2 The second step IFRS for listed companies and voluntary adopters The third

2 the second step ifrs for listed companies and

This preview shows page 12 - 13 out of 21 pages.

4.2 The second step – IFRS for listed companies and voluntary adopters The third wave of accounting reform originated in 2005. Starting 2007, IFRS became mandatory for consolidated financial statements of listed entities and banking institutions, along with an application of OMFP 1752/2005 in individual accounts for 88 JAEE 1,1 all companies. Also, an option to choose between the Seventh European Directive and IAS is available for non-banking and non-financial unlisted entities for their consolidated accounts. While OMFP 1752/2005 retains some of the characteristics of the previous OMFP 94/2001, it also contains simplifications for small companies. In an interview, a top representative of the Ministryof Finance (R2) explained that where the Fourth Directive includes an option that is in line with IFRS, this option was chosen in OMFP 1752/2005. It is a 95-page document, supplemented by two Orders (one issued in 2006 and the other in 2007). It also prescribes the layout of financial statements (including the composition of the notes), the general chart of accounts, the accounting principles and measurement rules (basis) to be used[15]: Therefore, along with Romania’s adhesion to EU, we have secured the conformity with the Fourth European Directive: everything which is compulsory in the Directive is taken in the Romanian regulations, and also some optional provisionsweretaken. Wherethe Directive had basic provisions or such provisions were completely missing, we took the provision in the IASs, but only to the extent that these provisions would not be against the provisions of the Directive. Now we have many definitions, concepts, recognition criteria, measurement rules from the IFRSs (R2). OMFP 1752/2005 is considered by A2 and PB2 as a step back in IFRS implementation in Romania, while the opposite is expressed by P1 and R2. We explain these differences of opinions by the inclusion in the Order of some provisions from IFRS, leading to a de jure convergence to some extent (and some interviewees refer to it), but the de facto convergence is perceived as being low (and the others reflect this situation). PB2 underlines that “these [OMFP 1752/2005 and IAS] are two parallel worlds.” As of this point, we need to stress the same professional’s continuous case from his high-level position in the major accounting professional body, for the establishment of a set of Romanian accounting standards based on IFRS, issued by the profession, and which would function alongside the national accounting regulations issued in a fiscal end by the Romanian regulator. Of course, the Romanian regulator was not in favor of this approach; this confirms the hierarchy of institutional influence advocated by Dillard et al. (2005, p. 513) as an extension of the structuration theory, in that “the economic and political level provides the foundations for the organizational field level institutions y (p. 513), and that “y governmental officials, regulators and legislators may be the primary agents at the economic and political level” (Idem). R1 admits that OMFP 1752/2005 still has some unresolved issues such as the lack of details regarding impairment tests. In the same line, A1 argues that the Order “is short
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 21 pages?

  • Spring '17
  • Enkhjin

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture