accounting for contract liabilities (performance obligations) and contract assets (customer’s payments) whereas their changes provide the basis for revenue recogmtion.
 In the following according to IAS 1.9 “IFRS” is used as the general term for “IAS” and “IFRS”.
 Cf. Regulation (EC) No. 1606/2002, para. 6.
 Cf. Kiiting/Lam (2012), p. 2348; Pellens (2014), p. I; IASB (2008), para. S 1.
 Cf. COSO (2010), p. 18.
 Cf. Grote et al. (2014a), p. 339.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2014), p. 1.
 Cf. FASB (2002) News Release 05/20/02; Bohusova/Nerudova (2009), p. 12.
 Cf. Marton/Wagenhofer (2009), p. 1; Wustemann/Wustemann (2010b), p. 2.
 SEC (2010), p. 3.
 Cf. Bohusova/Nerudova (2009), p. 12 et seq.; pwc (2014), para. 1; Morich (2014), p. 1997.
 Cf. Dobler (2006), p. 160/164; Wustemann/Wustemann (2005b), p. 430.
 Cf. Ziilch et al. (2009), p. 1946.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2014), p. 1; Wustemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 70/102.
 Cf. IFRS 15.IN4; Grote et al. (2014b), p. 406; IFRS 15.BC.2.
 Cf. IFRS 15.BC.4.
 Cf. Sandleben/Reinhold (2011), p. 413, Grote et al. (2014b), p. 408.
 Cf. Marton/Wagenhofer (2009), p. 1.
 Cf. Dobler (2008), p. 5.
 Cf. Thurow (2014), p. 464.
 Cf. EFRAG (2015), EU endorsement status report, Position as at 9 January 2015.
 Walton (2015), p. 2.
 Cf. IASB (2015), para. 11/12.
 Cf. KPMG (2014), p. 12; Scharr/Usinger (2012), p. 105.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2014), p. 1.
 Cf. EY (2014b), p. 29; Kirsch (2014), p. 512; Baur et al. (2014), p. 469/476.
 Cf. pwc (2014), para. 1.
 Cf. Larson/Brown (2004), p. 208; Bohusova/Nerudova (2009), p. 16; Trotman (1980), p. 141.
 Cf. Stewing (1990), p. 100.
 Cf. Dobler (2008), p. 4.
 Cf. Wiechers (1996), p. 953; Kumpel (2002), p. 1008; Amegger/Hofmann (2007), p. 116.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wiistemann (2014), p. 2.
 Cf. KPMG (2014), p. 1.
 Cf. Grote et al. (2014a), p. 343; Fink et al. (2012), p. 2002, also Trotman (1980), p.142-144.
 Cf. Breidenbach (2014), p. 637; Lupoid (2013), p. 19 et seq.
 Cf. Dobler (2008), p. 12.
 Cf. Fink et al. (2012), p. 2006.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 1; Pelger (2011a), p. 908 et seq.
 Cf. Hinz (2005), p. 54; Pelger (2011a), p. 910; Wells (2011), p. 305.
 FW (2010) Purpose and status.
 Cf. Baetge et al. (2009), p. 141.
 Cf. Wawrzinek (2013), para. 20; Hinz (2005), p. 53; EY (2014a), p. 43.
 Cf. Pelger (2009), p. 158 et seq; FW.BC1.25/26.
 Cf. Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 4.
 Cf. Kilting (2011), p. 1407; Pelger (2011a), p. 910; Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 20.
 Cf. Pellens et al (2014), p. 89.
 Cf. EY (2010), p. 1/2; Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 16.
 Cf. Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 20.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 16; Pelger (2011b), p. 26.
 Cf. O’Brien (2009), p. 265.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 910; O’Connell (2007), p. 218; see also FW.OB12.
 Cf. Wagenhofer (2009), p. 98.
 Cf. Whittington (2008a), p. 145; O’Connell (2007), p. 218; Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 17.
 Cf. Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 18.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 911; Whittington (2008a), p. 145; FW.OB4; FW.BC1.27.
 Cf. Whittington (2008a), p. 144 et seq; FW.BC1.26 i.c.w. DP OB28; Hettich (2006), p. 12.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 911.
 Cf. Pellens et al. (2014), p. 89.
 Cf. Lennard (2007a), p. 57; Dobler (2008), p. 2; Pelger (2011a), p. 911; O’Connell (2007), p. 219.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 911; Whittington (2008b), p. 499.
 Cf. O’Connell (2007), p. 215 et seq. i.c.w. IASB (2005), para. 24; Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 17; Pellens et al. (2014), p. 89.
 Cf. Erb/Pelger (2015), p. 28 et seq; Pelger (2011b), p. 13.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), 911; ED OB9 i.c.w ED OB12.
 Cf. Abdel-Khalik (2011), p.258; FW.BC1.27.
 Cf. FW.BC1.28.
 Cf. Gassen (2008); p. 10/39.
 Cf. Whittington (2008b), p. 499; Pelger (2011b), p. 4; Heinle/Hoffmann (2011), p. 345/354.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 914.
 Cf. FW.BC3.8 (2010); Pelger (2011a), p. 914; Wells (2011), p. 308.
 Cf. Pellens et al. (2014), p. 92 et seq.
 Cf. Kitting (2011), p. 1407.
 Cf. Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 20.
 Cf. Wagenhofer (2008), p. 187.
 Cf. Barth (2006), p. 275.
 Cf. AAA’s FASC (2007), p. 234; Wawrzinek (2013), para. 57; Pelger (2011a), p. 915.
 According to FW.QC2 information about the reporting entity’s economic resources and claims and the effects of transactions and other events are referred to as “economic phenomena”.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 914; also FW.BC3.24 (2010) i.c.w. Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 14.
 Cf. FW.BC3.28; Pelger (201 la), p. 914.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p. 914; FW.BC3.27 (2010).
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 3; FW.BC3.19.
 Cf. FW.BC3.23 (2010)
 Cf. Ballwieser (2002), p. 118; Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 3; Coenenberg/Straub (2008), p. 22; Wustemann/Wustemann (2010b), p. 9 et seq.
 Cf. FW.QC18 i.c.w Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 3.
 Cf. Whittington (2008a), p. 146; Lennard (2007a), p. 52; Walton (2006), p. 342.
 Cf. Power (2010), p. 200.
 Cf. Dobler/Hettich (2007), p. 35.
 Cf. FW.BC3.35 (1989)
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 9 et seq.
 O’Brien (2009), p. 269, see also Wilson (2007), p. 202; Lennard (2007b), p. 120 et seq.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 15.
 EY (2006), p. 9; see also Deloitte (2006), p. 4.
 Cf. Power (2010), p. 201; Barth (2007), p. 10.
 Cf. IASB (2007), para. 1/13.
 Cf. Erb/Pelger (2015), p. 13/34; Whittington (2008a), p. 147; Pelger (2011a), p. 915.
 Wustemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 15.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p.914.
 Cf. EY (2014a), p. 52.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p.914.
 Cf. EY (2014a), p. 53; Pelger (2011a), p. 914.
 Cf. Pelger (2011a), p.914.
 Cf. FW.OB 12-21.
 Cf. Dichev (2008), p. 454; Wustemann/Wustemann (2012), p. 14.
 Cf. Johnson (2004), p. 1; Dichev (2008), p. 454, Sprouse/Moonitz (1962), p. 11 et seq.
 Cf. Ballwieser (2005), p. 735 et seq.; Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 76.
 Cf. Miller/Bahnson (2010), p. 428; Dichev (2008), p. 454; Dobler (2008), p. 3. Wiistemann/Wustemann (2012), p. 16/27.
 Sprouse/Moonitz (1962), p. 20.
 Cf. Sprouse/Moonitz (1962), p. 23; Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 9.
 Cf. Bohusova/Nerudova (2009), p. 17; Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 7.
 Cf. IASB (2007), para. 4-10/16; Bohusova/Nerudova (2009), p. 17.
 Cf. Whittington (2008a), p. 157 et seq.; Dichev (2008), p. 466.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wiistemann (2012), p. 27.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 93.
 Cf. Dobler (2006), p. 165; Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 70/85.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wustemann (2005b), p. 432; Wiistemann/ Kierzek (2005a), p. 86.
 Cf. Hommel et al. (2009), p. 374; Ziilch et al. (2009), p. 1946.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wustemann (2013), p. 18; Wiistemann/ Kierzek (2005a), p. 94.
 Cf. Dobler (2006), p. 165.
 Cf. FW.BC25c (2010); Wiistemann/Wiistemann (2013), p. 18 et seq.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wiistemann (2013), p. 19.
 Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 77.
 Cf. Dichev (2008), p. 455; Wustemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 77.
 Paton/Littleton (1940), p. 25.
 Cf. Paton/Littleton (1940), p. 23-27.
 Cf. Coenenberg (2012), p. 232.
 Cf. Wustemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 83.
 Cf. Wustemann/Wiistemann (2009), p. 50.
 Cf. Wiechers (1996), p. 957 et seq.
 Cf. IASB (2007), para. 10.
 Cf. Wiistemann/ Kierzek (2005a), p. 97 et seq.
 Cf. Dichev (2008), p. 459; Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 101.
 Cf. Selchert/Lorchheim (1997), p. 61; Schildbach (1994), p. 717.
 Cf. Moxter (2004), p. 278 et seq.; Wiistemann/Wiistemann (2005b), p. 429; Bigus (2008), p. 219.
 Cf. Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 21.
 Cf. Clemm (1981), p. 125.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 83.
 Cf. Wiistemann/Wiistemann (2009), p. 49; Wiistemann/Kierzek (2005a), p. 83; Amman/Miiller (2002), p. 613.
 Cf. IASB (2007), para. 4-9; Dobler (2008), p. 5; Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 23.
 Cf. Hommel et al. (2009), p. 378; Dobler (2006), p. 170; Ziilch et al. (2006), p. 21.
 Cf. Dobler (2008), p. 9; Hommel et al. (2009), p. 374; Fink et al. (2012), p. 1998.
 Cf. Hagemann (2014), p. 228; Morich (2014), p. 1998.
 Cf. Pellens (2014), p. I.
Wissenschaftlicher Aufsatz, 13 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 68 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 62 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 44 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 25 Seiten
Wissenschaftlicher Aufsatz, 13 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 68 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!