If we take a closer look at what we have called

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: ermany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA) and five can indeed be considered as having real definitions (the IASC, Ireland, the UK, Australia and the USA). If we take a closer look at what we have called “tautological” definitions, we see that the description is not totally accurate. In fact, each entity concerned begins by stating a tautology (e.g. an intangible asset is intangible) but then goes on to define such assets either by opposition, or by a definition which attempts to say what an intangible asset actually is (see Appendix 1). To give an example of what we consider a “real” definition, we may quote the IASC’ s definition: an intangible asset is “an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative purposes. An asset is a resource controlled by an enterprise as a result of past events; and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise”. In the UK, intangible...
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