11 tableau 5 internally generated intangibles

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: erion). The second criterion relates to the difficulty in assessing the value and/or reliability of cost measurement. As we have seen, all the entities used reference to the market as an inclusion criteria. It is therefore possible to establish a table of comparison between Lacroix’ classification and the s recognition criteria used by the entities in our sample. This table (table 5) only concerns internally generated intangible assets. 11 Tableau 5 – Internally Generated Intangibles Countries and Organizations Belgium Denmark Finland France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Spain Sweden UK Australia Canada Japan Norway Switzerland USA IASC Total Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Risk level Value measurement x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Criteria specific to Japan : “R&D costs for new products or new techniques may be capitalized as deferred assets in the balance sheet. Recurring R&D costs for improvement of present techniques cannot be capitalized”. x x x x x x (in the definition) x x 8 16 8 The table concerns 18 entities. Germany and Austria are not included because they do not recognize internally developed intangibles, and we also withdrew Portugal, Greece and the Eu...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/02/2013 for the course ECONOMIC economics taught by Professor Economics during the Fall '13 term at Elmont Memorial High School.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online