会计外文翻译外文文献英文文献设定收益制养老金会计新准则

外文翻译
原文1
The logic of pension accounting
2. Pensions as an expense
2.1. 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 large organizations such as railways, in sura nee compa nies and banks (Ha nn ah, 1986: 10 -2; Chan dar 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 ‘pa-yas-you-go'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 contributions 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 been made.
The ‘expens-aes-you-pay'accounting for pensions was rationali zed 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 par an employer towards old retainers who have served him faithfull y 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 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 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
were paid en tirely at the employer ' s discreti on and could be disc on ti nued at any time (St one, 1984: 24).
However, the gratuity theory rapidly came under challenge from the view that pensions
con stitute ‘ deferred pay ' , ansdnplayees in effect sacrifice curre nt in come in excha nge for the expectati on of in come in the future. On this basis, early acco unting theorists such as Henry Rand Hatfield suggested that employers should in clude in operati ng expe nses tdhe amount n ecessary provide for future pensions ' (Hatfield, 1916: 194). A nu mber of comme ntators observed that the
calculation of such an expense was potentially highly 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 accounting 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 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 begi nnings of acco unting regulati on
Early authoritative acco unting pronoun ceme nts en dorsed this esse ntially cash-based approach
to pension cost determi natio n. The Committee on Acco un ti ng Procedure of the America n In stitute
of Certified Public Acco un ta nts (AICPA) issued Accou nting Research Bulletin No. 47 Accou nting
for Costs of Pension Plans in 1956, and expressed the view that ‘ costs based on current and futui
services should be systematically accrued during the expected period of active service of the covered employees ' (CAP, 1956). On closer an alysissystematic accrual ' implied that employers
would use the method recommended by the actuary for funding the pension plan to determine the 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 en tirely cost-based -there are references to -s'hleatepieesi on accruals ' and
‘ balanceheet pension prepayments or deferred charges but no explanation of these terms or how
they are to be determ in ed. Much of the Opinion addresses not the issue of determ ining
‘ no
cost ' ( ‘the annual cost assigned, under the actuarial cost method in use, to years subsequent to the inception of a pension plan or to a particular valuation date' )but rather ‘ passt ervice cost ' ( ‘ pension cost assigned under the actuarial cost method in use, to years prior to the inception of a pension plan ') and ‘ prior service cost' ( ‘ pension cost assigned, under the actuarial cost method in
use, to years prior to the date of a particular actuarial valuation 'Th)e. Opinion goes to great lengths to provide guidance on how these components of pension cost should be recognized, recommending spreading of the costs over a period up to 40 years. A number of features of the accounting treatment of pension costs need to be highlighted. First although it is not made explicit, there is an under-lying desire to arrive at a pension expense in each period that is not materially different from the employer 's contributions to the pension fund. APB 8 notes ‘the amount o pension cost determined under this Opinion may vary from the amounfunded (APB, 1966: para'.
43), but this situation is not analyzed in detail. For unfunded pension plans, costs are to be determined using an actuarial cost method. The criteria for the selection of an appropriate actuarial cost method are that the method is ‘ rational and systematic and should be consistently applied so that it results in a reasonable measure of pension cost from year to year .
'
Author: Christopher J. Napier Nationality: English Originate from: The CPA Journal
我国企业养老金会计确认、计量、列报研究
译文一
养老金会计的逻辑
2养老金费用
2.1早先的养老金会计
在19世纪后期的美国和英国，出现了私人部门雇主赞助的养老金计划，主要集中于铁路公司和保险业、银行业等大型机构(Ha nn ah, 1986: 10 - 12;
Chan dar and Mira nti,2007: 206)。

这时的养老金会计往往非常简单。

雇主确认
的成本实际上就是一定期间内支付的现金。

很多养老金计划是都是在职工退休后进行支付，雇主并没有提供进一步的退休福利。

在这种情况下，每段期间内的成
本就是该期间的现金支付。

在某些计划中，雇主提供资金投资于外部的证券，用
取得的收益支付养老金，或是向内部的账户提供资金。

如果基金没有被用来购买证券，成本将会是每段时间内的服务成本并计上合理的利率。

然而，很多雇主为
了能让雇员退休情愿支付养老金，但是并没有提供进一步的福利。

现收现付制养老金会计是建立在“酬金理论”(McGill et al., 2004: 16)
基础上的，这个理论认为养老金是雇主对退休人员的一种奖励，“是雇主对为他
忠诚服务的退休老职工的善意施舍”(Pilch and Wood, 1979: 2)。

其实支付养
老金并不是出于纯粹的善意，因为它能让雇主辞退那些工作效率不高的雇员，而不受到社会的指责。

“酬金”理论暗示雇主通过辞退落后的职工而使效率得到提高，对养老金成本合适的计量就是支付的养老金金额。

如果雇主希望在一个特定的养老金储备预留一些员工退休前的收入，这时他应该确认一部分利润而不是费用。

即使在格式化的养老金计划中，雇主也可能会加入这样的条款，否认这是一
种强制的合同，而强调养老金福利完全是根据自己意愿老来支付，任何时候他都
可以终止这项计划(Stone, 1984: 24)。

然而另一种观点的出现马上让“小费理论”受到了挑战。

这种观点认为养老金其实是递延的工资，雇员实际上是牺牲了当前的收入而换取未来的收益。

在这
个基础上，He nry Rand Hatfield 等人的早些理论认为雇主必须在营业外支出中计入“未来的养老金费用”
(Hatfield, 1916: 194)。

很多评论员评论说这种形
式的养老金核算将会非常复杂，他们建议由精算师来完成这些计算。

一些精算专家已经在建议为养老金计划提供一种利率，无论针对内部或是外部的名义基金。

在会计处理上，雇主需要计算每年的养老金成本，如果是内部的计划，将会直接采用精算师的计算结果，如
果是外部的基金计划，将采用外部的养老保险基金的贡献（由精算师确定）。

外部的基金计划，养老金成本等于某段时间的贡献，养老金费用是根据支付的现金来确定的，而不是应计负债。

2.2 会计监管的开始
早期的权威会计采纳现收现付制来确认养老金成本。

AICPA 在1956 年发布会计研究公告第47 准则——有关养老金成本的确认，强调“养老金成本必须将当前和未来的服务成本系统化地分摊到每个参加养老金计划的职工的预期工作年限中去” （CAP, 1956）。

进一步的分析，“系统的分摊”意味着雇主们将要采用精算师们建议的方法来确定当前雇员所提供的服务成本。

APB 在1966年颁布的养老金计划成本第8号会计准则意见中也同意采取这种方法。

APB 8 完全是以成本为基础的，它建议在资产负债表中设置“养老金负债” 和“预付养老金” 项目，但是他们并没有对这些项目做出解释，也没有说明这些项目是如何决定的。

《意见》的大部分内容并不是说明如何确认正常成本（在使用精算成本下，每年的费用分配至养老金实施后的期间里或是到某一特定的日期），而是介绍过去成本（在使用精算成本发下，将养老金成本分配至养老金计划实施前几年），和前期服务成本（在使用精算成本下，将养老金成本分配至养老金实施后到一个特定的精算估值日期）。

《意见》对于做如何确认养老金成本组成项目提供了详细的指导，建议期间应该要长达40 年以上，而且一系列的养老金会计处理方法特征需要被强调。

虽然它没有言明，但是它的潜在意愿是要使确认的养老金费用不要与雇主提存的养老金数额有显著的差别。

APB 8 提到根据《意见》确认的养老金成本可能会与雇主提存的养老金数额有所差别，但是并没有对这种情形做详细的分析。

对于那些没有经费的养老金计划，成本是根据权责发生制来核算的。

应计成本的核算方法的选择标准是能“合理、系统并得到一贯的应用，以使养老金每年都能得到合理的计量”。

作者：克里斯托弗J. 纳皮尔
国籍：英国
出处：注册会计师
原文2
New Acco un ti ng Rules for Defined Ben efit Pension Pla ns
MARCH 2008 - Issued in September 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 158, Employers
'Acco un ti ng for Defined Ben efit Pension and Other Postretireme nt Plans—An Amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), significantly changes the bala nce-sheet report ing for defi ned ben efit pension pla ns. Before SFAS 158, the effects of certa in even ts, such as pla n ame ndme nts or actuarial gains and losses, were gran ted delayed balance-sheet recognition. As a result, a plan ' s funded status (plan assets minus obligations) was
我国企业养老金会计确认、计量、列报研究
rarely reported on the balanee sheet. SFAS 158 r equires companies to report their plans ' funded
status as either an asset or a liability on their bala nee sheets, which will cause reported pension liabilities to rise sig ni fica ntly. Although SFAS 158 also applies to postretireme nt ben efit pla ns other tha n pensions and to no t-for-profit en tities, the focus below is on for-profit bus in esses with defi ned ben efit pension pla ns.
Balance-Sheet Reporting Under SFAS 158
Under SFAS 87, prepaid or accrued pension cost, which is the net of a firm ' s pension ass
liabilities, and unrecognized amounts, is reported on the balanee sheet. SFAS 158 arguably improves finan cial report ing by more clearly com muni cati ng the fun ded status of defi ned ben efit pension pla ns. Previously, this in formatio n was reported on ly in the detailed pension foot no tes.
Un der SFAS 158, compa nies with defi ned ben efit pension pla ns must recog nize the differe nee betwee n the pla n ' s projected ben efit obligati on and its fair value of pla n assets as either
an asset or a liability. The projected ben efit obligati on is the actuarial prese nt value of the ben efits attributed by the pension pla n ben efit formula for services already provided. As a result, the complex and conceptually unsound
“ minimum pension liability ” rules, which are used when the accumulated ben efit obligati on is less tha n the fair value of pension pla n assets, has bee n elim in ated. (The accumulated ben efit obligati on is similar to the projected ben efit obligati on but does not in clude expected future salary in creases in the calculati on of the prese nt value of actuarial ben efits.) In additi on, the un recog ni zed prior service costs and actuarial gains and losses that were previously relegated to the foot no tes are now recog ni zed on the bala nee sheet, with an offsett ing amount in accumulated other comprehe nsive in come un der shareholders ' equity.
Income Reporting Under SFAS 158
SFAS 158 does not change the computation of periodic pension cost, which remains a function of service cost, interest cost, expected return on pension plan assets, and amortization of unrecognized items. It does, however, impact the reporting of comprehensive income. Specifically, actuarial gains or losses and prior service costs that arise during the period are recognized as components of comprehensive income. In addition, the amortization of actuarial gains or losses, prior service costs, and transition amounts recognized before implementing SFAS 158 require a reclassification adjustment to comprehensive income.
Applying SFAS 158
Exhibit 1 presents pension footnote data for three companies: Lockheed Martin, Glatfelter, and AMR Corp. Lockheed
Martin represents a classic example of a scenario SFAS 158 is designed to eliminate: namely, reporting a pension asset when the pension plan is actually underfunded. Specifically, Lockheed Martin 'psension obligation ($28,421 million) exceeds its plan assets ($23,432 million), meaning the plan is underfunded by the difference, $4,989 million. Previously , Lockheed Martin 'usnrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs (totali ng $7,108 millio n) en abled it to report a pen sion asset of $2,119 millio n ($7,108 -$4,989).
The data for Glatfelter and AMR in Exhibit 1 indicate other likely scenarios under SFAS 158. Glatfelter, while overfunded by $155.3 million, would reduce its reported pension asset by $90 million under SFAS 158. Although AMR currently recognizes a pension liability of $882 million, SFAS 158 would require AMR to significantly increase its reported pension liability to $3,225 million.
An Illustration of the Transition to SFAS 158
The following example uses the actual 2005 data from Exhibit 1 to illustrate how each of these companies would record the transition to the new rules. Because SFAS 158 is generally first effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2006, the actual numbers these companies record upon transition to SFAS 158 will differ from those in this example. For simplicity, the illustration ignores tax effects.
Exhibit 1 shows that each of the three companies reports additional minimum liabilities and related intangible assets on its balance sheet. These items are eliminated under SFAS 158. In addition, pension assets and liabilities and accumulated other comprehensive income are adjusted so that their ending balances conform to the amounts required under SFAS 158. The necessary journal entries to accomplish the transition, using 2005 data, are presented in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 3 shows the balance-sheet reporting for each company after posting the entries in
Exhibit 2, and exposes several importa nt poin ts. First, each compa ny reports its fun ded status as either a pension asset or liability. Second, the bala nce in accumulated other comprehe nsive in come equals the amount of previously unrecognized items. In this example, and likely for many compa nies with defi ned ben efit pla ns, the amount of this con tra- shareholders ' equity will in crease under SFAS 158, even potentially generating negative shareholders equity. The transition to SFAS 158 might impose costs on leveraged firms due to the in creased likelihood of tighte ning restrictive debt cove nan ts. Fin ally, the bala nce-sheet prese ntati on, and each compa ny' fiun ded status, should be easier to un dersta nd after SFAS 158 is impleme nted.
Subsequent Application of SFAS 158
SFAS 158 does not impact the amount of periodic pension cost reported on the in come stateme nt, but it does impact the report ing of comprehe nsive in come. For example, assume that
after implementing SFAS 158 Lockheed Martin were to report the financial results in Exhibit 4.
我国企业养老金会计确认、计量、列报研究
Aga in, these amounts are for illustrative purposes only.
Exhibit 5 shows the required journal en tries. The first entry records the service cost, i nterest cost, and expected retur n on pla n assets comp onents of periodic pension cost. The sec ond entry reclassifies the amortizati on items from accumulated other comprehe nsive in come to periodic pension cost, and the third entry adjusts the pension liability and accumulated other comprehe nsive in come for the differe nce in actual pension retur ns above expectati ons duri ng the year.
Author: Ke nneth W. Shaw
Natio nality: Columbia
Originate from: The CPA Journal
译文
设定收益制养老金会计新准则
2008年3月SFAS颁布了158号《雇主对既定福利养老金和其他退休后计划的会计处理》对FASB 第87、88、106号准则做了修订，显著改变了资产负债表对设定收益制下养老金的列报。

在SFAS158颁布之前，一些特定事项的影响，像养老金计划的修改，精算所得和精算损失，是准许在资产负债表中递延确认的，以至于养老金净资产（养老金资产减去养老金负债）很少在资产负债表中列报。

SFAS 158要求公司在资产负债表中以资产或是负债的形式列报养老金净资产，这将会引起养老金负债的显著上升。

尽管SFAS158也应用于其他退休福利计划以及非盈利组织，但是我们这里主要是讲盈利组织的设定收益计划。

SFAS 158对资产负债表列报的要求
SFAS158 对于预付或应付的养老金成本，即一个公司养老金净资产、净负债以及未确认的金额是在资产负债表中列报的。

SFAS158论证性地提高了财务报告
要求，公司需要更加清楚地提供有关设定收益养老金计划的信息。

而之前只要在财务报表附中披露就行了。

SFAS158要求实行设定收益制养老金计划的公司必须将预计养老金负债总额和养老金资产的公允价值之差确认为一项资产或负债。

预计养老金负债总额是根据养老金计划公式对职工已提供的服务精算所得的当前价值。

结果复杂、抽象、不确定的“最小养老金负债” 准则被删掉了，之前它运用于累积的养老金负债小于养老金资产的公允价值的情况。

（累积养老金负债与预期养老金负债类似，但是它没有包含预期未来上涨工资的现值）。

除此之外，先前在附注中披露的未确认前期服务成本以及精算所失和所得，现在要求在财务报表中进行披露，作为一个对所有者权益项下综合收益进行抵消的科目。

SFAS 158 对利润表的要求
SFAS158并没有改变当期养老金成本的计算，当期的成本依旧取决于原来的服务成本，利息成本，养老金资产的预期收益率，以及未确认项目的分摊。

然而SFAS158的确对综合收益产生了影响。

具体来说，期间内发生精算所得和精算损失以及前期服务成本都确认为综合收益的组成部分。

除此之外，实施
SFAS158之
前，对精算所得、精算损失、前期服务成本和转换金额的分期确认在计入综合收
益前需要重分类调整。

SFAS 158的实施
图表1 表示的是Lockheed Martin, Glatfelter, and AMR Corp 三家公司在
财务报表附注中对养老金披露的数据。

Lockheed Martin的例子很经典，它代表了SFAS158试图改变的现状一一实际上养老金资金筹集不足却仍报告一项资产。

特别是Lockheed Martin 的养老金负债($28,421
我国企业养老金会计确认、计量、列报研究
million) 超过了它的养老金资
产($23,432 million) ，表明养老金资金短缺4,989 million 。

之前Lockheed
Martin未确认的净损失和前期服务成本(totaling $7,108 million) 使它报告了
$2,119 million 的养老金资产($7,108 - $4,989)。

图标1中有关Glatfelter 和AMR勺数据预示在SFAS158准则下其他类似的情形。

Glatfelter 尽管报告了$155.3 million 的净资产，按照SFAS158的要求需要减少$90 million 的资产。

虽然AMF近期确认了高达$882 million 的养老金负债，但按照SFAS 158的要求，AMR S要将养老金负债提高到$3,225 million 。

如何向SFAS 158过渡
下面的例子采用图表1中2005年的实际数据来阐述以上三个公司在向新准则过渡时所做的记录的。

由于SFAS158大致上是在2006年11月15号的会计年度末生效的，因此这些公司在转变中所记录的实际数字会与例子有所不同。

为了
简化，在阐述过程中我们将忽略税收的影响。

图表1显示了这三个公司分别在资产负债表上报告了额外的最小负债额和相应的无形资产。

SFAS15把这些项目都给删除了。

除此之外，养老金资产、养老金负债和累计综合收益需要调整使最终的平衡与
SFAS158要求的数字相等。

这
种转变所做主要的分录，我们用2005年的数据在图表2中展示。

图表3展示了图表2的分录过继到三个公司的资产负债表的结果，我们可以
看到重要的几点。

第一，每个公司的养老金状况不是报告为一项资产就是一项负债。

第二，计入综合收益后的收入与前期未确认的金额相等。

在这个例子中以及
其他类似的拥有设定收益制养老金计划的公司按照SFAS158进行调整后，所有者
权益金额会有所下降，甚至增加了少数股东权益。

向SFAS过渡可能增加杠杆公
司的成本，因为增加限制性条约的可能性下降了。

最后公司的资产负债表和基金
状况在实施SFAS158后会更容易理解。

作者：肯尼斯w. 肖
国籍：哥伦比亚
出处：注册会计师
第7页。