■ 国際会計研究学会 年報 2022 年度第 1 号

ⅢSummary of Articles

The Deep Structure of Standards Development:
A Message from International Accounting Research
Tokuei SUGIMOTO
Kwansei Gakuin University
I investigate whether there are differences

implications for standard setters. That’s whyin the structure of accounting standards

they build accounting academics and theirdevelopment and governance structure of thefindings into the structure of standards

main 6 accounting standard setters, the IFRS

development―Unfortunately, Japan has not

Foundation・the International Accounting

incorporated it into the structure of standards

Standards Board (IASB), the Financial Ac-development. Japan’s socio-economic structure

counting Foundation・the Financial Accounting

is undergoing rapid changes, but in order toStandards Board (FASB), the Financial

utilize limited resources and develop an

Reporting Council (FRC), the Accounting

administrative system that is trusted by theStandards Board (AcSB), the Korea Accounting

people, it is necessary to actively promote

Institute (KAI)・the Korea Accounting Stand-Evidence-based Policy Making (EBPM).

ards Board (KASB), and the Financial

Although its importance is widely recognized,

Accounting Standards Foundation (FASF)・it is not necessarily incorporated into Japan’s

the Accounting Standards Board of Japan

policy making and standards setting. Through(ASBJ), from view point of international

comparative research, this paper proposes a

accounting research. I find that althoughmessage from international accounting re-they are independent private institutions,search that accounting academia should be

accounting standard setters do not necessarily

deeply incorporated into the development ofdevelop standards in the same way. Manyaccounting standards in Japan, and presents

standard-setters recognize that accounting

a desirable model for the future development

academics conduct a great deal of researchof accounting standards in Japan.

and their findings may have important49

Subsequent Accounting for Goodwill and Value
Relevance: Amortisation Approach vs Impairmentonly Approach
Tomohiro NOGUCHI
Aichi Gakuin University
The purpose of this research is to compare
the value relevance of accounting information

the amortisation approach and the impairmentonly approach.

amortisation

Through the empirical analysis including

approach and the impairment-only approach.

robustness analysis of this paper, using aAs a result of convergence to IFRS, Japanesesample of Japanese firms based on JGAAP

GAAP (JGAAP) tend to resemble IFRS moreor IFRS, we find that (i)amortisation charges

closely. However there is a big difference inare significantly positive associated withaccounting for goodwill between JGAAP andmarket value, (ii)impairment losses underIFRS, especially in subsequent accounting

JGAAP are more negatively associated withfor goodwill. IFRS requires the impairment-

market value than those ones under IFRS,

only approach for goodwill. In contrast JGAAP

and (iii)goodwill balance under IFRS isrequires the amortisation approach. Theintend to be evaluated lower than those ones

difference is a source of controversy inunder JGAAP.

ongoodwill

betweentheconsidering whether mandatory IFRS adoption
should be implemented in Japan.

From our findings, we conclude that theamortisation approach for goodwill provides

Therefore, we investigate the difference ofmore value relevant information to investors

value relevance related to two approaches forthan the impairment-only approach, andgoodwill focusing on the amortisation charges,

hence this approach is appropriate accounting

impairment losses, and goodwill balance infor goodwill.

50

Consideration of Accounting Treatment for Initial
Recognition of Asset Retirement Costs
Shintaro OKAMURA
Gakushuin University Graduate School
Purpose:incapable

Assetofretirement

providingcosts

futureareeconomic

accounting standards. Therefore, we haveconsidered each requirement.

benefits and are inconsistent with theMethodology: We conducted a review oftraditional measuring method of historicalprevious research on the accounting treatment

costs. Therefore, previous research hasfor the initial recognition of asset retirement

shown a negative thoughts in recognizing

costs and a review of accounting standards

asset retirement costs as part of thefor asset retirement costs.

historical costs

ofproperty, plantandContribution:

First,werevealed

theequipment. However, the rationale behind

recognition, measurement, and classification

the accounting treatment for the initialrequirements that are the rationale of therecognition of asset retirement costs inaccounting treatment for the initial recognition

accounting standards has not been clarified,of asset retirement costs in accounting

and as a consequence, never fully considered.

standards. Second, we considered whetherTherefore, in this study, we have consideredeach requirement would work effectively forthe rationale behind the accounting treatment

accounting

for the initial recognition of asset retirement

recognition of costs other than asset retirement

costs in accounting standards. In consideration,costs. As a result of the consideration, wetherevealed

accountingtreatment

theinitialtreatments

that

thefortheeffectivenessinitialof

therecognition of asset retirement costs in therecognition requirement and the measurement

accounting standard stipulates the trigger ofrequirement can be confirmed, but therecognition, the measurement method, andeffectiveness of the classification requirement

the classification of elements of financial

cannot be confirmed. Third, we analyzed whystatements. Recognition, measurement, andthe classification requirements’ effectivenessclassification requirements that generalize

couldn’t be confirmed. The analysis revealed

each stipulation are the rationale behind thethat there are two or more criteria in

accounting

initialaccounting standards for judging whether

recognition of asset retirement costs inassets have future economic benefits or not.

treatment

forthe51