會計養(yǎng)老金準則外文翻譯

1、原文 1The logic of pension accounting2. Pensions as an expense2.1. Early approaches to pension accountingIn the USA and UK, private-sector employer-sponsored pension arrangements began to appear in the second half of the 19th century, and were often associated with large organizations such as railways

2、, insurance companies and banks (Hannah, 1986: 10 -2; Chandar and Miranti,2007:206). Accounting for these arrangements was oftenvery simple. The cost recognized by the employer was effectively the cash paid in a given period. Some schemes operated on a -a sp-ayyo u- g o ' basis, where the employ

3、er made no advance provision for retirement benefits. In this case, the cost each period equaled the benefits paid. In a scheme where the employer made contributions to an external fund invested in securities, out of which benefits would be paid, or made notional contributions to an internal account

4、, the cost would be the contributions arising in each period, possibly augmented by interest on notional contributions if these were not used to purchase securities. However, many employers granted pensions to enable employees to retire, even though no advance provision had been made.The expen-saes-

5、you-pay' accounting for pensions was rationalized through the gratuity theory ' of retirement benefits (McGill et al., 2004: 16).This theory proposed that retirement benefits were awarded to retirees at the discretion of the employ er, as a kindly taocn the part of an employer towards old re

6、tainers who have served him faithfully and well ' (Pilch and Wod, 1979: 2). Paying a pension was not necessarily an act of pure benevolence, because it could allow an employer to retire an employee who was no longer performing adequately, without incurring public criticism. The gratuity theory i

7、mplied that the employer received an efficiency gain when superannuated employees retired, and that the appropriate point at which to recognize the cost of pensions was as the pensions were paid. If the employer wanted to earmark some earnings in a distinct pension reserve before employees retired,

8、then this would be regarded as an appropriation of profit rather than as an expense. Even in structured pension schemes, the employer might include clauses denying the existence of an enforceable contract, stressing that pension benefits were paid entirely at the employ er's discretion and could

9、 be discontinued at any time (Stone, 1984: 24).However, the gratuity theory rapidly came under challenge from the view that pensions constitute deferred pay ', and that employees in effect sacrifice current income in exchange for the expectation of income in the future. On this basis, early acco

10、unting theorists such as Henry Rand Hatfield suggested that employers should include in operating expenses the amot unnecessary to provide for future pensions ' (Hatfield, 1916: 194). A numboefr commentators observed that the calculation of such an expense was potentially highly complex, but the

11、y suggested that the calculations fell within the domain of actuaries (Stone, 1984: 26).Members of the actuarial profession had already been involved in advising on appropriate contribution rates for pension schemes involving either external or internal notional fun'ding. In accounting terms, th

12、e employer would measure the annual cost of pension provision either directly in terms of amounts calculated by actuaries, if the route of internal funding was followed, or through the contributions (themselves determined by actuaries) to an external pension fund. In the case of external funding, co

13、st would be equal to contributions due for the period, and, other than short-term accruals,pension expense would be based on cash payments (or other assets transferred) to the pension fund.2.2. The beginnings of accounting regulationEarly authoritative accounting pronouncements endorsed this essenti

14、ally cash-based approach to pension cost determination. The Committee on Accounting Procedure of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) issued Accounting Research Bulletin No. 47 Accounting for Costs of Pension Plans in 1956, and expressed the view that costs based on current

15、 and future services should be systematically accrued during the expected period of active service of the covered employees (CAP, 1956). On closer analysis, systematic accrual ' implied that employers wusoeultdhe method recommended by the actuary for funding the pension plan to determine the pen

16、sion expense in respect of current service. This approach was endorsed by the Accounting Principles Board (APB) in their Opinion No. 8 Accounting for the Cost of Pension Plans, issued in 1966. APB 8 is entirely cost-based -there are references to ' balanSheet pension accruals and balan-cseheet p

17、ension prepayments or deferred charges but no expla'nation of these terms or how they are to be determined. Much of the Opinion addresses not the issue of determining normal cost ' n(ual cthoestaanssigned, under the actuarial cost method in use, to years subsequent to the inception of a pens

18、ion plan or to a particular valuation date't ra)tbhuerpast service cost ' ( pensionucnodsetrathsseigancetudarial cost method in use, to yearsprior to the inception of a pension planprio'rse)ravnicde cost' (ion cpoesntsassigned, under the actuarial costmethod in use, to years prior to

19、 the date of a particular actuarial valuation').gToheesOtopignrieoant lengths toprovide guidance on how these components of pension cost should be recognized, recommending spreading of the costs over a period up to 40 years. A number of features of the accounting treatment of pension costs need

20、to be highlighted. First although it is not made explicit, there is an under-lying desire to arrive at a pension expense in eachperiod that is not materially different from the em ployer 'cosntrib utions to the pension fund. APB 8 notes theamount of the pension cost determined under this Opinion

21、 may vary from the amounfunded(APB, 196'6: para. 43),but this situation is not analyzed in detail. For unfunded pension plans, costs are to be determined using an actuarial cost method. The criteria for the selection of an appropriate actuarial cost method are that the method is rationaland syst

22、ematic and should be consistently applied so that it results in a reasonable measure of pension cost from year to year . 'Author: Christopher J. NapierNationality: EnglishOriginate from: The CPA Journal譯文一養(yǎng)老金會計的邏輯2 養(yǎng)老金費用2.1 早先的養(yǎng)老金會計在 19 世紀后期的美國和英國，出現了私人部門雇主贊助的養(yǎng)老金計劃，主要集中于 鐵路公司和保險業(yè)、銀行業(yè)等大型機構(Hannah

23、, 1986:10 - 12; Chandar andMiranti,2007: 206) 。這時的養(yǎng)老金會計往往非常簡單。雇主確認的成本實際上就是一定 期間內支付的現金。很多養(yǎng)老金計劃是都是在職工退休后進行支付，雇主并沒有提供進一 步的退休福利。在這種情況下，每段期間內的成本就是該期間的現金支付。在某些計劃 中，雇主提供資金投資于外部的證券，用取得的收益支付養(yǎng)老金，或是向內部的賬戶提供 資金。如果基金沒有被用來購買證券，成本將會是每段時間內的服務成本并計上合理的利 率。然而，很多雇主為了能讓雇員退休情愿支付養(yǎng)老金，但是并沒有提供進一步的福利?，F收現付制養(yǎng)老金會計是建立在“酬金理論” (McG

24、ill et al., 2004: 16) 基礎上的， 這個理論認為養(yǎng)老金是雇主對退休人員的一種獎勵，“是雇主對為他忠誠服務的退休老職 工的善意施舍” (Pilch and Wood, 1979: 2) 。其實支付養(yǎng)老金并不是出于純粹的善意，因 為它能讓雇主辭退那些工作效率不高的雇員，而不受到社會的指責。“酬金”理論暗示雇 主通過辭退落后的職工而使效率得到提高，對養(yǎng)老金成本合適的計量就是支付的養(yǎng)老金金 額。如果雇主希望在一個特定的養(yǎng)老金儲備預留一些員工退休前的收入，這時他應該確認 一部分利潤而不是費用。即使在格式化的養(yǎng)老金計劃中，雇主也可能會加入這樣的條款， 否認這是一種強制的合同，而強調養(yǎng)老

25、金福利完全是根據自己意愿老來支付，任何時候他 都可以終止這項計劃 (Stone, 1984: 24)。然而另一種觀點的出現馬上讓“小費理論”受到了挑戰(zhàn)。這種觀點認為養(yǎng)老金其實是 遞延的工資，雇員實際上是犧牲了當前的收入而換取未來的收益。在這個基礎上， Henry Rand Hatfield 等人的早些理論認為雇主必須在營業(yè)外支出中計入“未來的養(yǎng)老金費用” （Hatfield, 1916: 194） 。很多評論員評論說這種形式的養(yǎng)老金核算將會非常復雜，他們建 議由精算師來完成這些計算。一些精算專家已經在建議為養(yǎng)老金計劃提供一種利率，無論 針對內部或是外部的名義基金。在會計處理上，雇主需要計算每年

26、的養(yǎng)老金成本，如果是 內部的計劃，將會直接采用精算師的計算結果，如果是外部的基金計劃，將采用外部的養(yǎng) 老保險基金的貢獻（由精算師確定） 。外部的基金計劃，養(yǎng)老金成本等于某段時間的貢獻， 養(yǎng)老金費用是根據支付的現金來確定的，而不是應計負債。2.2 會計監(jiān)管的開始早期的權威會計采納現收現付制來確認養(yǎng)老金成本。 AICPA 在 1956 年發(fā)布會計研究 公告第 47 準則有關養(yǎng)老金成本的確認，強調“養(yǎng)老金成本必須將當前和未來的服務 成本系統(tǒng)化地分攤到每個參加養(yǎng)老金計劃的職工的預期工作年限中去” （CAP, 1956）。進 一步的分析，“系統(tǒng)的分攤”意味著雇主們將要采用精算師們建議的方法來確定當前雇員

27、 所提供的服務成本。APB在1966年頒布的養(yǎng)老金計劃成本第8號會計準則意見中也同意采 取這種方法。 APB 8 完全是以成本為基礎的，它建議在資產負債表中設置“養(yǎng)老金負債” 和“預付養(yǎng)老金”項目，但是他們并沒有對這些項目做出解釋，也沒有說明這些項目是如 何決定的。意見的大部分內容并不是說明如何確認正常成本（在使用精算成本下，每 年的費用分配至養(yǎng)老金實施后的期間里或是到某一特定的日期），而是介紹過去成本（在 使用精算成本發(fā)下，將養(yǎng)老金成本分配至養(yǎng)老金計劃實施前幾年），和前期服務成本（在 使用精算成本下，將養(yǎng)老金成本分配至養(yǎng)老金實施后到 一個特定的精算估值日期）。 意 見對于做如何確認養(yǎng)老金成本

28、組成項目提供了詳細的指導，建議期間應該要長達 40年以 上，而且一系列的養(yǎng)老金會計處理方法特征需要被強調。雖然它沒有言明，但是它的潛在 意愿是要使確認的養(yǎng)老金費用不要與雇主提存的養(yǎng)老金數額有顯著的差別。 APB 8提到根 據意見確認的養(yǎng)老金成本可能會與雇主提存的養(yǎng)老金數額有所差別，但是并沒有對這 種情形做詳細的分析。對于那些沒有經費的養(yǎng)老金計劃，成本是根據權責發(fā)生制來核算 的。應計成本的核算方法的選擇標準是能“合理、系統(tǒng)并得到一貫的應用，以使養(yǎng)老金每 年都能得到合理的計量”。作者：克里斯托弗J.納皮爾 國籍：英國出處：注冊會計師原文 2New Accounting Rules for Defi

29、ned Benefit Pension Plansfunded status aMARCH 2008 - Issued in September 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 158, Employers 'Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans An Amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), significantly chang

30、es the balance-sheet reporting for defined benefit pension plans. Before SFAS 158, the effects of certain events, such as plan amendments or actuarial gains and losses, were granted delayed balance-sheet recognition. As a result, a plan 'fusnded status (plan assets minus obligations) was rarely

31、reported on the balance sheet. SFAS 158 requires companies to report their plans'asset or a liability on their balance sheets, which will cause reported pension liabilities to rise significantly. Although SFAS 158 also applies to postretirement benefit plans other than pensions and to not-for-pr

32、ofit entities, the focus below is on for-profit businesses with defined benefit pension plans.Balance-Sheet Reporting Under SFAS 158Under SFAS 87, prepaid or accrued pension cost, which is the net of a firm 'psension assets, liabilities, and unrecognized amounts, is reported on the balance sheet

33、. SFAS 158 arguably improves financial reporting by more clearly communicating the funded status of defined benefit pension plans. Previously, this information was reported only in the detailed pension footnotes.Under SFAS 158, companies with defined benefit pension plans must recognize the differen

34、ce between the plan 'psrojected benefit obliga tion and its fair value of plan assets as either an asset or a liability. The projected benefit obligation is the actuarial present value of the benefits attributed by the pension plan benefit formula for services already provided. As a result, the

35、complex and conceptually unsound “ minimum pension liability rul”es, which are used when the accumulated benefit obligation is less than the fair value of pension plan assets, has been eliminated. (The accumulated benefit obligation is similar to the projected benefit obligation but does not include

36、 expected future salary increases in the calculation of the present value of actuarial benefits.) In addition, the unrecognized prior service costs and actuarial gains and losses that were previously relegated to the footnotes are now recognized on the balance sheet, with an offsetting amount in acc

37、umulated other comprehensive income under shareholders ' equity.Income Reporting Under SFAS 158SFAS 158 does not change the computation of periodic pension cost, which remains a function of service cost,interest cost, expected return on pension plan assets, and amortization of unrecognized items

38、. It does, however, impact the reporting of comprehensive income. Specifically, actuarial gains or losses and prior service costs that arise during the period are recognized as components of comprehensive income. In addition, the amortization of actuarial gains or losses, prior service costs, and tr

39、ansition amounts recognized before implementing SFAS 158 require a reclassification adjustment to comprehensive income.Applying SFAS 158Exhibit 1 presents pension footnote data for three companies: Lockheed Martin, Glatfelter, and AMR Corp.Lockheed Martin represents a classic example of a scenario S

40、FAS 158 is designed to eliminate: namely, reporting a pension asset when the pension plan is actually underfunded. Specifically, Lockheed Martin 'psension obligation ($28,421 million) exceeds its plan assets ($23,432 million), meaning the plan is underfunded by the difference, $4,989 mi llion. P

41、reviously, Lockheed Martin ' s unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs (totaling $7,108 millio n) en abled it to report a pen sion asset of $2,119 millio n ($7,108-$4,989).The data for Glatfelter and AMR in Exhibit 1 indicate other likely scenarios under SFAS 158. Glatfelter

42、, whileoverfunded by $155.3 million, would reduce its reported pension asset by $90 million under SFAS 158. AlthoughAMR currently recognizes a pension liability of $882 million, SFAS 158 would require AMR to significantly increase its reported pension liability to $3,225 million.An Illustration of t

43、he Transition to SFAS 158The following example uses the actual 2005 data from Exhibit 1 to illustrate how each of these companieswould record the transition to the new rules. Because SFAS 158 is generally first effective for fiscal years endingafter December 15, 2006, the actual numbers these compan

44、ies record upon transition to SFAS 158 will differ fromthose in this example. For simplicity, the illustration ignores tax effects.Exhibit 1 shows that each of the three companies reports additional minimum liabilities and related intangibleassets on its balance sheet. These items are eliminated und

45、er SFAS 158. In addition, pension assets and liabilities and accumulated other comprehensive income are adjusted so that their ending balances conform to the amounts required under SFAS 158. The necessary journal entries to accomplish the transition, using 2005 data, are presented in Exhibit 2.Exhib

46、it 3 shows the balance-sheet reporting for each company after posting the entries in Exhibit 2, and exposesseveral important points. First, each company reports its funded status as either a pension asset or liability. Second,the balance in accumulated other comprehensive income equals the amount of

47、 previously unrecognized items. In thisexample, and likely for many companies with defined benefit plans, the amount of this contra-shareholders ' equitywill increase under SFAS 158, even potentially gene rating negative shareholders' equity. The transition to SFAS 158might impose costs on l

48、everaged firms due to the increased likelihood of tightening restrictive debt covenants. Finally, the balance- sheet presentation, and each company's funded sldtabtuese, asshioeur to understand after SFAS158 is implemented.Subsequent Application of SFAS 158SFAS 158 does not impact the amount of

49、periodic pension cost reported on the income statement, but it does impact the reporting of comprehensive income. For example, assume that after implementing SFAS 158 Lockheed Martin were to report the financial results in Exhibit 4. Again, these amounts are for illustrative purposes only.Exhibit 5

50、shows the required journal entries. The first entry records the service cost, interest cost, and expected return on plan assets components of periodic pension cost. The second entry reclassifies the amortization items from accumulated other comprehensive income to periodic pension cost, and the thir

51、d entry adjusts the pension liability and accumulated other comprehensive income for the difference in actual pension returns above expectations during the year.Author: Kenneth W. ShawNationality: ColumbiaOriginate from: The CPA Journal譯文二設定收益制養(yǎng)老金會計新準則2008年3月SFAS頒布了 158號雇主對既定福利養(yǎng)老金和其他退休后計劃的會計處 理對FASB第87、88、106號準則做了修訂，顯著改變了資產負債表對設定收益制下養(yǎng)老 金的列報。在SFAS158頒布之前，一些特定事項的影響，像養(yǎng)老金計劃的修改，精算所得 和精算損失，是準許在資產負債表中遞延確認的，以至于養(yǎng)老金凈資產（養(yǎng)老金資產減去 養(yǎng)老金負債）很少在資產負債表中列報。 SFAS 158要求公司在資產負債表中以資產或是負 債的形式列報養(yǎng)老金凈資產，這將會引起養(yǎng)老金負債的顯著上升。盡管SFAS158也應用于其他退休福利計劃以及非盈利組織，但是我們這里主要是講盈利組織的設定收益計劃。SFAS 158對資產負債表列報的要