ОСОБЕННОСТИ УЧЕТА И ОЦЕНКИ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ АКТИВОВ

Целью научной статьи является рассмотрение особенностей учета биологических активов организаций, осуществляющих сельскохозяйственную деятельность, изучение их соответствия требованиям МСФО 41 и изучение методов их оценки.
Методология. Проведен сравнительный анализ особенностей в учете оценки растений и животных, являющихся биологическими активами в соответствии с требованиями МСФО (IAS) 41 «Сельское хозяйство». Выявлены проблемы в некоторых странах с соблюдением требований стандарта. В ходе исследования определена эффективность применения при оценке методики справедливой стоимости.
Оригинальность / ценность исследования. Спецификой научной статьи является особенности и порядок применения стандарта 41 (IAS) «Сельское хозяйство» и определение эффективности метода справедливой стоимости в учете сельскохозяйственных организаций.
Результаты исследования. Соблюдение требований МСФО (IAS) 41 «Сельское хозяйство» влияет на качество финансовой отчетности. Стандарт требует раскрытия информации о видах, стоимости и изменениях биологических активов в отчете прибылях и убытках. Если такое требование выполняется, будет дана объективная оценка и доступна общая информация о финансовом состоянии и результатах сельскохозяйственных организаций.

1. Amiraslani H., Latridis G. E., Pope P. F. Accounting for asset impairment: a test for IFRS compliance across Europe. – London: Cass Business School, 2013. – 68 p.

2. Ball R. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors //Accounting and business research. – 2006. – Vol. 36. – P. 5–27.

3. Tsalavoutas I., Dionysiou D. Value relevance of IFRS mandatory disclosure requirements //Journal of Applied Accounting Research. – 2014.

4. Amiraslani H., Latridis G. E., Pope P. F. Accounting for asset impairment: a test for IFRS compliance across Europe. – London: Cass Business School, 2013.

5. Wysocki P. New institutional accounting and IFRS // Accounting and business research. – 2011. – Т. 41. – №. 3. – С. 309–328.

6. IAS 41 «Agriculture» [Электронды ресурс] – IFRS [web-портал]. – URL: https://www.ifrs.org/issuedstandards/list-of-standards/ias-41-agriculture/ (қарау уақыты: 24.07.2020).

7. Arbidane I., Mietule I. Problems and solutions of accounting and evaluation of biological assets in Latvia. – 2018.

8. Zachariadis M., Hileman G., Scott S. V. Governance and control in distributed ledgers: Understanding the challenges facing blockchain technology in financial services //Information and Organization. – 2019. – Vol. 29. – No. 2. – P. 105–117.

9. Muniraju M., Ganesh S. R. A Study on the Impact of International Financial Reporting Standards Convergence on Indian Corporate Sector // Journal of Business and Management. – 2016. – Vol. 18(4). – P. 34–41.

10. Young E. Fipecafi. Manual de normas internacionais de contabilidade: IFRS versus normas brasileiras–1. ed.–3. Reimpr. – São Paulo: Atlas. – 2009. – 364 p.

11. Catty J. P. IFRS: guia de aplicação do valor justo. – Bookman Editora, 2013. – 632 p.

12. Alexander D., Fasiello R. Valore reale, fair value and the business model: was Besta best after all? // AMIS 2014. – 2014. – P. 703–723.

13. Budrionytė R., Gaižauskas L. Historical cost vs fair value in forest accounting: the case of Lithuania // Entrepreneurship and Sustainability. – 2018. – Issues 6(1). – P. 60–76.

14. Argilés-Bosch J. M., Miarons M., Garcia-Blandon J., Benavente C., Ravenda D. Usefulness of fair valuation of biological assets for cash flow prediction. // Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad. – 2018. – Vol. 47(2). – P. 157–180.

15. Liang L., Riedl E. J. The effect of fair value versus historical cost reporting model on analyst forecast accuracy // The Accounting Review. 2014. – Vol. 89(3). – P. 1151–1177.

16. Barlev B., Haddad J. R. Fair value accounting and the management of the firm // Critical Perspectives on Accounting. – 2003. – Vol. 14. – P. 383–415.

17. Evans M., Hodder L., Hopkins P. E. The predictive ability of fair values for future financial performance of commercial banks and the relation of predictive ability to banks’ share prices // Contemporary Accounting Research. – 2014. – Vol. 31(1). – P. 13–44.

18. Методические рекомендации по применению международного стандарта бухгалтерского учета (IAS) 41 «Сельское хозяйство» [Электронls ресурс] // «Параграф. Юрист» АЖ [web-портал]. – URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30037850#pos=0;0 (қарау уақыты: 24.07.2020).

19. Argilés J., Garcia-Blandon J., Monllau T. Fair value versus historical cost-based valuation for biological assets: predictability of financial information // Spanish Accounting Reiew. – 2011. – Vol. 14. – No. 2. – P. 87–113.

20. Argilés Bosch J., Aliberch A.S. Garcia-Blandon J. A comparative study of difficulties in accounting preparation and judgment in agriculture using fair value and historical cost for biological assets valuation // Spanish Accounting Review. – 2012. – Vol. 15. – No. 1. – P. 109–142.

21. Gonçalves R., Lopes P. Firm-specific Determinants of Agricultural Financial Reporting // Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. – 2014. – Vol. 110. – P. 470–481.

22. Baigrie I., Coetsee D. An analysis of the financial reporting compliance of South African public agricultural companies // Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences. – 2016. – Vol. 9. – No. 3. – P. 833–853.

23. Muhammad K., Ghani E. K. A fair value model for bearer biological assets in promoting corporate governance: A proposal // Journal of Agricultural Studies. – 2013. – Vol. 2. – No. 1. – P. 16–26.

24. Arbidane I., Mietule I. Problems and solutions of accounting and evaluation of biological assets in Latvia. – 2018. – Vol. 6(1). – P. 10–22.

25. Acar M. Performance Ranking of Turkish Companies Implementing “IAS 41: Agriculture” Via Topsis Method. – Ankara: Congress Book. – 2019.

26. He L. Y., Wright S., Evans E. Is fair value information relevant to investment decision-making: Evidence from the Australian agricultural sector? //Australian Journal of Management. – 2018. – Vol. 43. – №. 4. – P. 555–574.

27. Jana H., Marta S. The fair value model for the measurement of biological assets and agricultural produce in the Czech Republic // Procedia economics and finance. – 2014. – Vol. 12. – P. 213–220.

28. Hinke J., Stárová M. Application possibilities and consequences of biological assets and agricultural produce reporting in accordance with IFRS principles in the Czech Republic // AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics. – 2013. – Vol. 5. – P. 77–89.

29. Kakalta M. Evaluation of Biological Assets and Agricultural Disclosures Required by Companies in Philippines // International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. – 2013. – Vol. 1(1). – P. 83–89.

30. Miranda H. D. et al. Accounting Practices and International Accounting Standard (IAS)/Philippine Accounting Standard (PAS) 41 Compliance of Cattle Farms: Evidence from the Philippines // Journal of Global Business and Trade. – 2017. – Vol. 13. – No. 1. – P. 55–77.

31. Kurniawan R., Mulawarman A. D., Kamayanti A. Biological assets valuation reconstruction: A critical study of IAS 41 on agricultural accounting in Indonesian farmers // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. – 2014. – Vol. 164. – P. 68–75.

32. Mates D. et al. Biological assets and the agricultural products in the context of the implementation of the IAS 41: A case study of the Romanian agro-food system // Archives of Biological Sciences. – 2015. – Vol. 67. – No. 2. – P. 705–714.

33. Международный стандарт финансовой отчетности (IFRS) 13 «Справедливая стоимость» [Электронды ресурс] // «Параграф. Юрист» АЖ [web-портал]. – URL: https://www.online.zakon.kz (қарау уақыты: 20.07.2020).

34. Menicucci E. Fair Value Accounting and Earnings Quality // Earnings Quality. – Palgrave Pivot, Cham, 2020. – P. 107–137.