IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jappol/v29yi6p604-611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two conflicting definitions of relevance in the FASB Conceptual Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Myojung
  • Kim, Oliver
  • Lim, Steve C.

Abstract

In this paper we show that the FASB Conceptual Framework stipulates two mutually conflicting definitions of relevance. Both the original FASB Concepts Statement No. 2 of May 1980 and the IASB/FASB Exposure Draft of May 2008 define relevance as the pertinence of the selected economic phenomenon to the decisions of accounting users. However, both pronouncements also define relevance as the pertinence of accounting information to decisions. While many textbooks and conceptual frameworks of other countries use the second definition, we provide evidence that the first definition is more consistent with a model in which relevance and faithful representation are the two essential qualities required for the provision of useful accounting information. To improve internal consistency, the second definition should be removed from the Concepts Statement.

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Myojung & Kim, Oliver & Lim, Steve C., 2010. "Two conflicting definitions of relevance in the FASB Conceptual Framework," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 604-611, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jappol:v:29:y::i:6:p:604-611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278-4254(10)00056-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Russell Craig & Wally Smieliauskas & Joel Amernic, 2014. "Assessing Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Using Expert Accounting Witness Evidence and the Conceptual Framework," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 24(3), pages 200-206, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jappol:v:29:y::i:6:p:604-611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.