However from our examination of our sample countries

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: CONCLUSION All the countries recognize the concept of intangible fixed assets and define criteria for recording such assets. However, the lack of overall homogeneity in the approach to intangibles is evidence that no generally-accepted conceptual framework exists. At national level, no country prescribes just one treatment for each type of intangible, so it appears that the lack of international homogeneity itself arises from a lack of national homogeneity. However, from our examination of our sample countries’ own regulations, we see three types of classification for intangible assets emerging in accounting. • Firstly, there are the inventory-type approaches, i.e. the lists of intangibles recognized by the accounting standards as potentially capitalizable. • The accounting standards also suggest a simplified distinction between research and development costs, goodwill and other intangible assets, such as patents, licenses, etc. (This classification could be considered as a variation on the first). • Finally, as stated above, it can be considered t...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online