我国生物资产计量属性的现实选择

【作者】 张鹏；

【导师】 邓小洋；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 会计学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 众所周知，农业在我国国民经济中一直处于重要地位，农业活动和生物资产的特殊性使农业会计独具特色，目前，国际上农业方面的会计准则只有两个：澳大利亚会计准则委员会制定的AASB1037—自产和再生资产准则(Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets，SGARA)和国际会计准则委员会第41号—农业(IAS41—agriculture)，而我国并没有相应的农业会计准则，因此，研究农业会计问题，特别是生物资产计量属性选择问题，具有理论和实践意义。 证券市场中的会计，作为一个信息系统，在对外提供决策有用的信息的过程中，受到各种因素(如经济、法律因素)的影响，其所提供的是相关性和可靠性相权衡的会计信息，这既是会计计量的要求，也是会计计量的结果。 我们也分析了IASB第65号征求意见稿评论意见的争议，认为分析结论对我国的农业会计准则制定具有积极作用。 由于生物资产与其附着物存在一定的联系，如森林和土地，生物资产同其附着物构成一个资产体系，它们所具有的非市场性服务价值使传统会计计量低估了生物资产的价值，基于上述分析，我们认为，应该对不同生长期、与附着物有不同联系的生物资产，运用不同的计量属性： 对于那些与附着物没有紧密联系的生物资产，如动物和一年生的农作物，公允价值是最恰当的选择；而对于那些生长期较长，与附着物有一定联系的生物资产，历史成本也许是最优选择；对于生长期长并与其附着物联系紧密的生物资产，我们认为应视其生长阶段和获得方式的不同而采用不同的计量属性。 我们还运用经验研究方法，检验了我国生物资产计量的价值相关性，但我们并没有找到支持现状的证据。 总之，我们认为，多种计量属性并存是我国生物资产计量的现实选择。更多还原

【Abstract】 Agriculture, as we all know, is one of the most important industry in our country, the unique trait of agriculture activity and biological assets make agriculture accounting different from others. At present, there are two standards which applies to biological assets (Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets, SGARA) issued by IASB (IAS41) and AASB (AASB1037), but there is no corresponding accounting standard in china, So, Research into agriculture accounting, especially the measurement attribute of biological assets, have theoretical and practical significance.As an information system in security market, accounting is influenced by many factors, such as economic and legal factors. In the process of information release, as a result, its output is tradeoff between reliability and relevance, it is very the request and result of accounting measure.We also analyzed the comment letters of IASB E65. We concluded that the results have some positive effects on the standards setting of our national agricultural activity.As biological assets have some relationship with their appendix, such as forest and land, they forms a system of assets.The system has non-market service value which make the value of biological asset underestimated by the traditional accounting measurement. Based on the above analysis, we think it is suitable to use different measurement attribute to different biological assets which have different life period and different relationship with their appendix.As for those biological assets which have little relationship with their appendix, for example, animals or one-year-life corps, we think fair value is most appropriate choice; whereas moderate limited-life biological assets which have moderate relationship with their appendix, historical cost maybe the proper way; as for those biological assets which have long-life and close relationship with their appendix, such as forest, we think the proper way of accounting for them is to use different measurement attribute according to their growing period and the way of acquirement.In the appendix, an empirical study has been taken to evaluate the value-relevance of biological assets, but there is no findings to support history cost measurement.In a word, we think that the current measurement option of biological assets is a mixture of all measurement attributes.更多还原