13 ноября 2010
МСФО в строительстве, Новости, Пресса о МСФО и их применении в России
Комментарии к записи Отчетные периоды в МСФО и РСБУ — есть ли проблемы? отключены
1) Как известно, в последнее время в области аудита произошли изменения в законодательстве, касающиеся бухучета. По международной системе, отчет сдается в один период, по российскому – в другой. Является ли это проблемой?
2) Какие пути решения вы видите?
Отвечает Сергей Модеров, АССА, руководитель отдела МСФО Института проблем предпринимательства
Во-первых, в международных стандартах отчетный период предприятия не привязан столь жестко к периоду с 01 января до 31 декабря. Дело в том, что некоторые виды сельхозпредприятий, производителей медицинских препаратов и др. бизнесы подвержены сезонности, и управленчески рассчитывают показатели своей деятельности по периоду, отличному от календарного года. Уместны случаи составления отчетности с 01 октября по 30 сентября, или, вообще — с использованием периода меньшего, сем год – например, с 15 ноября по 15 апреля (для службы проката зимних коньков).
Во-вторых, согласно, например, МСФО, отчетность должна предоставляться заинтересованным пользователям не позднее, чем через половину срока отчетного периода, после отчетной даты (то есть годовая отчетность предоставляется максимум в течение последующих 6 месяцев после отчетной даты). В РСБУ (Российских стандартах бухгалтерского учета) годовая отчетность предоставляется до 30 апреля следующего отчетного периода.
Решения указанных выше проблем видятся усилении профессиональных навыков бухгалтеров предприятий, которые путем периодического повышения квалификации должны быть способны подготавливать отчетность по любым стандартам, да еще и по любым отчетным периодам. Также на практике целесообразно, где возможно, совмещать отчетные даты российского и международного учета.
1 ноября 2010
Новости, Пресса о МСФО и их применении в России
Комментарии к записи Russian Accounting: 15 Years Away form Secrecy отключены
1980s — first assignments for international accountants were for companies trying to raise finance in international markets. Before they would lend, bankers wanted to see financial information presented in a familiar format. Since accounting conventions in Russia were markedly different to those adopted in Western Europe and North America, the bankers insisted on accounts produced in accordance with International Accounting Standards (now known as International Financial Reporting Standards). Moore Stephens helped a number of companies produce such accounts.
Inevitably the next demand was for audited financial statements. A lot has changed in Russian accounting during the intervening years. In the 1990s Russian accounting regulations were solely designed to produce information useful for government bodies, in particular the taxation authorities. Accounting departments were not geared to producing information that could be used to monitor and assess performance. Many companies had separate departments maintaining parallel records for that purpose.
One of the most significant defects of Russian accounts from a management information perspective was that certain items, for example, accrued expenses, were simply not recognised in financial statements. Other items had to be treated in accordance with tax accounting norms which might have no link to economic reality — for example, depreciation rules. A further issue was the use of fund accounting. Under this system, many items of expense (essentially those that were not recognised for taxation purposes) were taken directly to reserves rather than ever passing through the income statement.
Changes introduced by successive governments, in particular the concession allowing enterprises to produce their primary financial statements on a basis other than tax accounting rules, mean that it is now possible for a Russian company to produce financial statements under Russian accounting regulations that give a reasonable picture of financial performance. Unfortunately, a significant number of chief accountants are still tempted by the simplicity of keeping accounting records in accordance with tax rules (meaning a minimum of adjustments required when producing tax computations) and therefore continue to produce financial statements that are not meaningful for management.
Perhaps even more significant than changes in Russian accounting regulations has been the practice adopted by many Russian companies of producing a second set of financial statements in accordance with IFRS. In fifteen years Russia has gone from close to zero usage of IFRS to being a place where virtually every large and medium-sized company produces IFRS financial statements. In the early days most companies that produced IFRS financial statements did so solely to fulfil the requirements of foreign financiers. What has been encouraging is to see how many companies now understand the value of IFRS financial statements as a management tool.
Audit has also been through significant transition. In 1980s secrecy was pervasive. At one some companies audit teams were nearly arrested as all accounting information was considered a State Secret. At others, secrecy was associated with an unwillingness to disclose details of questionable schemes. Elsewhere, owners had fears for their physical safety. In general, companies being audited today are far more open about their activities. One reason is a greater understanding of the audit process on the part of clients. Another is improvement in the business environment.
Because laws and regulations were rapidly evolving, and because interpretation of tax and accounting matters differed between regions and authorities, there were many areas where it was not 100% clear what was acceptable and what was not. The combination of poorly drafted regulations, a lack of clarity in their interpretation and high corporate tax rates led many companies to create inventive schemes — look no further than Yukos for a perfect example. Some of the schemes were clearly in contravention of regulations. In other cases it was simply not possible to tell. As a result, virtually every set of published IFRS financial statements contained heavy caveats about the interpretation of tax and currency control regulations. This general situation persists today, but the significant reduction in tax rates from the early 2000s onwards means that there is less incentive for creativity on the one hand, and on the other, in certain areas at least, there is now more certainty about the interpretation of law.
One of the most striking features of the auditing profession in Russia has always been the divide between those who work in accordance with international standards on auditing and those who work in accordance with national standards. This divide is still marked today, but fifteen years ago it was even more apparent. The focus of almost every Russian auditing firm was on ensuring compliance with the minutiae of tax and currency control regulations. The concept of expressing an opinion on the «truth and fairness» of the picture presented by the financial statements was an alien concept — understandably so, given the primary purpose of financial statements.
In the 1990s many audit teams in Russia capable of carrying out audits in accordance with international standards were established. Establishing such teams was no easy task. In the 1990s there were virtually no Russian nationals who had qualifications encompassing international auditing and accounting standards. There were even fewer with appropriate practical experience. As a result, auditing firms that wanted to operate in accordance with international standards were obliged to bring in suitably qualified foreigners to work in Russia.
As the knowledge base in Russia has expanded the need to bring in foreigners has reduced. Today it is gratifying to see members of staff who have trained and qualified at all levels within any audit firm.
Looking forward, the biggest challenge for those involved in audit to international standards in Russia is ensuring the quality of the service provided by the profession. Paradoxically, quality today is probably lower than it has ever been. The reason for this is not deterioration in the offering of established firms. It is the proliferation of firms that started to provide this service in the years immediately prior to the 2008 crisis. The temptation was clear — demand was growing and, in an overheated market, prices were high. What was and still is lacking on the part of these firms is appropriate staff. Many have only one or two employees with appropriate qualifications. In contrast, established firms will have a minimum of two qualified professionals and generally three or more qualified members of staff on an individual assignment. In an environment of increasingly complex audit and accounting standards the dangers of under-resourced firms is self evident.
Greater regulation of audits to international standards, which, in contrast to statutory audits, currently remain unregulated in Russia, may be part of the solution. A second part will be bridging the gap between demand for and supply of suitably qualified professionals familiar with international accounting and auditing standards. Considerable strides in this direction have been made by the established auditing firms who have devoted significant resources to training young professionals and ensuring that they obtain internationally recognised qualifications such as the US’s CPA or the UK’s ACCA. If they are to aspire to quality, new entrants to the sector need to make the same commitment to training.
It is not clear what challenges and changes the next 15 years will bring. But, whatever they are, true professionals will remain at the cutting edge of the Russian accounting profession.
