《（毕业设计论文）会计养老金准则-外文翻译（适用于外文翻译+中英文对照）》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《（毕业设计论文）会计养老金准则-外文翻译（适用于外文翻译+中英文对照）（11页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、浙江理工大学经济管理学院本科毕业论文第 7 页外文翻译外文翻译 原文 1The logic of pension accounting2. Pensions as an expense2.1. Early approaches to pension accounting In 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 lar
2、ge organizations such as railways, insurance companies and banks (Hannah, 1986: 1012; Chandar and Miranti,2007: 206). Accounting for these arrangements was often very simple. The cost recognized by the employer was effectively the cash paid in a given period. Some schemes operated on a pay-as-you-go
3、 basis, where the employer 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 contribution
4、s to an internal account, 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 b
5、een made. The expense-as-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 employer, as a kindly act on the part of an employer
6、towards old retainers who have served him faithfully and well (Pilch and Wood, 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
7、 theory implied 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
8、retired, 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 我国企业养老金会计确认、计量、列报研究第 2 页were paid entirely at the emp
9、loyers discretion and could 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 t
10、his basis, early accounting theorists such as Henry Rand Hatfield suggested that employers should include in operating expenses the amount necessary to provide for future pensions (Hatfield, 1916: 194). A number of commentators observed that the calculation of such an expense was potentially highly
11、complex, but they 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 funding. In accountin
12、g terms, the 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
13、funding, cost 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 t
14、his essentially 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 Accountingfor Costs of Pension Plans in 1956, and expressed the view that costs based
15、on current and futureservices 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 would use the method recommended by the actuary for funding the pension plan to determine th
16、e pension 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 balance-sheet pension accruals and balance-sheet pension prepayments or deferred charges but no explanation of these terms or how they are to be determined. Much of the Opinion addresses not the issue of determining norma
