Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/338550 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Citation: 
[Journal:] China Journal of Accounting Studies (CJAS) [ISSN:] 2169-7221 [Volume:] 12 [Issue:] 4 [Year:] 2024 [Pages:] 861-907
Publisher: 
Taylor & Francis, Abingdon
Abstract: 
Since the release and implementation of SFAS No.141 and No.142, there has been a continuous controversy over whether to apply the impairment-only or the amortisation-and-impairment method for subsequent goodwill accounting. FASB and IASB solicited opinions on proposed revisions through the and around 2020, respectively. The comprehensive feedback analysis shows that the number of supportive opinions for amortisation's comeback is interestingly higher than that for impairment's retainment. However, it is inappropriate to take the opinions distribution as the sole criteria for standard setting because the preferred methods of the interest groups, based on their stances, mainly stem from their conceptual perceptions of goodwill and the economic consequences of these two methods. This paper provides a theoretical and practical reference for further revision of the standard on the subsequent accounting for goodwill by IASB and FASB.
Subjects: 
FASB
Goodwill
IASB
subsequent accounting
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.