Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2017, 65(1), 327-337 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201765010327

Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41: Are There Any Differences between Plant and Animal from a Financial Reporting Point of View?

Patrik Svoboda, Hana Bohušová
Department of Accounting and Taxes, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

The aim of the paper is the evaluation of appropriateness of different ways for the measurement and reporting of different groups of biological assets. There are two possible ways of their measurement - cost and fair value. The substance of all kinds of biological assets differs significantly, especially for plants and animals. The single way for measurement of all kinds of biological assets is not satisfactory. The most significant difference is observable between bearer plants and biological assets in the form of living animals. The authors took into account a majority of factors influencing quality of individual ways of measurement, and evaluated the application of the above-mentioned methods for representatives of both kinds of biological assets (apple orchard and dairy cows). The results of the study proved that the historical cost is the suitable way of bearer plants measurement, while the fair value measurement is more suitable for measurement of living animals.

Keywords: Biological assets, measurement, bearer plants, living animals, historical costs, fair value
Grants and funding:

The paper is the result of the GA ČR no. 15-24867S "Small and medium size enterprises in global competition: Development of specific transfer pricing methodology reflecting their specificities".

Prepublished online: February 28, 2017; Published: March 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Svoboda, P., & Bohušová, H. (2017). Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41: Are There Any Differences between Plant and Animal from a Financial Reporting Point of View? Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(1), 327-337. doi: 10.11118/actaun201765010327
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AGRISPORTAL 2013, Fruit Market - report. Agrisportal Bulletin, 5. [Online]. Available at: http://www.agris.cz/Content/files/main_files/43/121582/tis_20030503ovoce.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October].
    2. ARGILÉS, J. and SLOF, E. 2001. New opportunities for farm accounting. The European Accounting Review, 10(2): 361 - 383. DOI: 10.1080/09638180126640 Go to original source...
    3. ARGILÉS, J. M., GARCÍA-BLANDÓN, J. and MONLLAU, T. 2011. Fair value versus historical cost-based valuation for biological assets: predictability of financial information. Revista de Contabilidad, 14(2): 87 - 113. DOI: 10.1016/S1138-4891(11)70029-2 Go to original source...
    4. BARTH, M. E. 2004. Fair values and financial statement volatility. The Market Discipline across Countries and Industries. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    5. BOHUŠOVÁ, H. and SVOBODA, P. 2013. What would cause the implemantation of IFRS for SMEs for agricultural companies? [In Czech: Co by pro zemědělské podniky znamenala implementace IFRS pro SME]. Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionales, 16(1): 89 - 100. Go to original source...
    6. BOHUŠOVÁ, H., SVOBODA, P. and NERUDOVÁ, D. 2012. Biological assets reporting: Is the increase in value caused by the biological transformation revenue? Agricultural Economics, 58: 520 - 532. Go to original source...
    7. BOHUŠOVÁ, H. and VALOUCH, P. 2012. IFRS For SMEs: What Will The Implementation of IFRS For SME Bring For Timber Industry? In: Collection of Abstracts from European Accounting Association 35th Annual Congress. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Faculty of Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 358 - 359.
    8. BOOTH, P. and WALKER, R. 2003. Valuation of SGARAs in the wine industry: time for sober reflection. Australian Accounting Review, 13(31): 52 - 60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2001.tb00171.x Go to original source...
    9. BOUŠKA, J. et al. 2006. Dairy cows breeding [In Czech: Chov dojeného skotu]. 1st edition. Praha: Profi Press.
    10. BRESTENSKÝ, V. and MIHINA, Š. 2006. Organizing and technology of dairy cows breeding [In Czech: Organizácia a technológia chovu mliekového hovädzieho dobytka]. [Online]. Nitra: Slovenské centrum polnohospodářského výskumu. Available at: http://www.cvzv.sk/ziv/orgtech.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 14].
    11. DAMIAN, M. et al. 2014. Bearer Plants: Stakeholders' View on the Appropriate Measurement Model. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 13(4): 719 - 738.
    12. DOWLING, C. and GODFREY, J. 2001. AASB 1037 sows the seeds of change: A survey of SGARA measurement methods. Australian Accounting Review, 11(1): 45 - 51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2001.tb00179.x Go to original source...
    13. DVORAKOVA, D. 2006. Application of Fair Value Measurement Model in IAS 41 - Relation between Fair Value Measurement Model and Income Statement Structure. European Financial and Accounting Journal, 2: 49 - 70.
    14. ELAD, C. 2004. Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: some implications for international accounting harmonization. European Accounting Review, 13(4): 621 - 641. DOI: 10.1080/0963818042000216839 Go to original source...
    15. ETTEMA J. F. and SANTOS J. E. P. 2004. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproduction, health, and income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 87: 2730-2742. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73400-1 Go to original source...
    16. FOO, Y. F. 2006. Fair Value Accounting for Local Farm Sector. CPA Australia, ProQuest Information and Leaning Company.
    17. GONÇALVES, R. and LOPES, P. 2015. Accounting in Agriculture: Measurement practices of listed firms. FEP Working Papers, 557. FEP-UP, School of Economics an Mangement, University of Porto. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/wp557.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 18].
    18. HERBOHN, K. F. and HERBOHN, J. 2006. Accounting for SGARAs: A stock take of practice before compliance with AASB 141. Agriculture. Australian Accounting Review, 16(39): 63-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2006.tb00361.x Go to original source...
    19. HERBOHN, K. F. et al. 1998. Accounting for Forestry Assets: Current Practice and Future Directions, Australian Accounting Review, 8(1): 54 - 66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.1998.tb00080.x Go to original source...
    20. HINKE, J. and STÁROVÁ, M. 2014. The Fair Value Model for the Measurement of Biological Assets and Agricultural Produce in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12: 2013 - 220. Go to original source...
    21. EAGRI. 2015. Situační a výhledové zprávy ovoce. [Online]. MZ ČR. Available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/rostlinne-komodity/ovoce-a-zelenina/situacni-a-vyhledove-zpravy-ovoce/. 2002 - 2014. [Accessed: 12 Oct. 2015].
    22. ÚZEI. 2013. Cost and Revenues - Agricultural production [In Czech: Náklady a výnosy vybraných rostlinných a živočišných výrobků]. [Online]. Available at: http://www.uzei.cz/data/usr_001_cz_soubory/2013.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 12].
    23. ÚZEI. 2015. 2012 - 2014. Mléko a mléčné výrobky. Situační a výhledové zprávy. [Online]. Available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/potraviny/potravinarske-komodity/mleko-a-mlekarenske-vyrobky/situacni-a-vyhledove-zpravy/ [Accessed: 2015, October 11].
    24. IASC. 2000. International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41 - Agriculture. [Online] Available at: http://www.ifrs.org. 2000. [Accessed: 2015, October 11].
    25. IASB. 2011. International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 13 - Fair value measurement. [Online] Available at: http://www.ifrs.org. [Accessed: 2015, October 11].
    26. IASB. 2013. Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41 - Bearer Plants. [Online] Available at: http://www.ifrs.org. [Accessed: 12 Oct. 2015].
    27. KAHNEMAN, D. 2012. Thinking fast and slow. Brno: Jan Melvil Publishing.
    28. KAVKA, M. 2004. The standards for agricultural and food production. Praha: Ústav zemědělských a potravinářských informací.
    29. KOUŘILOVÁ, J. and SEDLÁČEK, J. 2014. Environmental accounting and the FADN as a basis of model for detecting the material flow cost accounting, Agricultural Economics, 60(9): 420 - 429. Go to original source...
    30. KPMG. 2011. First impression: Fair value measurement. [Online]. Available at: https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/first-impressions/Documents/first-impressions-fair-value-measurement.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 11].
    31. KUDOVÁ, D. 2006. The attractiveness of the apple production sector in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensisi, 3: 47 - 59. DOI: 10.11118/actaun200654030047 Go to original source...
    32. LIANG, P. J. and WEN, X. 2007. Accounting measurement basis, market mispricing, and firm investment efficiency. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(1): 155 - 197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00227.x Go to original source...
    33. LOKOČ, R. et al. 2013. Growing fruit trees and shrubs. [Online]. Available at: http://ovoce.hlucinsko.eu/4web/soubory/vzdelavaci-material-web.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 19].
    34. MARSH, T. and FISCHER, M. 2013. Biological Assets: Financial Recognition and Reporting Using US and International Accounting Guidance. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 13(2): 57-74.
    35. SILVA, R., NARDI, P. and RIBEIRO, M. 2015. Earnings Management and Valuation of Biological Assets. Brazilian Business Review, 12(4): 1 - 26. DOI: 10.15728/bbr.2015.12.4.1 Go to original source...
    36. STRAŠÁK, P. 2015. Velké porovnání spoření. [Online]. Available at: http://www.banky.cz/velke-porovnani-sporeni-listopad-2015. [Accessed: 2015, November 21].
    37. THURRUN BHAKIR, M. I. 2010. Applying IAS 41 in Malaysia. Accountants Today, 32 - 39. [Online].Available at: http://www.mia.org.my/at/at/2010/03/06.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 19].
    38. TOZER, P. R. and HEINRICHS, A. J. 2001. What affects the costs of raising replacement dairy heifers: A multiple-component analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 84: 1836 - 1844. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74623-1 Go to original source...
    39. VACEK M. et al. 2013. Heifers breeding methodology [In Czech: Metodika odchovu jalovic]. [Online]. Available at: http://www.vuzv.cz/sites/File/SKOT/EKONOMIKA/Metodika_odchovu_jalovic.pdf. [Accessed: 2015, October 23].

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content