IFRS in Russia: views of Prof. Ya.V. Sokolov
and influence to local accounting
Generalova Natalia V.
Ph.D. in Economics, Associate Professor of Department of Statistics, Accounting and Audit, Saint- Petersburg State University, Russia
Sergey Moderov V.
Director of audit and consulting firm IFRS-Audit, Member of ACCA, Russia
The early 21st century economic crisis showed that financial reporting should fulfill the function of providing users with financial information required for making management decisions. Otherwise it proves to be inefficient and, in some cases even destructive, since benefits from its use do not cover its costs. The main problems concerning the reporting of information in financial statements are created by the accounting methodology. Among them are low transparency due to incomplete requirements for the presentation and disclosure of information, a lack of comparability of financial statements prepared in accordance with the national standards; the incomplete reporting of all economic life facts (for instance,. transactions with financial instruments, contractual obligations); the excessive optimism inspired in users by financial reports (for example, the accrual method requires the recognition of income, while money has not been received yet, fair value accounting, etc.). (Sokolov, Pyatov, 2009)
IFRS Adoption in Russia
By the time the accounting reform started in the late 90s, Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union the economic relations established under the planned economy system. That period was marked by such distinctive features as the state regulation of accounting through issuing normative documents obligatory for application; the complete standardization and unification of accounting procedures and records; the unified system of accounting. Subsequently the main purpose of accounting was to ensure the security and the rational use of public property. Despite the obvious advantages of the Soviet accounting system it failed to cope with the challenges posed by the new management conditions of the market economy.
The reform’s turning point on the government level was International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It was the seminar on The Problems of Accounting at Joint Ventures that spurred the beginning of the reform. The seminar organized by The United Nations’ Center for Transnational Corporations and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Soviet Union took place in Moscow in June 1989. The main disparity between the Russian and International accounting practices was brought to light, and the ways of adapting the Russian accounting system to the International accounting practices were mapped out. However, it was the State Program for the Russian Federation Transition to the Internationally Accepted Accounting and Statistics System in Compliance with the Requirements of Market Economy Development (approved by the decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation dated 23 October 1992 Nom.3708-1) that is formally considered to be the beginning of the reform. A whole number of accounting regulations were issued under the Program, with the Law оn Accounting being among them. However, in spite of the considerable work accomplished by the Ministry of Finance of Russia, the reform proceeded at a slow pace. It can be explained by the following reasons: the lack of the regulatory framework, the obvious contradictions between the tax, accounting and civil laws, the unstable economic situation in the country (hyperinflation, the lack of qualified personnel, etc.)
The course for the international standards was mapped out in the Program for the Reform of Accounting in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards approved by the RF Government resolution No.283 dated 6 March 1998, which claimed that “the purpose of the accounting system reform was to adjust the national accounting system to the requirements of market economy and IFRS”. In other words, the implementation of the Program enabled the country’s accounting system to reach a new qualitative level. The change in the accounting concept resulted in the shift of emphasis. Greater attention started to be paid to financial reporting rather than to accounting processes. The conceptual framework of IFRS, much of which was new to the Russian accountants, was firmly established in the country’s accounting theory and practice. Among the fundamental principles introduced in the Russian accounting, were, for example, accrual concept, an accounting policy as a tool of forming the accounting and reporting systems within an organization, the priority of substance over form, materiality, prudence, the concept of true and fair view and fair presentation. The Program for the Accounting Reform based on the International Financial Reporting Standards was carried out along three lines: the upgrading of the accounting regulatory framework ; the creation of the accounting profession; qualified personnel retraining.
However, the plans for the transition of public corporation to IFRS starting from 2005 appeared to be impracticable. The financial accounting and reporting reform was further adjusted and refined in the Concept of Accounting and Reporting Development in Russia in the midterm approved by the Order of Ministry of Finance No.180 dated 1 July 2004. The priorities set up in the document required that financial reporting conform to the national standards based on IFRS and that consolidated financial statements be drawn up in accordance with IFRS. In order to ensure the successful implementation of the accounting reform, the Concept provided for a number of measures to be implemented in the period between 2004 and 2010. The further steps reflected the balanced approach to the IFRS application in Russia. They aimed for: the gradual transfer of the consolidated financial statements of publicly important economic entities to IFRS; the improvement of the Russian standards of financial reporting on the basis of IFRS; the creation of the basic infrastructure of IFRS application.
The success of the Concept directly depended on the passage of the law on consolidated financial reporting, which would require to draw up consolidated financial statements in accordance with IFRS.
Finally, the year 2010 saw the publication of a document, which had been discussed since 2004. It introduced a legal requirement entitled Federal Law No.208 «On Consolidated Financial Statements dated 27 July 2010 for the preparation of financial reports in accordance with IFRS.
Inspite the Law was adopted in 2010, it came into power only beginning from the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2012. This year is a first-time adoption of IFRS for many Russian companies, as the procedure of ratification of IFRS documents on the territory of the Russian Federation as well as adoption of legal acts was done by 2012 (the Decree of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation #160n dated 25.11.2011 ‘On introduction of IFRS and IFRS Interpretations on the territory of the Russian Federation).
So, as per the Law #208-FZ the following categories of the companies has the liabilities to prepare IFRS consolidated financial statements:
b) insurance companies;
c) organizations with quoted on the Russian Federation territory exchanges securities;
d) organizations that have to prepare consolidated financial statements by other regulatory documents in the RF. The list of such companies is numerous, i.e. it includes nature monopolies and State defense companies.
e) other organizations, if their legal statutory documents require preparation of consolidated financial statements.
The year of the beginning of preparation and publication of IFRS consolidated financial statements is stipulated as follows:
2012 – for all organizations under the Law #208-FZ, excluding those for which the year of transition is 2015;
2015 – for the two ‘privileged’ categories of organizations:
1st category includes organizations that have quoted securities and which prepare consolidated statements under other internationally recognized rules (i.e. under US GAAP);
2nd category includes organizations with issued bonds, which are allowed to be traded on organized securities markets.
Moreover, the issue of expansion of the Law #208-FZ to professional traders and dealers of securities, as well as investment funds, non-governmental pension funds, management companies of pension funds, pay investment funds (mutual entities), clearing houses, stock exchanges, stock agents, brokers, state unitary enterprises of public interest, and others, is actively discussed. Such a position was stated by the Plan of the Ministry of Finance of the RF for the years 2012-2015 on development of accounting and reporting on the base of IFRSs, stipulated by the Decree #440 dated 30.11.2011. Also, there is a discussion of obligatory presentation of IFRS statements quarterly (today companies, except banks, are required to publish only annual IFRS consolidated financial statements).
The accounting and reporting reform in Russia has continued to the present day without being limited to convergence with IFRS. The change in regulation is viewed as a specific area of the reform. The essence of the reforms is a move from tight state control to the judicious combination of public and professional regulation. The new “Law On Accounting” is scheduled to be passed in 2013.
Thus, in the course of over twenty years (from 1989 till 2012) that the accounting reform was conducted in Russia, it adhered to the policy of “adjusting the national accounting and reporting system to the requirements of the market economy and IFRS” with due account for the specific circumstances and the analysis of the encountered problems. Instead of rushing headlong into applying IFRS Russia adopted the system of its ‘well-balanced and gradual’ implementation.. Such an approach consists in maintaining the national system of accounting and reporting, which is based on IFRS, and requiring from public companies to draw up their consolidated financial statements directly in accordance with IFRS.
The accounting reforms, which took place in the period between 1992 and 2010, showed that Russia has not just copied IFRS, but has chosen a most reasonable and prudent way of the international standards application. The following are the issues that demonstrate the essence of this approach:
- The integration of IFRS into RAS: financial statements are required to be drawn up in accordance with RAS, which in their turn are based on IFRS;
- The introduction of a mandatory requirement for drawing up consolidated statements along the IFRS lines, as well as their mandatory audit and publication: the public companies’ consolidated financial statements are formed under IFRS.
Firstly, this approach makes accounting and reporting regulation possible at the state level (financial reports are formed under RAS). Secondly, it will contribute to increasing the attractiveness of the Russian market for foreign investors due to the use of IFRS in the’ consolidated financial statements of public companies.
We also note that today de-facto majority of Russian public companies already present IFRS statements. It can be explained by existence of foreign investor or planning to rise finance in the form of IPO (Initial Public Offering), or by desire to get a tool on consolidation of holding, or rise organizational positive image for the purposes of Public Relations (PR).
In recent years the number of Russian companies preparing their financial reports on the basis of IFRS has been steadily increasing. Along with the IFRS the Russian companies use American standards (US GAAP) as being internationally recognized ones. However, the possibility of using the IFRS financial reporting on U.S. exchanges as well as the EU requirement to submit consolidated financial statements in compliance with IFRS, have forced the Russian companies to move from US GAAP to IFRS.
Clearly, the international standards have strong influence over the reporting of accounting information by Russian companies. They have gained such influence due to the effects produced on the national accounting standards and also due to the fact that a large number of Russian companies currently prepare their reporting in compliance with IFRS (Moderov, 2006, 2010). The adoption of the Law ‘On Consolidated Financial Statements’ will enable IFRS reporting in Russia to achieve a legal status. This is expected to improve the reporting quality due to a higher degree of responsibility.
Review of publications about IFRS by prof. Y.V. Sokolov
As per our view, International Financial Reporting Standards and ideas of anglo-american school of accounting has influenced substantially to Russian accounting whithin the recend decades, and the consequences of this influence are only to be assessed. This makes useful to pay attention opt works of Yaroslav Vyacheslavovich Sokolov (1938-2010), who was one of the first domestic specialists who paid attention to those consequences. Below we present the results of chronological review аof the most important publication on that topic.
The article «Strengths and weaknesses of the US accounting», published in 1999 in the central professional magazine «The Accounting», provided fundamental analysis on key statements of American accounting, which ideas influenced significantly to conceptual framework of IFRS (Sokolov Y.V., Sokolov V.Y., 1999). The strength, the power of American accounting is in its ‘common sense, trust to Accountant, to his judgments, using very simple but always practically approved methods, its simplicity, ignoring complicated methaphysical constructs; attention to accounting as to a business language, which has to be as far convenient, as possible. But its shortcomings are consequences of its strengths, and this is a weakness of American accounting’ (the same source). Questioning about possibility to a full transfer of American ideas to Russia, he replied negatively: «American accounting school brought a lot to a world, and will bring even more, but this accounting should not be imported by the whole. Could Russian accounting become American? No. Many of its perfect methods will not work with us’. (the same source).
In 2001 the critical article «International Accounting Standards and us», was written with a co-author Sokolov V.Ya. One of central issues in this publication was the reason of creation of IAS’s. Authors claim that ‘In the base of IAS’s the myth of its global rewards is stated. It is claimed that they are created in the interests of international corporations that could easily prepare their consolidated financial statements, for investors, which gain the ease of transferring of capital from one country to another. Many reasons are provided, but the real issue is only one – the need to ease sales and purchases of securities. This is a legal reason, but it represents a consequence of economical one, which is the need to export financial capital, and this is an origin’ (Sokolov Y.V., Sokolov V.Y., 2001). This orientation of international standards to service the needs of investors and financial peculators (but not producers) has led to serious changes both in accounting and the audit. If in the previous times accounting standards were aimed mainly to the process of accounting, the recent standards are considered as the instrument of forming financial statements, as it is what users are analyzing when taking decisions on purchasing of the company, and it is being audited: ‘This where desire to consider accounting standards not as a way of accounting, but as a method of creation of accounting reports, because financial speculators are working with reports, not trial balances, and the audit report is considered as sufficient sign of quality. This way the leading audit firms also begin to service financial institutes’ (the same source). This article present eight consequences of adoption IFRS’s for accounting: 1) asset now is only what can bring benefits; 2) the balance sheet is more important than profit and loss statement; 3) growth in net assets is considered as income; 4) source documents are no more a base for accounting entries; 5) important are only assets creating profits, its content should be disclosed realistically, there must be no ‘double dealing’ accounting; 6) values should be estimated according time-value of money, not by their nominal values, i.e. at their discounted value; 7) with adoption of IFRS’s tasks for the auditor are changed from confirming statements on its conformity with source documents to providing opinion on correctness of professional judgments made by an accountant; fair value brought by IFRS’s, often absent in Russian reality, and thus its using will lead to misstatements in accounting reports. In the end of the article there is a conclusion that ‘one should switch to IFRS’s only if the firm brings its securities to international markets’ (the same source).
Article «The Destiny of IFRS’s in Russia» by Yaroslav Vyacheslavovich published in 2005 in the magazine ‘Finance and Business” is dedicated to ‘professional judgment’, the principally new term for domestic accountant, who during the long soviet times got used to follow formal documents. Sokolov Y.V. provides the following definition: ‘Professional judgment is duly made accounting opinion about an operation or event, useful for its description and for taking managerial decisions’ (Sokolov Y.V., 2005). The position of Sokolov provides that, firstly, Russian accountant usually is not in the position to express his opinion, he is awaiting from Ministry of Finance the strict direction, which he is ready to implement; secondly – fairness of accountant’s judgment may help to create fair statements, and if formal regulatory documents do not provide the ‘right’ answers to accounting issues, then the accountant should depart from them and issue its own professional judgment. This means that professional judgment have to be sanctioned by regulative documents, and so its is done in Russia by the law ‘On accounting’ (p. 4 art. 13 129-FZ) . The other issue is influence of IFRS’s on methodological aspects of accounting. Here the Professor sets out five key problems: 1) the absence of the common chart of accounts and standard double entries; 2) synthetic accounting may not correspond to analytical accounting; 3) collation is not followed; 4) the ‘Shweiker rule’ ‘no document- no transaction’ does not work; 5) the critical moment by Ketle is not also followed. In this article Yaroslav Vyacheslavovich made up a thesis of the main issue on Russian way to IFRS – another philosophy, another way of thinking must be inherent to an accountant forming IFRS statements: ‘Majority of our colleagues, even those who has studied international standards, believe that we talk about another bookkeeping procedure. In Russia there are other double entries, than in IFRS, we have other rules, forms of statements, and so on. But we have to understand that the main difference is another way of thinking, another ideology of accounting. Western accountant has another apperception and his judgments are different from ours’ (Sokolov Y.V., 2005).
We could also name some articles about IFRS implementation that were published in the magazine ‘Buh1C’. The article ‘Theoretical basis of transformation to IFRS’, written in 2007 is devoted to the need of reconciliation of RAS (Russian Accounting Standards) financial statements to those of IFRS (Sokolov Y.V., 2007). The most important there is that transformation itself is not a regulated process yet, which could lead to some unpleasant consequences. Following shortening the English abbreviation of IFRS’s, Yaroslav Vyacheslavovich has proposed to Russian readers two new words ‘Aifarez’ and ‘Aifareznichestvo’ in his publication ‘Aifarez: the new word and new activity’ (2009): ‘Aifarez should be stipulated as the process of reconciliation of national accounting system to international one. This process is lengthy, and its sent is not just substituting one normative documents (RAS) to others (IFRS’s)’ (Sokolov Y.V., 2009). As it was mentioned before, one of the critical aspects of international standards, by the opinion of Y.V. Sokolov, is a fair value. A lot of attention by its implementing was paid in the article ‘Statistical balance’ (2010): ‘ The main idea of this process (Aifarez process – note by authors)- is a transfer to valuation of assets to fair value. Its sounds good. But reason to do that is doubtful, because in the result of ‘Aifarez’ not the real value of the value owners dream of, would be received – the value that owners wish to inspire to buyers would be received. People dream of truth but provoke to falsehood’ (Sokolov Y.V., 2010).
To finalize the review of Y.V. Sokolov publications we would like to attract yopur attention to the textbook for postgraduates ‘Accounting and audit: modern theory and practice», where key questions from previous works were systemized (Accounting and Audit, 2009).
In our resume we could say that Yaroslav Vyacheslavovich critically assessed unconditional adoption of IFRS’s in Russia, he paid attention of professional society to the need of deep examination of the ideas of those standards and the consequences of their realization in Russian reality. But as the time passed he had to put up with IFRS that came into Russian accounting (both by normative regulating and by voluntary adoption of IFRS by largest companies). He perfectly new and appreciated the traditions of national accounting: ‘our accounting … is a consequence of the European, mainly German centuries-old tradition… Traditions of accounting in our country count of more than three hundred years. It is close to German views on accounting. And, in spite of that, it is not a copy of German ones, because they are originally three thousand years old and came from Byzantine monks who spread accounting in Russia’ (Sokolov Y.V., Sokolov V.Y., 2001). And thus he realized, and we are agree with him, that spreading IFRS in Russia must be done in the conditions of ‘prepareness’ (readiness) of Russian accountants, auditors, and mostly important – users of financial statements: ‘… We can make an important conclusion from here. It is best showed by the phrase of D.Yum (1711-1776), said about moral philosophy, but fully corresponding to the international accounting system: ‘… it is mainly hypothetic and build on fiction than on experience … not taking into attention of human nature’. Here comes the ‘Aifarez’, which is IFRS adoption, is coming with difficulties, as people, accountants and entrepreneurs, grown in another tradition, psychically not ready to manipulate with valuation. But the whole process is inevitable. That’s why we live in ‘Aifarez’ century. But finally it will take place within a time » (Sokolov Y.V., 2009).
Impact of IFRS on accounting and financial reporting in Russia
Accounting in Russia has been changed significantly during the last decades, mainly because of introduction of IFRS’s. Taking into account that international standards were forming under the influence of English and American schools, we could talk of influence by exactly those schools to Russian accounting.
Below we present a review of the key changes that IFRS’s and Anglo-American schools have brought to accounting in Russia.
1. Change in the main user(s) of financial statements and accounting function. As per our opinion the main difference of IFRS from Russian accounting is in the purpose of accounting itself, ‘change in designation of accounting: the dominance of control function changed to dominance in communicative function’ (Kovalev, 2010). IFRS’s serve the needs of investors, both real and potential ones, and thus they are based on economical approach the facts of economic life. Russian rules, up till now, are aimed to servicing the needs of state. We should note that the situation is constantly changing though, and declarative priority of investor’s interests is implemented by large companies. There is a change of priorities from a state to investor, as a result of accounting reform which aimed to change accounting from planned economy to market economy one. Re-orientation to another user brought about accrual concept, time value for money, determination of elements of financial statements (assets, liabilities, capital, income and expenses) by future economic benefits, substance over form principle, etc. (Generalova, 2010).
2. Implementation of ‘true and fair view’. This concept is an achievement of British school of accounting, which were later taken by developers of international standards and included in EU Directives. Russia is also following this way. The ‘true and fair view’ concept means that if legal documents (the form) do not provide possibility to reflect the essence (the substance), then the accountant should depart from them, and, using his professional judgment, should reflect the facts of economic life as he sees them. This way both the IFRS’s and then RAS entitle the accountant to step out from regulative documents if the latter do not show the substance. ‘The main technical moment is a high subjectivism of the concept. Substance over form concept opens a door to uncontrolled stealing of property, as not everybody clearly understands what is ‘professional judgment’, ‘viable opinion’, ‘reliability’, «good faith (fair view)’. Everyone understands reasonable by his own reason’ (Sokolov, Bychkova, 1999).
3. Use of ‘substance over form’ priority. This principle is included in Russian and international regulates. But if Russia it is usually ignored not only by accountants, but also in regulatory documents. The perfect example of the latter is the accounting of finance lease. In Russian the way of accounting is stipulated by the contract, i.e. by its legal form. Federal Law #164-FZ ‘On financial lease’ and order #15 ‘On finance lease accounting’ state that leased asset may be accounted either on the balance sheet of lessee or lessor, depending on the agreement of parties (Generalova, 2011). The key problem of realization of substance over form is not following those activities that it prescribe to follow: ‘The principle of substance over form has brought chaos to accountant’s minds. Everyone admit its sense but not all go that far as it claim for’ (Sokolov, Bychkova, 2000).
4. Importance of professional judgment. Professional judgment has also been taken from Anglo-American school first by international and then by Russian standard-setters. The critics of this introduction mainly concerned with the fact that professional judgment is subjective on its nature, and, thus may lead to even more incomparability than it was in times before introduction of IFRS’s. The second aspect, which is criticized, is that professional judgment might be a base for manipulating of financial statements by unfair accountant (Sokolov, Terentyeva, 2001).
5. Wide use of fair value. But one of the most criticized aspect of IFRS is the use of fair value. This valuation is required for investment property (IAS 40), biological assets (IAS 41), financial instruments (IAS 39), property, plant and equipment (IAS 16) and intangible assets (IAS 38) in case company adopts the accounting at fair value model and in other cases. The like requirements are introduced also in Russian normative acts. With the advantage of accounting at fair value (i.e. the actualization of financial information) here also comes disadvantage, which is unreliability of presented information. So, the definition of fair value is much based on subjective judgments of the management of the company and appraisers (valuers), and sometimes the data on fair value is absent. So, as per foreign experts opinion, on the territory of CIS (Common Independent States) for a long time there have not been fair value as there were no active market, i.e. the market where the transaction on sale and purchase of the like objects take place. Accounting at fair value inevitably require attraction of independent appraisers (valuers), who, in their fair value estimations must use IVS (International Valuation Standards), that in their turn are restated to comply with IFRS’s.
6. Splitting of tax and financial accounting. In the theory of accounting there are two concepts of co-existence of tax accounting and financial accounting: first was born in continental Europe, named ‘balance, or accounting concept’, provides that ‘the amount of accounting profit should be equal to the tax base»; second was born in the Great Britain, named ‘tax concept’, provides that ‘the amount of accounting profit is principally different from taxable one’ (Sokolov., Patrov, 1996). In Russia the first concept was prevailing for a long time, and there were practically no differences between tax and accounting profit, but with the transition to the market economy the issue how to calculate both tax and accounting profit raised. In the first years of post-soviet period taxable profit were determined by application of simple adjustments to accounting profit. After that tax accounting has been separated. One of the negative consequences of this process were, from our point of view, ‘loosing’ the financial accounting in many small and medium-sized companies. This is explained by the following: an accountant estimated its work content (he makes usually both accounting and tax accounting), and make his choose in favor of tax accounting, as if he would not do it, there should be tax consequences. At the same time an accountant rejects the use of ‘all the freedom’ of financial accounting (setting-up useful lives for property, plant and equipment, choosing the method of depreciation and amortization of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets, recognition of decline in a value of accounts receivable and inventories and so on), instead of that he maximally combine financial accounting and tax accounting to make it as close as possible; and sometimes simply ignoring national accounting standards. As a consequence, financial accounting, oriented to informational needs of the wide spectrum of users and called for providing reliable information, de-facto stops its existence, and is substituted by tax accounting. Such a situation is a consequence of too early adoption of international standards by Russian accounting, as an owner, under the tax concept (named also owner concept) has not yet understood the necessity of financial accounting and thus is about to give it up to cut costs of bookkeeping.
7. Splitting of management and financial accounting. The idea of such a split came from American school of accounting. In IFRS it also found its reflection, i.e. segment reporting should be presented from management accounting (IFRS 8), cost accounting (IAS 2) and impairment tests (IAS 36) also correspond to management accounting. From the point of view of Y.V. Sokolov the management accounting should not be considered as something principally new for national accounting and practice – it was used in Russia in Soviet times. The main difference from American interpretation is that managerial accounting used to be incorporated in bookkeeping: «…managerial accounting is not something new for us; it just represents the well-known block named ‘cost accounting and calculation of the cost of works and services’. For us this block represents organically inherent part of the whole accounting. For those (the Americans, note by the authors) it represents absolutely stand-alone section’ (Sokolov Y.V., Sokolov V.Y., 1999).
But during the period of formation of market relations in our country this ‘new thing’ was widely supported by Russian business in the wrong format. Many owners in conditions of substituting the financial accounting by the tax accounting (accounting for tax purposes), took management accounting as a possibility to account for themselves reflecting all operations, including those that they did not recognized in tax accounting. So, one of the best ideas of American accounting, namely the management accounting, has grown absolutely unpredictable in Russia – creating ‘dual’ accounting – one accounting for the tax inspectorate, being also the financial accounting, another – ‘managerial accounting’ – for themself. Lately, from our point of view, management accounting in Russian companies began perform its classical functions.
Perspectives of IFRS in the Russian Federation
To finalize the review of issues the Russian Federation faces on its transition to IFRS, we provide the following directions, which in our opinion, Russian accountuing will follow in future under further adoption of IFRS:
- continued assimilation of IFRS as well as British and American accounting school ideas into statutory norms and practice of Russian accounting;
- spreading in use of consolidated financial statements;
- becoming accounting profession more prestigious;
- change in what the accounting profession is about and what the activities and the role of accountant consist of;
- development of appraisal (valuation) profession as an important part of fair value accounting;
- change of the whole system of education and trainings in the field of accounting and audit; and
- ‘legalization’ of management accounting providing it being auditable.
Federal Law No.129 «On the accounting» dated 21 November 1996.
Federal Law No.208 «On the consolidated financial statements» dated 27 July 2010.
Concept of Accounting and Reporting Development in Russia over the medium term approved by the Order of Ministry of Finance No.180 dated 1 July 2004.
Official report of Central Bank of Russia «On the transition of the banking sector of the Russian Federation on International Financial Reporting Standards»dated 02.06.2003г
Programme of Accounting Reform based on the International Financial Reporting Standards, approved by the RF Government resolution No.283 dated 6 March 1998
Programme of Transition of the Russian Federation to the international accepted Accounting and Statistics system in compliance with the requirements of market economy development (approved by Post. Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated 23 October 1992 Nom.3708-1)
План Министерства финансов Российской Федерации на 2012 – 2015 годы по развитию бухгалтерского учета и отчетности в Российской Федерации на основе Международных стандартов финансовой отчетности, утвержденного Приказом Минфина России от 30.11.2011 г. № 440
О введении в действие Международных стандартов финансовой отчетности и Разъяснений Международных стандартов финансовой отчетности на территории Российской Федерации, утвержден Приказ Минфина России от 25.11.2011 №160н
Generalova N.V. Substance over form // Finance and Business. 2011. №3
Generalova N.V. IFRS and reliability of financial reporting // Finance and Business. 2010. №2
Kovalev V.V. Accounting in Russia: Change in Priorities // Vestnik St. Petersburg University. Ser. 5. 2010. Issue 4. P. 98-112
Moderov S.V. Accounting Accounting under IFRS: that the global change in the near future? / / International accounting. 2006. №12(96)
Moderov S.V. Language of business communication in different countries / / Accounting and Auditing Kazakhstan. 2010. № 7 (37)
Sokolov Y.V., Патров В.В. Две концепции бухгалтерского учета // Бухгалтерский учет. 1996. № 5.
Sokolov Y.V., Sokolov V.Y. Сила и слабость бухгалтерии США // Бухгалтерский учет. 1999. № 2.
Sokolov Y.V., Бычкова С.М. Достоверность и добросовестность составления бухгалтерской отчетности // Бухгалтерский учет. 1999. № 12.
Sokolov Y.V., Бычкова С.М. О приоритете содержания перед формой: проблемы учета // Бухгалтерский учет. 2000. № 1.
Sokolov Y.V., Соколов В.Я. Международные стандарты финансовой отчетности и мы // Юрист и бухгалтер. 2001. № 6
Sokolov Y.V., Терентьева Т.О. Профессиональное суждение бухгалтера: итоги минувшего века // Бухгалтерский учет. 2001. № 12.
Sokolov Y.V., Соколов В.Я., История бухгалтерского учета: Учебник. – М.: Финансы и статистика, 2003
Sokolov Y.V. Судьба международных стандартов финансовой отчетности в России // «Финансы и Бизнес». 2005. №1
Sokolov Y.V. Теоретические основы трансформации отчетности // Бух 1С. 2007. № 7
Sokolov Y.V. Айфарез: новое слово и новое дело // Бух 1С. 2009. № 4
Sokolov Y.V., Pyatov M.L., Business optimism and methodology of accounting // Finance and Business. 2009. №4
Бухгалтерский учет и аудит: современная теория и практика: Учебник для магистрантов всех экономических специальностей / СПбГУ, экон. факультет; Под ред. Я.В. Соколова и Т.О. Терентьевой. – М.: Экономика, 2009.
Sokolov Y.V. Статистический баланс // Бух 1С. 2010. № 1