Jurnal IFRS (iNTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD)

ABSTRACT

This study aims to discuss the structure of the meta-theory used by the FASB and the IASC in developing a conceptual framework, review the fundamental differences, analyzing the obstacles faced and identifies measures that must be done so that the IFRS applied by member states. This research was done by comparing the basic framework set forth in FASB and the IASC and then analyzes the obstacles that arise with the implementation of IFRS and identify how these obstacles can be resolved.

Key words: globalization, harmonization, meta-theory, the FASB and the IASC, the basic framework, financial accounting.

The objectives of this paper is to analyses the structure of meta-theoretical of financial accounting that was used by FASB and IASC to develop the conceptual framework for financial accounting reporting. The discussion of conceptual framework conducted by comparison of the basic different between the FASB and
IASC framework, then analyses the constraints to implement IFRS and identify the way out of the constraints faced by the body.

INTRODUCTION

Linda Keslar (Zeff and Dharan1994: 28) says, "U.S. standards are not only too cumbersome and too costly, but downright Unfair compared to those Their foreign competitors have to follow. That is U.S. companies face an uneven playing field ... "Linda saw how different accounting rules that apply in many countries leading to problems of comparability of financial statements. This condition is certainly understandable, because in the process of accounting standards in a country is affected by local factors of a country. Wolk et al. (2001: 4) says, "Economic conditions have an impact upon both political factors and accounting theory. " The process that led to accounting standards and practices in each country there is a difference.
Perceived problems began to emerge, while international technological developments change the world into a global village, nations like without borders (borderless). This era is popularly known as globalization. In the accounting context, the international accounting munculah who tried to describe the theory and practices accepted internationally. Harmonization of accounting standards in the form of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) apply internationally, and in the process of developing political factors and economic conditions become irrelevant.
We can not deny that American influence is very strong in the international scene almost in every aspect of life. We often difficult to tell which is which international and American.But the business environment in the United States is not universal. There are seven factors that cause differences in financial reporting as stated by Nobes and Parker (1995:11), "May the Following seven factors constitute an explanation for financial reporting differences: legal systems, providers of finance, Taxation, the accounting profession, inflation, theory, and the accidents of history "
Thus if the U.S. financial accounting standards fit for the global business environment? This is the source of the problem of comparability of financial statements. Nobes and Parker (1995: 3) says, "If corporate financial reporting and accounting were the resource persons and identical in all countries of the world, there would be no point in studying comparative international accounting".
In the global scope, there are actually two entities making up the standards relating to international accounting practices. Bodies was The International Federation of Accountant (IFAC), and The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). IASC is more concentrated to make the International Accounting Standards (IASs). While IFAC more focused on developing the International Standard audits (ISAS), the code of ethics, education curriculum, the private sector accounting standards, and rules for accountants in business or those involved in technology.
It is desirable there is a standard that is acceptable by all countries in the world. With the internationally accepted standards, the financial statements are expected to have higher power comparability between countries. Of course, efforts towards international harmonization is not an easy task.
In fact in the world of current accounting standards generally accepted in the United States are compiled by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), followed by several countries, either directly or modification. While the International Accounting Standards (IASs) issued by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), has not been followed by all countries, even by the member states that joined in the IASC.

This article aims to discuss the structure of the meta-theory used by the FASB and the IASC in developing a conceptual framework, review the fundamental differences, analyzing the obstacles faced and identifies measures that must be done so that the IFRS applied by member states.

The following sections of this article will explain the shift in orientation from Postulate to objective thinking, making accounting policies, the structure of meta-theory of financial accounting, the FASB conceptual framework, the IASC conceptual framework, review and comparison of the structure of meta-theory of the FASB with the IASC, the barriers and the implementation of IFRS and closed with a conclusion.

ORIENTATION SHIFTS FROM POTSULAT TO OBJECTIVE

In accounting we often distinguish between theory and practice. We often hear two people arguing about a proposal accountant, "is only theory, can not be put into practice", or on other discussion "this is the theory of depreciation" or something else again to say "the theory of capital budgeting, " or "accounting theory", etc. . So, what exactly is meant by the theory of accounting?
Paton and Littleton (1940: ix) defines accounting theory, "... is a coherent, coordinated, consistent body of Doctrines the which May be compactly expressed in the form of standards it desired"
The existence of an established accounting theory is very important and is expected to explain the facts or phenomena with accurate accounting and has the consistency of logic. There are so many accounting theorists tried to explain the accounting praktikpraktik in force, and seeks to find the basic theory. In general, they focus on the postulates, the basic concept, as well as assumptions that underlie the practice. It turns out that his own opinion about the postulate
very diverse, there is no agreement, so that the efforts to formulate accounting theory is very slow even tend to be confusing. The debate continues, everyone always see the same thing from the point of view is different, so that there is a collection of opinions.

But that does not mean there is no single successful teoripun formulated. On the contrary, that many theories that have been successfully formulated, but only to explain the accounting of certain sections and from different viewpoints. Chamber (1965) optimistically saying that, "The history of accounting thought is not a history of development, but a series of disconnected episodes"
Finally after realizing that no significant progress achieved, there was a shift in the orientation of the postulates to the purpose (objectives) accounting reporting. This orientation shift begins with the issuance ASOBAT by AAA in 1964. This development was followed by the APB to issue Statement No. 4 (1970), and then forwarded by the Trueblood Committee report (AICPA, 1973). After the APB was replaced by the FASB, in 1978, the FASB mengerluarkan SFAC No. 1 with the title, Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises.The structure of financial accounting theory that puts an end in the top position is called the Meta Theory of Financial Accounting (Wolk et al. 2001: 173). On the basis of this meta-theory, problems that arise in finding postulates that can be agreed upon has been resolved. With the direction of accounting reporting purposes, the research can be done with more emphasis on the development of accounting theory that is useful to explain and predict accounting practice
(Baridwan 1991: 3).
KAM (1986:34) described that postulates, objectives and definitions is the ultimate source to be able to make deductions in developing the conceptual framework of accounting. In a system of deduction, on the first level (top level) consists of a very general statement, that postulates or fundamental accounting assumptions, definitions, and includes financial reporting purposes. In the second stage covers the principles or accounting standards skopenya not as wide or as common postulates. At the third level includes accounting procedures or methods of accounting that can be applied directly in practice (Kam1986: 34-35).If observed, the explanation is deductive theory by Thurs in particular on the first level (containing postulates, definitions, and Objectives of Financial Reporting), is already include a shift in orientation from postulate-oriented approach to the principle of goal-oriented approach to standard. Thurs memkombinasikan both orientations are very elegant, as if suggesting the need to end the debate about the postulate (and other terms vary) and agree on what exactly you want orientation
used as a reference.
When the meta-theory was used as the basis for preparing accounting policies in a country, it seems that environmental conditions in which the accounting will be operated also influences. In APBS 4 (1970: par. 17) says, "... depents ONT only on delinetion of accounting, but olso on an understanding of the nvironent Within the which financial accounting operates and the which it is intended to Reflect "This led to the policies adopted there is a tendency among countries differ from each other. Thus, how should the accounting policy was made?


ACCOUNTING POLICY MAKING

Accounting practices in a country is actually based on a rule that deliberately developed to achieve certain social objectives. In the process of designing and developing accounting rules that many consider factors such as economic conditions, political systems and accounting theory itself. Wolk et al.

Accounting Theory

Understanding the importance of theory, both by practitioners and the compilers of the standard is very important, so that the design of accounting standards can serve as a stable, and also adaptive, because the practice
accounting is dynamic and always faced the problems of practical and professional.

Indeed a practical problem can be overcome or resolved with practical experience, but practical experience is not enough, but must be based on a strong understanding of accounting theory. KAM (1986: 38) says,
Behind every practice is a rationale…Good practice is based on good theory whether we are aware of the theory or not. If we can formulate “good” theory, then we will have “good” practices if the theory is followed.

Economic Conditions

Economic systems are usually classified into the capitalist system, socialist system, or a combination of both. In every system of the central problems facing the economy is the allocation of resources available for production
goods and services. This allocation process affecting the condition of the economy.
Due to economic conditions by its nature is dynamic, then the condition perekonomain a country becomes a relevant factor in accounting policy formulation. The complexity of the economy will be directly related to the complexity of accounting. Countries with agrarian economies such subsystem accounting needs will be very different from the subsystem state industrial economy. Accounting policies must be consistent with macroeconomic objectives and planning of a country's economic programs.
Vice versa, the accounting policies set will be able to give a very broad economic implications, influence the behavior of economic decision-makers, tax, bonus systems, stock market prices, and so forth. Many writers and researchers who discuss the consequences
economy that arise (see in Wolk et al. 2001, Zeff 1994, Sunder 1988, the FASB, in Statement 2, 1980, and Statement 5, 1984, Brown 1987).
Economic consequences, as diunkapkan by Zeff (1994) is the impact of accounting reports on the behavior of business decision-makers, governments, investors and creditors, and other business community.


Political Factors

Is the accounting policy should be influenced by the political process? The answer to this question is not clearly defined. Accounting policy is actually decided by a consensus, so that the manufacturing process is considered to be political. Gerboth (1973) states, a politicization of accounting rulemaking
is inevitable, and this is a must. Furthermore, Gerboth states, if an accounting policy decision success depends on acceptance by society, the important issues that arise are not technical but political.
Horngren (1973) argues matching, that accounting standards are the result of political and social action that will affect society. But the Solomons (1978) suggested need to be a prudent and well considered
that political factors do not have to always put forward in setting the standard. If political factors put forward, accounting credibility is really at stake. If the standard constituent agencies often make mistakes, then trust the people and businesses will be lost.
The main backrest setting accounting policy is a sound theory. Wright (Suwardjono, 2005: 38) says, "Theory without practice to test it, to verify it, to correct it, is idle speculations, but practice, without theory to animate it, is mere mechanism. In everi art and business, theory and practice is the soul is the body "Thus it is necessary to structure a valid meta-theory.

META STRUCTURE THEORY

Meta financial accounting theory using deductive approach in the process of reasoning. As shown in Figure 2, the structure of the meta-theory of financial accounting purposes as placing the highest levels. But if a policy set for a particular country, perhaps financial reporting purposes should support a country's economic objectives.

Suwardjono (2005) used the term to describe the engineering of the financial reporting structure of the meta-theory of financial accounting. Accounting engineering concerned with the considerations for selecting and applying
ideology, theory, basic concepts, and technologies that are available are theoretically and practically to achieve economic and social development by considering social factors, economic, political, and culture of the country (p. 102). If described in a generic way without associated with one particular country, then the meta structure of financial accounting theory shown in Figure 3.
At the first level is the postulates, definitions and purposes of financial reporting. Postulates commonly used is the Going-concern, time period, accouning entity, and monetary units (Wolk, et al. 2001: 139). And the general purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information to the basic economic and social decision making.
At the second level of accounting policy planners must select the relevant basic concepts, determine the subject of reporting, the target user, the type of information reported, symbols or elements that are used, the basic measurement, recognition criteria, and reporting medium, and how to report (Suwardjono , 2005: 102). At the third level is made of a conceptual framework outlined in the form of accounting standards and other references that form the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Last level is the media reporting that determines the form, content and type of report.
For a variety of local factors that occur within a country, then when the accounting policies are prepared, then as has been outlined in advance the generic model in Figure 2, will be specific to the country concerned. The accounting policies between countries will be different from each other, and should be followed in accounting practices.

FASB Conceptual framework

Constituent Council accounting standards in the United States for the first time formed in 1936 with the name of Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP). The Council is working until 1959 and renamed the Accounting Princilpes Booard (APB). The work of APB ARS is the famous number 7 and the most famous is the APB Statement No. 4 which was published in 1970. APB worked until 1973, later replaced by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) today. FASB is different from previous councils, because it is supported by six professional organizations, ie, AAA, AICPA, Financial Analysts Federation, Financial Executive Institute, the Institute of Management Accountants, and the Securities Industry Association.
After experiencing some point in time (Juncture) in formulating accounting principles (Zeff 1984), FASB finally managed to create a model of an established conceptual framework is called, Statement of Financial Accounting
Concepts (SFAC). SFAC is deemed complete and consisted of 6 statements, namely SFAC No. 1 (1978), SFAC No. 2 (1980), SFAC No. 3 (1980), SFAC No. 4 (1980), SFAC No. 5 (1984), and SFAC No. 6 1985. SFAC No. 6 replaces SFAC No. 3 and amend the SFAC No. 2. While the draft SFAC 7 until now has not been definitive.

FASB conceptual framework of this model includes four basic components, namely (1) financial reporting purposes as outlined in SFAC No. 1 and SFAC No. 4. (2) Criteria for the quality of information as outlined in SFAC No. 2, (3) The elements of financial statements set forth in SFCA No. 6 (substitute SFAC No. 3) (4) Measurement and recognition as outlined in SFAC no. 5. This model (see figure 3) designed with ample and includes business and non-business company. This framework is a theoretical basis for the FASB in developing accounting standards (Statement of Financial Accounting Standard) in the United States.

These standards regarding the measurement of economic activity, the timing of when the measurement and recording should be made, the provisions regarding disclosure of such activities, the preparation and presentation of the summary of economic activity in the form of financial statements.

IASC Conceptual framework

Globalization of the world demands a uniform accounting standard. However, to achieve a uniformity is not easy. This condition requires the existence of a constituent body of international standards. One is the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC).

Agreement IASC formation occurred on June 23, 1973 in England, represented by the accounting professional organizations from nine countries, namely Australia, Canada, France, West Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Britain and the United States (Nobes and Parker 1995: 9; and Solomons, 1986: 60).
The objective of the IASC is, "to formulate and publish in the public interests, the basic standards to be observed in the presentation of audited accounts and financial statements and to promote worldwide acceptance and Their Observance" So the purpose of the establishment of the IASC is to formulate standards and promote acceptance
and compliance with IFRS is widely in the world. (Solomons 1986: 60).
Until now, the IASC member organizations or bodies of about 150 authors from 113 countries accounting standards (accounting media, 2000), and has succeeded in formulating a theoretical model also adopts the meta theory by placing as the top-level goal. This model is called the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (FPPFS) (original script contained in the IAI, SAK, October 2004). In diagrammatic, with reference to figure 2 the structure of meta-theory of financial accounting, this FPPFS model shown in Figure 4.
This basic framework essentially contains five main elements, namely (1) financial reporting purposes, as outlined in paragraphs 12-21, (2) the basic assumptions outlined in paragraphs 22-23, and the concept of capital and capital maintenance as outlined in paragraphs 102-110 , (3) the qualitative characteristics that determine the usefulness of information in the financial statements set forth in paragraphs 24-46, (4) elements of financial statements set forth in paragraphs 47-81, (5) definition, the confession contained in paragraphs 82-98, and measurement of the elements that make up the financial statements set forth in paragraphs 99-101.
The basic framework is intended as a reference for committees making up the financial accounting standards in the development of financial accounting standards in the future and in peninjaun back to the applicable financial accounting standards.


Review AND COMPARISON

Both the structure of meta-theory version of the FASB and the IASC version, have similar elements. But there are some differences in principle in both models. First, the FASB is a statement of purpose financial reporting purposes, but in the IASC financial reporting purposes. Although the IASC in paragraph 07 states that, "Financial
statements form part of the process of financial reporting ", but actually there are fundamental things that cause these two statements different objectives, namely the scope of its application. The scope of application of the FASB is in the United States, which, of course, consider the characteristics of the environment, as stated in SFAC No. 1 paragraph 9 as follows:
Thus, the objectives set ... .. depend significantly on the nature of the economic activities and decisions with the which the users are involved. Accordingly, the objectives in this Statements are affected by the economics, legal, political, and social environment in the United States.
While the scope of application of the IASC is an international, so the environmental characteristics of local / State becomes irrelevant. The absence of this context environmental characteristics that might cause the IASC use of financial statement reporting purposes, because it contains the context of financial reporting environment.
Second, the primary focus of financial reporting purposes. In the FASB clearly dungkapkan in paragraph 34, that "Financial Reporting That Is Should Provide information useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other
users in making rational investment, credit, and similar decisions. "
Why is the main focus of investors and creditors? This is due to investors and creditors are the majority users and key actors in the American capital market that is growing rapidly. While the IASC stated target users generally do not focus on specific groups. For example in paragraph 13, stated, "Financial statements Prepared for these purpose
meet the common needs of most users ". This is due to consider the characteristics of the main actors in various countries, with different levels of economic growth, the level of sophistication of financial markets are also different, so stated in general.
Theoretical reasons why the FASB focused background for investors and creditors as financial reporting purposes may be explained as follows. The social role of accounting can be seen from the extent to which accounting can control the behavior of economic decision-makers to act leading to an economic and social objectives of a country. One objective of the economic state is the presence of an efficient allocation of economic resources. This resource allocation process can occur through a mechanism in the capital market, because capital market is a meeting place for requesters and providers of funds (investors and creditors). Accounting information is expected to play a role in assisting them in economic decision-making process.
Third, the assumptions underlying the preparation of financial statements (underlying Assumption), paragraphs 22-23, and the concept of capital and capital maintenance concept of paragraphs 102-110, it had been little explicit stated in the IASC. But the FASB does not present these two components as separate components of the concept, because both of these are basic concepts used by the FASB in the explanations, arguments and reasoning that accompanies each component of the concept.
For example, in SFAC no. 5 paragraph 45 stated, "The full set of articulated financial statements discussed in this Statement is based on the concept for financial capital maintenance" concept is also used for explanations in paragraphs 46-48. Similarly, in SFAC No. 6 paragraph 71, "A Concept of maintenance of capital or recovery of costs is a prerequisite for separating return of capital ... .." Similarly, paragraph 72, "The financial capital concept is the traditional view and is generally the capital maintenance concept in the present primary financial statements. "
The concept of accrual basis, too. FASB to use it as an explanation and argument on the SFAC No. 6 on the sub-topic of Accrual Accounting and Related Concepts from paragraph 134 to paragraph 145.
By considering some of the differences that exist, it seems that the structure of meta-theory used by the FASB is more perfect than the structure of the meta-theory of IASC. FASB in building a model using the arguments and reasoning that is stronger and more complete explanations for each concept is used, thus forming a knowledge. Thus, FASB has a more educational aspect. This is explicitly stated in section
SFAC No. introduction. 2, namely:
However, knowledge of the objectives and concepts the Board will use in developing
standards should also enable those who are affected by or interested in financial accounting standards to understand better the purposes, content, and characteristic of information provided by financial accounting and reporting.

BARRIERS, OBSTACLES AND EFFORT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IFRS

Preparation of accounting standards in the IASC does not involve all members are huge numbers, but by some countries called by the name of the G4 +1 consisting of representatives from national standards bodies from countries Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and the United States. The reason for the formation of G4 +1 is a member of IASC too much, composed of permanent and temporary members, as well as very diverse. Diversity representatives who sit in the IASC also reflects the diversity of economic levels of the countries they represent, this sometimes requires compromises in order to approve a standard.
Although most members of the IASC has agreed to IFRS, but not all members of the IASC implement their respective efforts in his country. Unlike the members joined in the G4 +1. They come together intensively and work full time. In any development project is done, they develop into the scope of their respective countries. Therefore, members of the G4 +1 is developed countries that have sophisticated financial markets, then the compromises very little happened.
Developed countries will dominate the financial market development. Information needs of investors seem more concerned with the United States, Mainland Europe, UK, and Australia. If the international accounting standards are intended apply to all members of the IASC, which has a lot of difference, then this is an obstacle that may be difficult to solve.
Radebaugh (1975:41) argues that many environmental factors that influence the development of objectives, standards, and accounting practices. This framework includes eight factors, which are generally eight factors exist in every country, certainly with the level and characteristics are very different.
The characteristics and different levels between countries is a fundamental obstacle faced in the process of harmonization of financial accounting standards. Further, the Solomons (1986:63) says:
Just as accounting standards within a single country attempt to eliminate arbitrary and unnecessary differences in the accounting methods used by different companies, so in the international field, efforts are being made to eliminate or reduce accounting differences across national boundaries. Because some of those differences reflect differences in legal systems, in political systems and in stage of economic development, the progress of harmonization is slow and difficult.
The Development of Accounting Objectives, Standards and Practices
Enterprise Users:
1. Management
2. Employee
3. Supervisory council
4. Board of Directors
International Influences:
1. Colonial history
2. Foreign investors
3. International committees
4. Regional cooperation
5. Regional capital markets
Government:
1. Users: tax, planners
2. Regulators
Others external users
1. Creditors
2. Institutional investors
3. Noninstitutional investors
4. Securities Exchange
Local environtment
characteristics
4. Rate of economic growth
5. Inflation
6. Public vs private ownership
and control of the economy
7. Cultural attitudes
Nature of The enterprises
1. Form of business organizations
2. Operating charactristics
Accounting Profession:
1. Nature & extent of a
profession
2. Professional associations
3. Auditing
Academic Influences:
1. Educational infrastructure
2. Basic of applied research
3. Academic association
Another obstacle that arises is the difference between needs and wants developed countries to underdeveloped countries and between the economic growth rate is very high and the country with lower economic growth rate is even lower. What exactly is applied in the United States, not necessarily suitable to be applied in other countries with environmental characteristics and different economic development. Similarly, what was designed by the G4 +1 is not necessarily suitable for all members of the IASC. Solomons (1986: 63) says,
There is no workable enforcement
for the State not to apply IFRS. What should be done by the IASC as a constituent body of accounting standards interasional is to make the members feel the need to apply IFRS. Efforts that can be taken is the first, proposed the recognition by the International Organization of Securities Commissions, so that the company (the State) who will conduct crossborder listings using IFRS in their financial reporting. This action is then followed by the recognition by the securities commissions or existing regulations. If this happens, it will encourage multinational companies to listing on stock exchanges abroad.
Second, the IASC should establish a standard constituent entity separate from the accounting bodies. To that end, the IASC should be restructured. IASC is currently dominated by professional accounting bodies sebanag standard compilers. Restructuring is expected to encourage independence in terms of both funding and operational.
CONCLUSION

FASB and the IASC in formulating the standards are both based on the meta-theory of financial accounting, which puts the purposes of reporting the highest level. FASB conceptual framework is the basis for theoretical development in the United States accounting standards, which include the environmental context. But the IASC conceptual framework that forms the basis of theoretical development of international financial accounting standards, environmental context becomes irrelevant.
There are some differences between these two conceptual framework, the first statement of purpose, which the FASB stated objective of financial reporting, while the IASC stated objective of financial statements. Second, the main focus of reporting by the FASB are investors and creditors, while the IASC did not focus on one particular group. Third, the basic assumptions and concepts of capital and capital maintenance concept, explicitly stated separately by the IASC, while the FASB use these concepts in each concept proposed as an explanation, argument, and reasoning.
Application of IFRS was experiencing a very serious obstacle, because there are so many differences between member countries, both in the social context of cultural, legal, economic, political, educational, governmental system, tax system, and so forth.

IASC should seek recognition from the International Organization of Securities Commissions, so that companies that make cross-border listings using IFRS. This could encourage multinational companies to conduct overseas listings. Another thing that can be done IASC was restructured its constituent bodies to promote independence standards both in terms of funds and operasinal.

the conclusion is the FASB is a system which is also a support in the IFRS system



(Translate)


ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membahas struktur meta teori yang dipergunakan oleh FASB dan IASC dalam mengembangkan rerangka konseptual, menelaah perbedaan-perbedaan mendasar, menganalisis hambatan-hambatan yang dialami serta mengidentifikasi upaya-upaya yang harus dilakukan agar IFRS diterapkan oleh negara-negara anggota. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan cara membandingkan rerangka dasar yang diatur dalam FASB dan IASC dan kemudian menganalisa hambatan yang timbul dengan adanya penerapan IFRS dan mengidentifikasi bagaimana hambatan tersebut dapat diselesaikan.

Kata kunci: globalisasi, harmonisasi, meta teori, FASB dan IASC, kerangka dasar, akuntansi keuangan
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this paper is to analyses the structure of meta-theoretical of financial accounting that was used by FASB and IASC to develop the conceptual framework for financial accounting reporting. The discussion of conceptual framework conducted by comparison of the basic different between the FASB and
IASC framework, then analyses the constraints to implement IFRS and identify the way out of the constraints faced by the body.
Keywords: globalization, harmonization, meta-theoretical, FASB Dan IASC, Conceptual framework, financial accounting
PENDAHULUAN
Linda Keslar (Zeff dan Dharan1994: 28) mengatakan, ”U.S. standards are not only too cumbersome and too costly, but downright unfair compared to those their foreign competitors have to follow. That is U.S. companies face an uneven playing field…” Linda melihat betapa berbedanya aturan akuntansi yang berlaku di banyak Negara sehingga menimbulkan masalah keterbandingan laporan keuangan. Kondisi ini tentu dapat dipahami, karena dalam proses penyusunan standar akuntansi di suatu negara tidak terlepas dari pengaruh faktor-faktor lokal suatu negara. Wolk et al. (2001: 4) mengatakan, ”Economic conditions have an impact upon both political factors and accounting theory”. Proses ini yang menyebabkan standard dan praktik akuntansi di tiap-tiap Negara terdapat perbedaan.
Masalah dirasakan mulai muncul, ketika perkembangan teknologi mengubah dunia internasional ini menjadi sebuah global village, negara-negara seolah tanpa batas (borderless). Era ini populer dengan nama globalisasi. Dalam konteks akuntansi maka munculah akuntansi internasional yang mencoba menguraikan teori dan praktik-praktik akuntansi yang berlaku secara internasional. Harmonisasi standar akuntansi keuangan dalam wujud International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) berlaku secara internasional, dan dalam proses penyusunannya faktor politik dan kondisi ekonomi menjadi tidak relevan.
Kita tidak dapat memungkiri bahwa pengaruh Amerika dalam kancah internasional sangat kuat hampir dalam segala aspek kehidupan. Acapkali kita sulit membedakan mana yang internasional dan mana yang Amerika.
Tetapi lingkungan bisnis yang ada di Amerika Serikat tidaklah universal. Ada tujuh faktor yang menyebabkan perbedaan dalam pelaporan keuangan sebagaimana dikatakan oleh Nobes dan Parker (1995:11), “the following seven factors may constitute an explanation for financial reporting differences: legal system, providers of finance, taxation, the accounting profession, inflation, theory, and the accidents of history”
Dengan demikian apakah standard akuntansi keuangan Amerika Serikat fit untuk lingkungan bisnis global? Inilah sumber dari masalah keterbandingan laporan keuangan. Nobes dan Parker (1995: 3) mengatakan, ”If corporate financial reporting and accounting were identical in all countries of the world, there would be no point in studying comparative international accounting”
Pada lingkup global, sebenarnya ada dua badan penyusun standar yang berkaitan dengan praktik akuntansi secara internasional. Badan-badan itu adalah The International Federation of Accountant (IFAC), dan The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). IASC lebih berkonsentrasi untuk membuat International Accounting Standards (IASs). Sedangkan IFAC lebih memfokuskan pada upaya pengembangan International Standard Audits (ISAs), kode etik, kurikulum pendidikan, standar akuntansi sektor swasta, dan kaidah-kaidah bagi akuntan dalam berbisnis atau mereka yang terlibat dalam teknologi.
Sangat diharapkan ada sebuah standar yang dapat diterima oleh semua Negara di dunia. Dengan adanya standar yang diterima secara internasional, diharapkan laporan keuangan memiliki daya keterbandingan yang lebih tinggi antar negara. Tentu saja upaya-upaya kearah harmonisasi internasional ini bukanlah pekerjaan mudah.
Faktanya dalam dunia akuntansi saat ini standar akuntansi yang berlaku di Amerika Serikat yang disusun oleh Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), diikuti oleh beberapa negara, baik secara langsung maupun modifikasi. Sementara International Accounting Standards (IASs) yang dikeluarkan oleh International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), belum diikuti oleh semua negara, bahkan oleh negara-negara anggota yang tergabung dalam IASC tersebut.
Artikel ini bertujuan untuk membahas struktur meta teori yang dipergunakan oleh FASB dan IASC dalam mengembangkan rerangka konseptual, menelaah perbedaan-perbedaan mendasar, menganalisis hambatan-hambatan yang dialami serta mengidentifikasi upaya-upaya yang harus dilakukan agar IFRS diterapkan oleh negara-negara anggota.
Bagian berikut dari artikel ini akan menjelaskan pergeseran orientasi pemikiran dari Postulat ke objektif, pembuatan kebijakan akuntansi, struktur meta teori akuntansi keuangan, rerangka konseptual FASB, rerangka konseptual IASC, telaah dan perbandingan struktur meta teori FASB dengan IASC, hambatan-hambatan dan upaya penerapan IFRS dan ditutup dengan simpulan.
PERGESERAN ORIENTASI DARI
POTSULAT KE OBJEKTIF
Dalam akuntansi kita sering kali membedakan antara teori dan praktik. Kita sering mendengar dua orang akuntan berdebat mengenai sebuah proposal, ”ini hanya teori, tidak dapat dipraktikkan”, atau pada diskusi lainnya ”ini adalah teori depresiasi” atau yang lainnya lagi mengatakan ”teori capital budgeting”, atau ”teori akuntansi” dan lain sebagainya. Lalu, apa sebenarnya yang dimaksud dengan teori akuntansi?
Paton dan Littleton (1940: ix) mendefinisikan teori akuntansi, “…is a coherent, coordinated, consistent body of doctrines which may be compactly expressed in the form of standards it desired”
Keberadaan teori akuntansi yang mapan sangat penting dan diharapkan mampu menjelaskan fakta atau fenomena akuntansi dengan akurat dan memiliki konsistensi logik. Banyak sekali ahli teori akuntansi mencoba menjelaskan praktikpraktik akuntansi yang sedang berlaku, dan berupaya untuk menemukan dasar teorinya. Pada umumnya mereka berfokus pada postulat, konsep dasar, maupun asumsi yang mendasari praktik. Ternyata pendapat mengenai postulat itu sendiri
sangat beragam, tidak ada kesepakatan, sehingga usaha-usaha untuk merumuskan teori akuntansi sangat lambat bahkan cenderung membingungkan. Perdebatan terus berlanjut, setiap orang selalu melihat hal yang sama dari sudut pandang yang berbeda-beda, sehingga yang ada adalah kumpulan pendapat.
Tetapi bukan berarti tidak ada satu teoripun yang berhasil dirumuskan. Justru sebaliknya, bahwa banyak teori yang sudah berhasil dirumuskan namun hanya menjelaskan akuntansi dari bagian tertentu saja dan dari sudut pandang yang berbeda. Chamber (1965) secara optimis mengatakan, bahwa, ”The history of accounting thought is not a history of development, but a series of disconnected episodes”
Akhirnya setelah menyadari bahwa tidak ada kemajuan berarti yang dicapai, terjadilah pergeseran orientasi dari postulat ke tujuan (objectives) pelaporan akuntansi. Pergeseran orientasi ini diawali dengan dikeluarkannya ASOBAT oleh AAA pada tahun 1964. Perkembangan ini diikuti oleh APB dengan mengeluarkan Statement no 4 (1970), kemudian diteruskan oleh laporan komite Trueblood (AICPA, 1973). Setelah APB digantikan oleh FASB, pada tahun 1978, FASB mengerluarkan SFAC No 1 dengan judul, Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises.
Struktur teori akuntansi keuangan yang menempatkan tujuan pada posisi paling atas tersebut disebut dengan Meta Teori Akuntansi Keuangan (Wolk et al. 2001: 173). Atas dasar meta teori ini, masalah yang timbul dalam mencari postulat yang dapat disetujui bersama sudah teratasi. Dengan arah tujuan pelaporan akuntansi, penelitian dapat dilakukan dengan lebih menekankan pada pengembangan teori akuntansi yang berguna untuk menerangkan dan meramalkan praktik akuntansi
(Baridwan 1991: 3).
Kam (1986:34) menggambarkan bahwa postulat, objektif dan definisi merupakan sumber tertinggi untuk bisa melakukan deduksi dalam mengembangkan rerangka konseptual akuntansi. Dalam sistem deduksi, pada tingkatan pertama (Top level) terdiri dari pernyataan yang sangat umum, yaitu postulat atau asumsi dasar akuntansi, definisi, dan termasuk tujuan pelaporan keuangan. Pada tingkatan kedua mencakup prinsip-prinsip atau standar akuntansi yang skopenya tidak seluas atau seumum postulat. Pada tingkatan ketiga mencakup prosedur-prosedur akuntansi atau metode-metode akuntansi yang dapat diterapkan langsung dalam praktik (Kam1986: 34-35).
Jika diperhatikan, penjelasan teori secara deduksi menurut Kam tersebut khususnya pada tingkatan pertama (berisi postulates, definitions, dan Objectives of Financial Reporting), sebenarnya sudah mencakup pergeseran orientasi dari pendekatan yang berorientasi postulat-prinsip ke pendekatan yang berorientasi tujuan-standar. Kam memkombinasikan kedua orientasi tersebut dengan sangat elegan, seolah-olah mengisyaratkan perlunya mengakhiri perdebatan mengenai postulat (dan istilah lainnya yang berbeda-beda) dan menyepakati apa sebenarnya orientasi yang ingin
dijadikan acuan.
Ketika meta teori ini dipergunakan sebagai landasan menyusun kebijakan akuntansi di suatu negara, tampaknya kondisi lingkungan dimana akuntansi itu akan dioperasikan juga sangat mempengaruhi. Dalam APBS 4 (1970: par. 17) dikatakan, ”…depents ont only on delinetion of accounting, but olso on an understanding of the
environent within which financial accounting operates and which it is intended to reflect” Hal ini menyebabkan kebijakan akuntansi yang diterapkan antar negara ada kecenderungan berbeda satu sama lainnya. Dengan demikian, bagaimana sebaiknya kebijakan akuntansi itu dibuat?
PEMBUATAN KEBIJAKAN AKUNTANSI
Praktik akuntansi dalam suatu negara sebenarnya didasarkan pada sebuah aturan yang dengan sengaja dikembangkan untuk mencapai tujuan sosial tertentu. Dalam proses perancangan dan pengembangan aturan akuntansi tersebut banyak mempertimbangkan faktor seperti kondisi ekonomi, sistem politik dan teori akuntansi itu sendiri. Wolk et al. (2001) menggambarkan proses ini seperti pada gambar 1.
Teori Akuntansi
Teori akuntansi sebagaimana tampak pada gambar 1 menempati posisi sangat penting dalam proses pembuatan kebijakan. Pemahaman akan pentingnya teori, baik oleh praktisi maupun para penyusun standar sangat penting, supaya rancangan standar akuntansi dapat menjadi pedoman yang stabil, dan sekaligus adaptif, karena praktik
akuntansi bersifat dinamik dan selalu menghadapi masalah-masalah praktis dan professional.
Masalah praktis memang dapat diatasi atau dipecahkan dengan berdasarkan pengalaman praktis, tetapi pengalaman praktis saja tidaklah cukup, melainkan harus dilandasi oleh pemahaman yang kuat terhadap teori akuntansi. Kam (1986: 38 ) mengatakan,
Behind every practice is a rationale…Good practice is based on good theory whether we are aware of the theory or not. If we can formulate “good” theory, then we will have “good” practices if the theory is followed.
Praktik akuntansi yang baik dan maju tidak akan pernah tercapai jika teori yang melandasinya tidak baik. Teori yang baik tidak akan pernah menjiwai praktik jika teori yang baik tersebut tidak dipahami.
Kondisi Ekonomi
Sistem perekonomian biasanya diklasifikasikan menjadi sistem kapitalis, sistem sosialis, atau kombinasi keduanya. Dalam setiap sistem perekonomian masalah central yang dihadapi adalah alokasi sumberdaya yang tersedia untuk produksi
barang dan jasa. Proses alokasi ini berpengaruh terhadap kondisi perekonomian.
Karena kondisi ekonomi berdasarkan sifatnya adalah dinamis, maka kondisi perekonomain suatu negara menjadi faktor yang relevan dalam perumusan kebijakan akuntansi. Kompleksitas ekonomi akan berkaitan langsung dengan kompleksitas akuntansi. Negara dengan subsistem perekonomian agraria misalnya kebutuhan akuntansinya akan sangat berbeda dengan negara yang subsistem perekonomian perindustrian. Kebijakan akuntansi harus konsisten dengan tujuan ekonomi makro dan perencanaan berbagai program ekonomi suatu negara.
Demikian pula sebaliknya, kebijakan akuntansi yang ditetapkan akan dapat memberikan implikasi ekonomi yang sangat luas, berpengaruh terhadap perilaku para pengambil keputusan ekonomik, perpajakan, sistem bonus, harga pasar saham, dan lain sebagainya. Banyak penulis dan peneliti yang membahas tentang konsekuensi
ekonomi yang timbul (lihat dalam Wolk et al. 2001, Zeff 1994, Sunder 1988, FASB, dalam statement 2, 1980, dan Statement 5, 1984, Brown 1987).
Konsekuensi ekonomi ini, sebagaimana diunkapkan oleh Zeff (1994) adalah dampak laporan akuntansi terhadap perilaku para pengambil keputusan bisnis, pemerintah, investor dan kreditor, dan masyarakat bisnis lainya.
Faktor Politik
Apakah pembuatan kebijakan akuntansi harus dipengaruhi proses politik? Jawaban atas pertanyaan ini tidak jelas batasannya. Kebijakan akuntansi sebenarnya diputuskan melalui suatu konsensus, sehingga proses pembuatannya dianggap bersifat politik. Gerboth (1973) menyatakan, suatu politisasi pembuatan peraturan akuntansi
tidak dapat dielakkan, dan hal ini merupakan suatu keharusan. Selanjutnya, Gerboth menyatakan, jika suatu keputusan kebijakan akuntansi keberhasilannya tergantung pada keberterimaan oleh masyarakat, maka masalah-masalah penting yang timbul tidak bersifat teknis melainkan politis.
Horngren (1973) berpendapat senada, bahwa standar akuntansi merupakan hasil tindakan politik dan sosial yang akan mempengaruhi masyarakat. Tetapi Solomons (1978) menyatakan perlu suatu kehati-hatian dan diperhatikan pula
bahwa faktor politik tidak harus selalu dikedepankan dalam penetapan standard. Jika faktor politik dikedepankan, kredibilitas akuntansi benar-benar dipertaruhkan. Jika badan-badan penyusun standar sering melakukan kesalahan, maka kepercayaan masyarakat dan kalangan bisnis akan hilang.
Sandaran utama penetapan kebijakan akuntansi adalah teori yang sehat. Wright (Suwardjono, 2005: 38) mengatakan, ”Theory, without practice to test it, to verify it, to correct it, is idle speculations; but practice, without theory to animate it, is mere mechanism. In everi art and business, theory is the soul and practice is the body” Dengan demikian diperlukan adanya struktur meta teori yang valid.
STRUKTUR META TEORI
Meta teori akuntansi keuangan menggunakan pendekatan deduksi dalam proses penalarannya. Sebagaimana tampak pada gambar 2, struktur meta teori akuntansi keuangan menempatkan tujuan sebagai tingkatan paling tinggi. Tetapi jika suatu kebijakan ditetapkan untuk suatu negara tertentu, mungkin tujuan pelaporan keuangan harus mendukung tujuan ekonomik suatu negara.
Suwardjono (2005) menggunakan istilah perekayasaan pelaporan keuangan untuk menggambarkan struktur meta teori akuntansi keuangan. Perekayasaan akuntansi berkepentingan dengan pertimbangan untuk memilih dan mengaplikasikan
ideologi, teori, konsep dasar, dan teknologi yang tersedia secara teoritis dan praktis untuk mencapai tujuan ekonomik dan sosial negara dengan mempertimbangkan faktor sosial, ekonomik, politik, dan budaya negara (hal 102). Jika digambarkan secara generik tanpa dikaitkan dengan satu negara tertentu, maka struktur meta teori akuntansi keuangan tampak pada gambar 3.
Pada tingkatan pertama adalah postulates, definisi dan tujuan pelaporan keuangan. Postulates yang biasa dipakai adalah Going concern, time period, accouning entity, dan monetary unit (Wolk, et al. 2001: 139). Dan tujuan umum pelaporan keuangan adalah menyediakan informasi keuangan untuk dasar pengambilan keputusan ekonomik dan sosial.
Pada tingkatan kedua para perancang kebijakan akuntansi harus memilih berbagai konsep dasar yang relevan, menentukan subjek pelaporan, target pemakai, jenis informasi yang dilaporkan, simbol atau elemen-elemen yang dipakai, dasar pengukuran, kriteria pengakuan, dan medium pelaporan, dan cara melaporkan (Suwardjono, 2005: 102). Pada tingkatan ketiga dibuat suatu rerangka konseptual yang dijabarkan dalam bentuk standar akuntansi dan acuan lainnya sehingga membentuk generally accepted accounting principles. Tingkatan terakhir adalah media pelaporan yang menentukan bentuk, isi dan jenis laporan.
Karena berbagai faktor lokal yang terjadi dalam suatu negara, maka ketika kebijakan akuntansi disusun, maka sebagaimana telah diuraikan dimuka model generik pada gambar 2, akan menjadi spesifik untuk negara bersangkutan. Kebijakan akuntansi antar negara akan dapat berbeda satu sama lainnya, dan harus diikuti dalam praktik akuntansi.
RERANGKA KONSEPTUAL FASB
Dewan penyusun standar akuntansi di Amerika Serikat untuk pertama kalinya dibentuk pada tahun 1936 dengan nama Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP). Dewan ini bekerja sampai tahun 1959 dan berganti nama menjadi Accounting Princilpes Booard (APB). Hasil karya APB yang terkenal adalah ARS nomor 7 dan yang paling terkenal adalah APB Statemen no 4 yang diterbitkan tahun 1970. APB bekerja sampai dengan tahun 1973, kemudian digantikan oleh Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) sampai sekarang ini. FASB berbeda dengan dewan-dewan sebelumnya, karena didukung oleh enam organisasi profesi, yaitu, AAA, AICPA, Financial Analysts Federation, Financial Executive Institute, Institute of Management Accountants, dan Securities Industry Association.
Setelah mengalami beberapa titik waktu (Juncture) dalam merumuskan prinsip-prinsip akuntansi (Zeff 1984), FASB akhirnya berhasil membuat sebuah model rerangka konseptual yang mapan disebut, Statement of Financial Accounting
Concepts (SFAC). SFAC ini dianggap lengkap dan terdiri dari 6 statements, yaitu SFAC No 1 (1978), SFAC No 2 (1980), SFAC No 3 (1980), SFAC No 4 (1980), SFAC No 5 (1984), dan SFAC No 6 tahun 1985. SFAC No 6 menggantikan SFAC no 3 dan mengamandemen SFAC no 2. Sedangkan draft SFAC 7 sampai saat ini belum pernah definitif.
Model rerangka konseptual FASB ini mencakup empat komponen dasar, yaitu (1) tujuan pelaporan keuangan yang dituangkan pada SFAC no 1 dan SFAC no 4. (2) Kriteria kualitas informasi yang dituangkan pada SFAC no 2, (3) Elemen-elemen laporan keuangan yang dituangkan pada SFCA no 6 (pengganti SFAC no 3) (4) Pengukuran dan Pengakuan yang dituangkan pada SFAC no. 5. Model ini (lihat gambar 3) dirancang dengan cukup luas dan mencakup perusahaan bisnis dan nonbisnis. Rerangka ini merupakan dasar teoritis bagi FASB dalam mengembangkan standard akuntansi keuangan (Statement of Financial Accounting Standard) di Amerika Serikat.
Standar-standar tersebut berkenaan dengan pengukuran aktivitas ekonomi, penentuan waktu kapan pengukuran dan pencatatan harus dilakukan, ketentuan pengungkapan mengenai aktivitas tersebut, penyiapan dan penyajian ringkasan aktivitas ekonomi tersebut dalam bentuk laporan keuangan.
RERANGKA KONSEPTUAL IASC
Globalisasi dunia menuntut adanya standar akuntansi yang seragam. Namun untuk mencapai sebuah keseragaman tidaklah mudah. Kondisi ini memerlukan adanya sebuah badan penyusun standar internasional. Salah satunya adalah International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC).
Kesepakatan pembentukan IASC terjadi pada tanggal 23 Juni 1973 di Inggris yang diwakili oleh organisasi profesi akuntansi dari sembilan negara, yaitu Australia, Canada, Prancis, Jerman Barat, Jepang, Mexico, Belanda, Inggris, dan Amerika Serikat (Nobes dan Parker 1995: 9; dan Solomons, 1986: 60).
Tujuan pembentukan IASC adalah, “to formulate and publish in the public interests, basic standards to be observed in the presentation of audited accounts and financial statements and to promote their worldwide acceptance and observance” Jadi tujuan dibentuknya IASC adalah memformulasi standar dan mendorong keberterimaan
dan ditaatinya IFRS secara luas di dunia. (Solomons 1986: 60).
Sampai saat ini IASC beranggotakan sekitar 150 organisasi atau badan penyusun standard akuntansi dari 113 negara (media akuntansi, 2000), dan telah berhasil merumuskan model teoritis yang juga mengadopsi meta teori dengan menempatkan tujuan sebagai top level. Model ini disebut Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (FPPFS) (naskah asli terdapat di IAI, SAK, Oktober 2004). Secara diagramatis, dengan mengacu gambar 2 struktur meta teori akuntansi keuangan, Model FPPFS ini tampak pada gambar 4.
Kerangka dasar ini pada hakikatnya memuat lima unsur utama, yaitu (1) tujuan laporan keuangan yang dituangkan dalam paragraf 12-21, (2) asumsi dasar dituangkan pada paragraf 22-23, dan konsep modal dan pemeliharaan modal yang dituangkan pada paragraf 102-110, (3) karakteristik kualitatif yang menentukan manfaat informasi dalam laporan keuangan yang dituangkan pada paragraf 24-46, (4) elemen-elemen laporan keuangan yang dituangkan pada paragraf 47-81, (5) definisi, pengakuan dituangkan pada paragraf 82-98, dan pengukuran unsur-unsur yang membentuk laporan keuangan dituangkan pada paragraf 99-101.
Kerangka dasar ini dimaksudkan sebagai acuan bagi komite penyusun standar akuntansi keuangan dalam pengembangan standar akuntansi keuangan dimasa depan dan dalam peninjaun kembali terhadap standar akuntansi keuangan yang berlaku.
TELAAH DAN PERBANDINGAN
Kedua struktur meta teori versi FASB dan versi IASC, memiliki unsur-unsur yang mirip. Tetapi ada beberapa perbedaan prinsip dalam kedua model tersebut. Pertama, pernyataan tujuan di FASB adalah tujuan pelaporan keuangan, tetapi di IASC tujuan laporan keuangan. Meskipun IASC pada paragraf 07 menyatakan bahwa, ”Financial
statements form part of the process of financial reporting”, tetapi sebenarnya ada hal mendasar yang menyebabkan kedua pernyataan tujuan tersebut berbeda, yaitu lingkup penerapannya. Lingkup penerapan FASB adalah di Amerika Serikat yang tentu saja mempertimbangkan karakteristik lingkungan, sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam SFAC No 1 paragraf 9 sebagai berikut:
Thus, the objectives set…..depend significantly on the nature of the economic activities and decisions with which the users are involved. Accordingly, the objectives in this Statements are affected by the economics, legal, political, and social environment in the United States.
Sedangkan lingkup penerapan IASC adalah internasional, sehingga karaktristik lingkungan local/Negara menjadi tidak relevan. Ketiadaan konteks karakteristik lingkungan inilah yang barangkali menyebabkan IASC menggunakan pernyataan tujuan laporan keuangan, karena pelaporan keuangan mengandung konteks lingkungan.
Kedua, fokus utama tujuan pelaporan keuangan. Dalam FASB dengan jelas dungkapkan pada paragraf 34, bahwa ”Financial reporting should provide information that is useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other
users in making rational investment, credit, and similar decisions”.
Mengapa fokus utama adalah investor dan kreditor? Hal ini disebabkan investor dan kreditor adalah pengguna mayoritas dan pelaku utama di pasar modal Amerika yang sangat berkembang pesat. Sementara di IASC target pemakai dinyatakan secara umum tidak fokus pada kelompok tertentu. Misalnya pada paragraf 13, dinyatakan, ”Financial statements prepared for these purpose
meet the common needs of most users”. Hal ini disebabkan karena harus mempertimbangkan karakteristik pelaku utama di berbagai negara, dengan tingkatan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang berbeda, tingkatan kecanggihan pasar keuangan yang juga berbeda, sehingga dinyatakan secara umum.
Alasan teoritis yang melatar belakangi mengapa FASB memfokuskan investor dan kreditor sebagai tujuan pelaporan keuangan dapat dijelaskan sebagai berikut. Peran sosial akuntansi dapat dilihat dari sejauh mana akuntansi dapat mengendalikan perilaku para pengambil keputusan ekonomik untuk bertindak menuju ke suatu pencapaian tujuan ekonomi dan sosial suatu negara. Salah satu tujuan ekonomik negara adalah adanya alokasi sumberdaya ekonomik yang efisien. Proses alokasi sumberdaya ini dapat terjadi melalui mekanisme di pasar modal, karena pasar modal merupakan tempat bertemunya peminta dan penyedia dana (investor dan kreditor). Informasi akuntansi diharapkan berperanan dalam membantu mereka dalam proses pengambilan keputusan ekonomik.
Ketiga, Asumsi yang mendasari penyusunan laporan keuangan (underlying assumption) paragraf 22-23, dan konsep modal dan konsep mempertahankan modal paragraf 102-110, secara ekspisit dinyatakan dalam IASC. Tetapi FASB tidak menyajikan kedua komponen tersebut sebagai komponen konsep yang terpisah, karena kedua hal tersebut merupakan konsep dasar yang digunakan oleh FASB dalam penjelasan, argumen dan penalaran yang menyertai setiap komponen konsep.
Misalnya pada SFAC no. 5 paragraf 45 dinyatakan, ”The full set of articulated financial statements discussed in this Statement is based on the concept financial capital maintenance” Konsep ini juga digunakan untuk penjelasan pada paragraph 46-48. Demikian pula pada SFAC No 6 paragraf 71, “A concept of maintenance of capital or recovery of cost is a prerequisite for separating return of capital…..” Demikian pula paragraf 72, “The financial capital concept is the traditional view and is generally the capital maintenance concept in present primary financial statements.”
Konsep accrual basis, juga demikian. FASB menggunakannya sebagai penjelasan dan argumen pada SFAC No. 6 pada sub topik Accrual Accounting and Related Concepts mulai paragraph 134 sampai paragraf 145.
Dengan memperhatikan beberapa perbedaan yang ada, tampaknya struktur meta teori yang digunakan oleh FASB lebih sempurna dibandingkan dengan struktur meta teori IASC. FASB dalam membangun model menggunakan argumen dan penalaran yang lebih kuat serta penjelasan yang lebih lengkap untuk setiap konsep yang dipakai, sehingga membentuk sebuah knowledge. Dengan demikian FASB lebih memiliki aspek pendidikan. Hal ini secara explisit dinyatakan pada bagian
pengantar SFAC No. 2, yaitu:
However, knowledge of the objectives and concepts the Board will use in developing
standards should also enable those who are affected by or interested in financial accounting standards to understand better the purposes, content, and characteristic of information provided by financial accounting and reporting.
HAMBATAN-HAMBATAN DAN UPAYA
DALAM PENERAPAN IFRS
Pembuatan standar akuntansi di IASC tidaklah melibatkan seluruh anggota yang jumlahnya sangat banyak, melainkan oleh beberapa negara yang disebut dengan nama G4+1 yang terdiri dari perwakilan badan-badan standar nasional dari Negara Australia, Kanada, Selandia Baru, Inggris dan Amerika Serikat. Alasan dibentuknya G4+1 ini adalah anggota IASC terlalu banyak, terdiri dari anggota tetap dan tidak tetap, serta sangat beragam. Keberagaman wakil yang duduk dalam IASC ini juga mencerminkan keberagaman tingkatan ekonomi negara-negara yang diwakilinya, hal ini terkadang memerlukan kompromi-kompromi guna menyetujui sebuah standar.
Meskipun sebagian besar anggota IASC telah menyetujui IFRS, tetapi tidak semua anggota IASC menerapkan dinegaranya masing-masing. Berbeda dengan anggota yang tergabung dalam G4+1. Mereka berkumpul secara intensif dan bekerja penuh waktu. Dalam setiap proyek pengembangan yang dikerjakan, mereka mengembangkannya kedalam lingkup Negara mereka masing-masing. Oleh karena anggota G4+1 ini adalah negara-negara maju yang memiliki pasar keuangan yang canggih, maka kompromi-kompromi sangat sedikit terjadi.
Negara-negara maju akan mendominasi pengembangan pasar keuangan. Kebutuhan informasi para investor tampaknya lebih terkait dengan Amerika Serikat, Eropa Daratan, Inggris, dan Australia. Jika standar akuntansi internasional dimaksudkan berlaku untuk semua anggota IASC, yang memiliki banyak perbedaan, maka hal ini merupakan hambatan yang barangkali sulit dipecahkan.
Radebaugh (1975:41) mengemukakan bahwa banyak sekali faktor lingkungan yang berpengaruh terhadap pengembangan tujuan, standar, dan praktik akuntansi. Rerangka ini mencakup delapan faktor, yang secara umum kedelapan faktor tersebut ada di setiap negara, tentu dengan tingkatan dan karakteristik yang sangat berbeda.
Karakteristik dan tingkatan yang berbeda antar negara merupakan hambatan mendasar yang dihadapi dalam proses harmonisasi standar akuntansi keuangan. Lebih lanjut, Solomons (1986:63) mengatakan:
Just as accounting standards within a single country attempt to eliminate arbitrary and unnecessary differences in the accounting methods used by different companies, so in the international field, efforts are being made to eliminate or reduce accounting differences across national boundaries. Because some of those differences reflect differences in legal systems, in political systems and in stage of economic development, the progress of harmonization is slow and difficult.
The Development of Accounting Objectives, Standards and Practices
Enterprise Users:
1. Management
2. Employee
3. Supervisory council
4. Board of Directors
International Influences:
1. Colonial history
2. Foreign investors
3. International committees
4. Regional cooperation
5. Regional capital markets
Government:
1. Users: tax, planners
2. Regulators
Others external users
1. Creditors
2. Institutional investors
3. Noninstitutional investors
4. Securities Exchange
Local environtment
characteristics
4. Rate of economic growth
5. Inflation
6. Public vs private ownership
and control of the economy
7. Cultural attitudes
Nature of The enterprises
1. Form of business organizations
2. Operating charactristics
Accounting Profession:
1. Nature & extent of a
profession
2. Professional associations
3. Auditing
Academic Influences:
1. Educational infrastructure
2. Basic of applied research
3. Academic association
Sumber: Radebaugh (1975: 41)
Gambar 5. The Evolution of Accounting and Reporting Practices
Hambatan lain yang muncul adalah adanya perbedaan kebutuhan dan keinginan antara Negara maju dengan yang belum maju dan antara Negara yang tingkat pertumbuhan ekonominya sangat tinggi dan Negara dengan tingkat pertumbuhan ekonomi lebih rendah bahkan sangat rendah. Apa yang tepat diterapkan di Amerika Serikat, belum tentu cocok diterapkan di Negara lain dengan karakteristik lingkungan dan perkembangan ekonomi yang berbeda. Demikian pula apa yang dirancang oleh G4+1 belum tentu cocok diterapkan untuk seluruh anggota IASC. Solomons (1986: 63) mengatakan,
Their needs are different in important respect, and one should not assume that accounting policies that appropriate for the United States are necessarily appropriate for, say, India or Indonesia. This is because the objectives to be served by financial reporting may be different.
Tidak ada enforcement yang bisa diterapkan
bagi Negara yang tidak menerapkan IFRS. Yang harus dilakukan oleh IASC sebagai badan penyusun standar akuntansi interasional adalah membuat para anggota merasa butuh menerapkan IFRS. Upaya yang bisa ditempuh adalah pertama, mengajukan pengakuan melalui International Organization of Securities Commissions, supaya perusahaan (Negara) yang akan melakukan crossborder listing menggunakan IFRS dalam pelaporan keuangan mereka. Tindakan ini selanjutnya diikuti dengan pengakuan oleh komisi-komisi efek atau peraturan yang ada. Jika hal ini terjadi, maka akan mendorong perusahaan-perusahaan multinasional untuk listing di bursa efek mancanegara.
Kedua, IASC harus membentuk badan penyusun standar yang terpisah dari badan-badan akuntansi. Untuk itu, IASC harus melakukan restrukturisasi. Saat ini IASC didominasi oleh badan-badan profesi akuntansi sebanag penyusun standar. Restrukturisasi ini diharapkan dapat mendorong kemandirian baik dari segi dana maupun operasional.
KESIMPULAN
FASB dan IASC dalam menyusun standar sama-sama berbasis pada meta teori akuntansi keuangan, yang menempatkan tujuan pelaporan pada tingkat paling tinggi. Rerangka konseptual FASB merupakan dasar teoritis pengembangan standar akuntansi di Amerika Serikat, sehingga memasukkan konteks lingkungan. Tetapi rerangka konseptual IASC yang menjadi landasan teoritis pengembangan standar akuntansi keuangan internasional, konteks lingkungan menjadi tidak relevan.
Terdapat beberapa perbedaan antara kedua rerangka konseptual tersebut, yaitu pertama pernyataan tujuan, dimana FASB menyatakan tujuan pelaporan keuangan, sementara IASC menyatakan tujuan laporan keuangan. Kedua, fokus utama pelaporan menurut FASB adalah investor dan kreditor, sementara IASC tidak fokus pada salah satu kelompok tertentu. Ketiga, Asumsi dasar dan konsep modal dan konsep pemeliharaan modal, secara eksplisit dinyatakan terpisah oleh IASC, sementara FASB menggunakan konsepkonsep tersebut pada setiap konsep yang diajukan sebagai penjelasan, argumen, dan penalaran.
Penerapan IFRS ternyata mengalami hambatan yang sangat serius, karena banyak sekali terdapat perbedaan antar negara-negara anggota, baik dalam konteks sosial budaya, hukum, ekonomi, politik, pendidikan, sistem pemerintahan, sistem pajak, dan lain sebagainya.
IASC harus mengupayakan pengakuan dari International Organization of Securities Commissions, supaya perusahaan-perusahaan yang melakukan cross-border listing menggunakan IFRS. Hal ini dapat mendorong perusahaan-perusahaan multinasional untuk melakukan listing di mancanegara. Hal lain yang dapat dilakukan IASC adalah melakukan restrukturisasi badan penyusun standar untuk mendorong kemandirian baik dari segi dana maupun operasinal.
kesimpulanya adalah FASB adalah sebuah sistem yang juga merupakan sebuah dukungan dalam sistem ifrs.