Amendments to the IAS 41 and IAS 16 – implications for accounting of bearer plants
S. Bozzolan, E. Laghi, M. Matteihttps://doi.org/10.17221/48/2015-AGRICECONCitation:Bozzolan S., Laghi E., Mattei M. (2016): Amendments to the IAS 41 and IAS 16 – implications for accounting of bearer plants. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 62: 160-166.
Under the IAS-IFRS standards, agricultural activity is accounted for using a fair value model. In 2014, the IASB amended the accounting treatment for bearer plants with the aim to address some concerns that have emerged since the application of the IAS 41. The amendments require that bearer plants be accounted for like property, plant and equipment (IAS 16). In the paper, there are analysed the aspects introduced by these amendments, moving from the IASB project. In particular, the reasons that led to these amendments are explained and it is explored whether all the concerns previously identified by accounting scholars and practitioners have been addressed. Moreover, there are identified some possible obstacles to the practical application of the amendments to the IAS 41.Keywords:
agriculture accounting, agriculture produce, biological assets, IAS-IFRSReferences:
Argilés J.M., Blandón J.G., Monllau T. (2009): Fair value versus historic cost Valuation for Biological assets: Implications for the quality of financial information. Working Papers in Economics E09/215. Facultat d’Economia i Empresa, Universitat de Barcelona.Argilés Josep Maria, Slof Eric John (2001): New opportunities for farm accounting. European Accounting Review, 10, 361-383 https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180126640Aryanto Yohanes Handoko (): Theoretical Failure of IAS 41. SSRN Electronic Journal, , - https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1808413Barlev Benzion, Haddad Joshua Rene (2003): FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FIRM. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14, 383-415 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(02)00139-9Bohušová H., Svoboda P., Nerudová D. (2012): Biological assets reporting: is the increase in value caused by the biological transformation revenue. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 58: 520–532.Dowling Carlin, Godfrey Professor.Jayne (2001): AASB 1037 Sows the Seeds of Change: A Survey of SGARA Measurement Methods. Australian Accounting Review, 11, 45-51 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2001.tb00179.xElad C. (2007): Fair value accounting and fair trade: an analysis of the role of International Accounting Standard No. 41 in social conflict. Socio-Economic Review, 5, 755-777 https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwm013Elad C., Herbohn, K. (2011): Implementing fair value accounting in the agricultural sector. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Edinburgh.Feleagă L., Feleagă N., Răileanu V. (2012): Theoretical considerations about implementation of IAS 41 in Romania. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2: 31–38.Herbohn K., Herbohn J. (2006): International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41: what are the implications for reporting forest assets? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5: 175–189.Lefter V., Roman A.G. (2007): IAS 41 Agriculture: Fair value accounting. Theoretical and Applied Economics Review, 5: 15–22.Penttinen M., Latukka A., Meriläinen H., Salminen O., Uotila E. (2004): IAS fair value and forest evaluation on farm forestry. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 40: 67–80.Sedláček J. (2010): The methods of valuation in agricultural accounting. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 56: 59–66.Svensson A., Nylén A., Gunnevik A. (2008): How fair is fair? The Swedish Forest Industry’s Application of the IAS 41–Agriculture. [Master’s Thesis.] Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.