国際会計研究学会年報 2010年度

ⅣSummary of Articles

The Adoption of IFRS by Germany andthe EU : problems stemming from“IFRS‑adoption”
M ORI M ichiyo
Prefectural University of Kumamoto
Japanese companies listed on the capi-

ing standards in the EU and Germany,tal markets are currently facing a situa-

with a particular focus on the close coop-tion where they must adopt IFRS in ordereration between the two economic areas.

to report ﬁnancial statements from 2015

A diﬀerentiation must be made between

onward. This report will consider ques-

EU‑IFRS and IASB‑IFRS,the current set

tions concerning the enforcement of thisof IASB accounting standards.

“IFRS‑adoption”by the European Union
in the case of Germany.

Companies actively engaged in capital
markets in the EU must adopt EU‑IFRS

The aim of this report is to shed lightin order to conform with EU regulations.

on some of the institutional problems

The enforcement process is dictated byinvolved in the adoption of IFRS as wellan EU committee, which has resulted inas to research possible eﬀects on a practi-

the promulgation of the EU‑IFRS. Con-cal level as experienced by businesses.

sequently, EU‑IFRS are now the account-

At present, it has become clear that theing standards for the EU.

eventual adoption of, and harmonization

However, there are some cases in whichwith IFRS is unavoidable. Through an

before the committee was recognized withapproach method, utilizing both a micro

the power to enforce EU‑IFRS in the EU,and macro view, this report considers thecompanies had already adopted account-reality of “IFRS‑adoption” in Germany

ing standards which had been previously

by focusing on the supervision of theissued by the IASB, resulting in a “timeaccounting systems in Germany.

lag”with regards to the accepted accounting standards between the EU and IASB.

This report consists of three sections:Thus, problems of “time lag”are at the

1. The macro‑view approach method

center of the overall problem of IFRS‑

as related to capital markets.

adoption.

This section takes up some of the issues
related to the systematization of account-

2. The micro‑view approach method233

of capital markets.

become increasingly important with re-This second section deals with develop-gards to capital markets. M any compa-

ments related to the harmonization ofnies engaged in capital markets fall under

IFRS within Germany, and further con-the supervision of both the German gov-

siders how many Germany companies

ernment（Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht =may correspond to EU‑IFRS under theBaFin）and the private sector（die Deuts-

Germany accounting system, namely,

che Prufstelle fur Rechnungslegung）.

under commercial law.

Through the result of the investigation of

By way of example, there is a discrep-

the DPR and BaFin, the false accounting

ancy between German commercial law

policies of companies are deﬁned. How-and the IFRS on how to account for

ever, in practice, judicial precedent indi-

proﬁts and losses.

cates an on‑going opposition between

This report calculates and compares
the maximum and minimum proﬁts andprivate companies and the supervisoryorganizations of the DPR and BaFin.

losses sustained through a case study inThus, there are sometimes disagree-which a company adopts IFRS in addi-

ments between DPR and BaFin and pri-tion to both old and new commercial

vate companies with regards to reporting

laws.

standards.
Considering some of the problems be-

3. The relationship between practicalhind “IFRS‑adoption,”we in Japan mustaccounting politics and accounting gov-

consider the value of “IFRS‑adoption”

ernance in Germany capital markets.

based on the current precedents being set

Germany accounting supervision has234

by Germany.