Finally it is worth noting that of the ten entities

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: s” encountered at the first level of approach (Definitions) are “filled in”, in the official standards, by the development of recognition criteria. These criteria are examined in the following paragraph. Finally, it is worth noting that of the ten entities having a conceptual approach to intangible assets, six belong to Mueller’ Anglo-Saxon model (Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, s Australia, Canada, and the USA). The three countries belonging to the Continental model (France, Germany and Austria) are the only ones to have a definition by opposition alone. Mueller’ two models, then, are indeed valid as far as approaches to intangible assets in our s sample countries are concerned, with the national accounting systems in our survey falling into similar categories. 4. HOW INTANGIBLE ASSETS ARE RECOGNIZED The criteria for recognition of intangible assets given in accounting standards are indissociable from the thinking behind the way they are defined. When the approach applied in defining intangibles turns out to be conceptually weak, the recognition criteria compensate for the gaps left by inventory-style approaches. From the various accounting standards, we see that three...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online