Segundo Rappeport (One Standard, Many Laws, CFO Magazine, April 1, 2008) o processo de convergência pode ser afetado por questões legais.
Um aspecto curioso apresentado é a questão do copyright. O FASB possui direitos autorais dos seus pronunciamentos (incluindo as interpretações técnicas). Já o Iasb não (muito embora o Iasb não seja, efetivamente, um organismo que facilite o acesso as normas emitidas. Pelo contrário.). Caso os Estados Unidos adotem as normas internacionais, como ficaria a cobrança desses direitos?
Mas a discussão central do texto é sobre a influência do sistema jurídico. Por ser um organismo internacional, o Iasb está sujeito a influência de diferentes países com diferentes estruturas jurídicas.
Neste caso, a contraposição do common-law dos países de influência britânica (inclusive os Estados Unidos) versus o code law latino:
This contrast between proprietary and free highlights a fundamental difference between U.S. GAAP and other countries' accounting standards — and is one of several reasons that convergence may be more complicated than people think. In the United States, accounting is governed by a common-law system modeled after that of Great Britain. Rules are created independently, function as best practices, and are enforced through litigation. They can be copyrighted and sold.
But many countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and Spain, are governed by code (or civil) law, and hence much of Europe (as well as Asia) uses a code-law system of accounting. Code laws, dating back from when they were still literally etched in stone, were always intended to be free.
Apesar desta distinção parecer acadêmica, os efeitos práticos são importantes. Existe uma crença de que o common law seja melhor e mais eficiente e o IFRS utiliza este sistema.
Code-law accounting systems, by comparison, are less market-oriented and rely more on private information. The accounting code is written by the government, which also levies penalties for violations. Code-law standards give managers more wiggle room to make accounting estimates while leaving policing and punishment to the government.
Entretanto, muitos países adotam estruturas mais tradicionais e isto pode ser um problema:
The distinction is also important for the world's push toward a single, global set of accounting standards. IFRS are rooted in common law, but many of the countries adopting them traditionally use code law, with their governments creating and enforcing accounting rules. Will IFRS survive intact as they are adopted by code-law countries, or will they morph into a number of different, even contradictory, country-specific versions?
Isto gera questionamentos sobre a implementação do IFRS na prática:
"Implementation is the Achilles' heel of IFRS," says Ball. "There are overwhelming reasons to expect IFRS to be uneven around the world." Without perfectly integrated markets, attempts to regulate international accounting standards could become heavily politicized and contentious, as a one-size set of standards might not fit everyone's needs.
Most recently, common law and code law clashed last year when the European Union created a "carve-out" in IFRS to change a rule about hedge accounting. Code law prevailed and the carve-out was kept.
Uma guinada para o code-law é considerada um posicionamento em torno da menor qualidade dos padrões contábeis:
Accounting purists consider greater politicization problematic because it moves GAAP closer to a code-law system, which would potentially erode the quality of the accounting standards.
Será?
Postagens
