Search results

Addresses the UK accounting definition of an asset from a practical, theoretical and critical perspective. It suggests that it is a flawed definition in need of change. The accounting definition (UK and US) recognises assets arising from a “transaction or event”, a basis which, inter alia, is inadequate for the task of recognising often hugely valuable, internally created assets, such as brands, software and research patents. As providers of financial information to management, the accounting profession has a duty to account for all the tangible and intangible assets of a business. However, as this paper shows, there are many practical circumstances in which it fails in this task.

This paper aims to present a comprehensive view of the assets recognition criteria by providing a coherent set of pre-measurement themes that should be taken into consideration to be a candidate asset.

This paper is a conceptual review paper.

This synthesis review results in seven themes; the social constructionist nature of the conceptual framework (CF), the nature of assets, the changing nature of asset recognition, asset measurement bases, entity-specific vs market-specific recognition, the economic resource comprising “rights”, and finally, the role of “separability” in asset recognition.

With the increasing importance of internally created assets and their implications on the financial position of the business entity, and with coinciding of revisiting the CF for financial reporting (at the time of writing this paper), this paper shows a synthesis and comprehensive themes of asset-based recognition criteria for tangible and intangibles assets.

This paper presents an examination of the cognitive assumptions underpinning the accounting recognition of assets, in particular, internally created intangible assets such as brands, software and patents. The purpose is to examine, in broad terms, how accountants view these assets and, also, to assess whether accountants, themselves, are aware of the restrictive nature of their disclosure practices. It is supported by a small questionnaire of accountants to see whether there is some support for this assertion. Intangible assets are becoming paramount in the governance of companies and it is, therefore, pertinent for management to have relevant financial information about them. An important first step is to persuade accountants to recognise them.

Liability for capital gains tax is determined in terms of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. According to the Eighth Schedule, the disposal of an asset is the event that triggers the liability for capital gains tax. It is therefore imperative to know what constitutes a disposal, because it is fundamental to the entire capital gains tax regime. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the definition of a disposal in order to ascertain whether a disposal, as defined, is intended to mean a transfer of ownership in an asset or whether a disposal could take place upon the occurrence of events or causae other than the transfer of ownership. A study of relevant literature was undertaken to analyse the definition of “disposal” in order to fully comprehend the intention and meaning of the term as it is contemplated in the Eighth Schedule. The current definition of a “disposal” could lead to uncertainty and anomalies. It is therefore recommended that the legislature should amend the definition of a disposal in the Eighth Schedule. The definition should refer to the disposal of an asset (other than a personal‐use asset) as being the transfer of ownership of an asset from one person to another or the loss of the ownership of an asset. Because the common law has clear principles regarding how ownership of different classes of assets is transferred, no confusion would arise regarding whether or when a disposal has occurred.

This paper examines the boundary within which the recognition of an asset currently takes place. It proposes the establishment of a new boundary based upon “separability” which would allow internally created or home‐grown assets to be recognised on the balance sheet. It provides a new definition of brand assets so that, whether purchased separately or as part of goodwill or internally created by a business, brands can be recognised as assets within a new boundary.

IAS 1 (“Presentation of financial statements”) requires that application of all international standards is necessary in order to comply officially with International Accounting Standards. This appears to be a key statement for the move towards accounting harmonization. The feasibility of this kind of harmonization could be jeopardized if even one standard is “rejected” by companies. In this context, in the wake of the publication of IAS 38 “Intangible assets”, examines the ways that 21 national and two international accounting standards approach intangibles, both in terms of definition and treatment. Shows that there is no conceptual framework commonly accepted and that there is a considerable lack of consistency both inter‐country and intra‐country. This challenges the principle of the acceptability of all international accounting standards by companies that wish to or are required to apply IASs. The disharmony highlighted by the advent of IAS 38 could be a sign of the failure of international accounting harmonization.

A previous attempt to implement the use of historical measures of asset management effectiveness – as part of a value improvement model (VIM) for repetitive processes – had not been 100 percent successful within an airport operational engineering environment. Taking into account the more holistic approach realised through applying a soft systems methodology (SSM), the purpose of this paper was to use the CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transaction, World View, Owner and Environment) tool to gain an understanding of the root definition of the problem statement developing a conceptual model used to facilitate an improvement to the implementation process.

The research methodology taken incorporated an action research approach combining case study research with an action research process of planning, observing and reflecting summarized as taking an action case research design.

This research has developed a visual and systematic framework that enables managers to understand, analyse and improve value in their asset management repetitive processes. The CATWOE root definition tool has been used to create a conceptual model of the problem area providing a holistic view of the stakeholders and the internal and external environmental constraints that the VIM for asset management sits within.

The research was completed in‐situ at a single airport focused on a single group of assets managed by a single group of stakeholders. Future research should look to further develop the VIM and CATWOE approach in other asset management environments such as manufacturing as well as asset intensive service industries.

This research has taken a soft systems approach and successfully applied it to the implementation of hard systems measurements of asset management effectiveness within an airport operational engineering environment. Other managers with asset management responsibilities will find this approach useful in achieving their core objective to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their assets and the teams employed to maintain them at minimal total cost.

Within the stream of research on public sector accounting standards, heritage asset accounting represents a difficult and challenging issue. This paper intends to join the debate on heritage reporting by carrying out a critical review of the Consultation Paper (CP) “Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector” issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in order to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations.

To this end, the current study adopts document analysis as a qualitative research method by referring to Italy as a typical and critical case study. Moreover, the authors actively took part in the Italian working group on heritage assets reporting, so they are well-informed people about the Italian point of view as well as the broad discussion underpinning the Italian response.

Evidence demonstrates that, although the proposals included in the CP represent a new step towards an organic regulation of heritage asset reporting, if these preliminary views are confronted with the reality of an emblematic context, as in the Italian case, much room for improvement remains regarding the definition, recognition, measurement and disclosure of such assets.

The originality of the paper lies in its contribution to overcoming the current controversial aspects of heritage assets reporting and the issuing of an accounting standard. In doing so, the authors also attempt to answer the call made by Anessi-Pessina et al. (2019) to investigate in detail an individual country experience to better understand the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets.

Examines the weaknesses of the current UK and US definitions of an asset. Presents an argument for them to be updated to include valuable internally created intangible assets, such as brands and software, which currently fall outside the scope of them.

This paper seeks is to enhance our understanding of intangible recognition by embracing an artefact‐based approach.

The paper presents an artefact‐based approach to intangible asset recognition, an artefact being a physical and visual representation (typically, documentary) of expended human intellectual and physical creativity. This output orientation (what people create: artefact‐based outputs) is compared to an input orientation (the investment inputs in human “assets”) using artefact‐based asset recognition criteria that have already received some exposure in the marketing literature in respect of brands.

Emphasis is placed on outputs, i.e. what people create, rather than on the more familiar input orientation, which focuses on investments in human assets. When compared to an output orientation, the more familiar input orientation is an unsatisfactory basis on which to recognise human assets.

The asset recognition criteria provide a useful checklist by which to delineate an intangible asset from an expense.

The criteria have already been applied to brand assets in the marketing domain. It is now being applied for the first time to human assets.