Türkiye Finansal Raporlama Standartları’nda Tarihi Maliyet Muhasebesinden Gerçeğe Uygun Değere Yöneliş

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Finansal Raporlama Standartları’nda TFRS ölçüm konusuna ilişkin yaklaşımların neler olduğu ile varlık ve borçların ölçülmesine ilişkin konuların çözümüne nasıl katkı sağlayabileceğini açıklamaktadır. Varlıkların ve borçların ölçülmesi, finansal raporlamanın anahtar görünümünden birisidir. Türkiye finansal raporlama standartları açısından varlık ve yükümlülükleri değerleme ölçüleri esas itibariyle; tarihi maliyet, cari maliyet, gerçekleşebilir değer ve bugünkü değerden oluşmaktayken, KOBİ’lere ilişkin TFRS’de tarihi maliyet ve gerçeğe uygun değerden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada, finansal raporlama standartlarındaki değerleme ölçüleri sözü edilen bu bağlamda ayrı ayrı ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada, sadece literatür araştırmasına odaklanmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda TFRS’da ölçme yaklaşımları konusu ve gelecek araştırmalara ilişkin olarak da belli önerilere ait alternatif açıklamalara yer verilmiştir. Tarihi maliyet muhasebesi, gerçeğe uygun değer muhasebesine ideal bir alternatif sağlayan özelliklere sahiptir. Ancak, tarihi maliyet muhasebesi, finansal bilgi kullanıcılarının gelecekte ihtiyaç duyduğu veri ve bilgileri üretmekte yetersiz kaldığından, finansal raporlamada tarihi maliyet muhasebesi yaklaşımı dışında gerçeğe uygun değer yaklaşımının geliştirilmesine neden olmuştur. Böylece gerçeğe uygun değer, gözlemlenebilir piyasa fiyatlarının varlığında piyasalara ilişkin daha iyi bilgi sağlayabilir.

Keywords

• Tarihsel Maliyet, Gerçeğe Uygun Değer, Türkiye Finansal Raporlama Standartları.

Towards from Historical Cost Accounting to Fair Value in the Turkish Financial Reporting Standards

Abstract

This paper explains on how in the Turkish Financial Reporting Standards TFRS approaches measurement issues, and how research can contribute to resolving issues related to measurement of assets and liabilities. Measurement of assets and liabilities is a key aspect of financial reporting. In essence, criteria for valuation of assets and liabilities in terms of TFRS are made up of historical cost, current cost, realizable value and present value, whereas in the Turkish Financial Reporting Standards for SMEs are made up historical cost and fair value. In this context, valuation provisions in valuation criteria in financial reporting standards are handled separately in our study. This paper also provides not only a more focused view of the literature, but also alternative explanations for some of the results discussed in the TFRS approaches measurement issues and specific suggestions for future research. Historical cost accounting has features providing an alternative ideal fair value accounting. However, fair value approach has been lead to developed rather than historical cost approach in the financial reporting since the historical cost accounting fails to produce the data and information needed in the future by the financial information users. Therefore, fair values can provide better information for the markets in cases where observable market prices exist

Keywords

• Historical Cost,Fair Value,Turkish Financial Reporting Standards

References

1. Aboody, D., and Baruch Lev (2000), “Information Asymmetry, R&D, and Insider Gains”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 55: 6, 2747-2766.
2. Akdoğan, Nalan ve Aydın Hamdi., (1987), Muhasebe Teorileri, Gazi Üniversitesi Yayın No: 98, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Yayın No: 44, Ankara.
3. Akgün, Ali İhsan (2010), “Finansal Raporlamada Kullanılan Değerleme Ölçülerinin Muhasebe Uygulamalarına Etkisi”, Vergi Dünyası Dergisi, Sayı: 342, Şubat 2010, s.138-149.
4. Alexander, David ve Nobes, Christopher. ,(2004), Financial Accounting: An International Introduction, Second Edition, Harlow: Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
5. Atrill, P., and Mclaney, E. (2004), Accounting and Finance for NonSpecialists, Fourth Edition, Harlow: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Limited.
6. Ayçiçek, F. (2009), “Türkiye Muhasebe Standratları ve Vergi Usul Kanunu Açısından Değerleme ve Bir Uygulama”, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Basılmamış Doktora Tezi.
7. Ball, R., A. Robin, & G. Sadka. (2008). “Is financial reporting shaped by equity markets or by debt markets? An international study of timeliness and conservatism”. Rev Acc Stud., 13, 168-205.
8. Barker, R., & Schulte, S. (2015), “Representing the market perspective: Fair value measurement for non-financial assets”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.004.

9. Barker, R., and A. McGeachin (2013), “Why is there inconsistency in accounting for liabilities in IFRS? An analysis of recognition, measurement, estimation and conservatism”, Accounting and Business Research, 43: 6, 579-604.
10. Barth, M.E., (2007), “Standard-setting measurement issues and the relevance of research”, Accounting and Business Research, 37:1, 7-15.
11. Beaver, W.H & S. G. Ryan. (2005). “Conditional and Unconditional Conservatism: Concepts and Modeling”. Review of Accounting Studies, 10, 269-309.
12. Benston, G.J. (2008), “The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27, 101- 114.
13. Bolívar, M.P.R., A.N. Galera, and L.A. Mu˜noz (2015), “Governance, transparency and accountability: An international comparison”, Journal of Policy Modeling 37, 136-174.
14. Brown Jr.W.D., H. He, & K. Teitel. (2006). “Conditional Conservatism and the Value Relevance of Accounting Earnings: An International Study”. European Accounting Review, 15:4, 605-626.
15. Cairns, D., D. Massoudi, Taplin, R., and A. Tarca (2011), “IFRS fair value measurement and accounting policy choice in the United Kingdom and Australia”, The British Accounting Review 43, 1-21.
16. Cairns, D. (2006), “The Use of Fair Value in IFRS”, Accounting in Europe, 3: 1, 5-22.
17. Diewer, W.Erwin. ,(2005), “The Measurement of Business Capital, income and performance”, www.econ.ubc.ca/diewert/barc3.pdf, (31.05.2014).
18. Enahoro, J.A., and Jayeoba, J. (2013), “Value Measurement and Disclosures in Fair Value Accounting”, Asian Economic and Financial Review, 3(9):1170-1179.
19. FASB (2010), “Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements”, Financial Accounting Foundation.
20. García Lara, J.M. & A. Mora. (2004), “Balance sheet versus earnings conservatism in Europe”. European Accounting Review, 13:2, 261- 292.
21. García Lara, J.M., Beatriz García Osma & Fernando Penalva. (2014). “Information Consequences of Accounting Conservatism”. European Accounting Review, 23:2, 173-198.
22. Garcı´a Lara, J.M., B. Garcı´a Osma and F. Penalva. (2009a). “Accounting conservatism and corporate governance”. Rev Account Stud, 14, 161- 201.
23. Gebhardt, G., A. Mora, & A. Wagenhofer. (2014). “Revisiting the Fundamental Concepts of IFRS”. ABACUS, Vol. 50, No. 1,107-116.
24. Garc´ıa Lara, J.M., B.Garc´ıa Osma & F.Penalva. (2009). “The Economic Determinants of Conditional Conservatism”. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(3) & (4), April/May 2009, 336-372.
25. Goh, B.W., Dan Li, Jeffrey Ng and Kevin Ow Yong (2015), “Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis”. J. Account. Public Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2014.12.002.
26. Gassen, J., and K. Schwedler (2010), “The Decision Usefulness of Financial Accounting Measurement Concepts: Evidence from an Online Survey of Professional Investors and their Advisors”, European Accounting Review Vol. 19, No. 3, 495-509.
27. Herrmann, D., Saudagaran, S.M., and Thomas, W.B. (2006), “The quality of fair value measures for property, plant, and equipment”, Accounting Forum 30, 43-59.
28. Hendricks, B.E., and Catherine Shakespeare (2013), Discussion of ‘‘The financial reporting of fair value based on managerial inputs versus market inputs: evidence from mortgage servicing rights’’, Rev Account Stud 18: 859-867.
29. Khurana, I.K ve Kim, M-S. (2003), “Relative Value Relevance of Historical Cost vs. Fair Value: Evidence From Bank Holding Companies”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22, 19-42.
30. Linsmeier, T.J. (2013), A Standard setter’s framework for selecting between fair value and historical cost measurement attributes: a basis for discussion of ‘‘Does fair value accounting for nonfinancial assets pass the market test?’’, Rev Account Stud,18: 776-782.
31. Magee, R.P. (1978), “Accounting Measurement and Employment Contracts: Current Value Reporting”, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), 145-158.
32. Manganaris, P., Spathis, C., and Dasilas, A., (2015), “The Effects of Mandatory IFRS Adoption and Conditional Conservatism on European Bank Values”, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Chemical Engineers, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.intaccaudtax, 2015.02.004.
33. Mattessich., R. (1962), “To the Problem of Measurement and Statistical Estimation of Errors in Accounting”, Management International, Vol. 2, No. 2, 37-44.
34. Mugan, Can Ş. ve Akman, Nazlı H. (2005), “Convergence to International Financial Reporting Standards: the case of Turkey”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol:2, No.1/2, 127-139.
35. Palea, V., and Maino, R. (2013), “Private Equity Fair Value Measurement: A Critical Perspective on IFRS 13”, Australian Accounting Review No. 66 Vol. 23 Issue 3, 264-278.
36. Penman, S. H. (2013), Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation, Fifth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Penman, S. H. (2007), “Financial reporting quality: is fair value a plus or a minus?”, Accounting and Business Research, Special Issue: International Accounting Policy Forum, 33-44.
38. Reis, R.F., and P.C. Stocken (2007), “Strategic Consequences of Historical Cost and Fair Value Measurements”, Contemporary Accounting Research Vol. 24 No. 2, 557-84.
39. Ryan, S. G., (2006), “Identifying Conditional Conservatism”. European Accounting Review, 15:4, 511-525.
40. Önce, Saime.,(2007), Kavramsal Çerçeve, UFRS/UMS Uyumlu Türkiye Muhasebe Standartları Uygulaması(Yorum-Açıklama-Örnekler), (Editörler: Necdet Sağlam, Salim Şengel ve Bünyamin Öztürk), Ankara: Maliye ve Hukuk Yayınları No: 52.
41. Şensoy, Necdet. ,(2003), “Değerleme Esaslarında Eğilim ve Etkileşimler”, Antalya: Türkiye XXII. Muhasebe Eğitimi Sempozyumu, (Mayıs 2003).
42. Tokay, Hüseyin ve Deran, Ali. , (2008), “Türkiye Muhasebe ve Finansal Raporlama Standartları’nda Değerleme Ölçüleri”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, Sayı: 90, 15-47.
43. Van Zijl, T., ve Whittington, G. (2006), “Deprival value and fair value: a reinterpretation and areconciliation”, Accounting and Business Research, 36: 2, 121-130.