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

第7页

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

第2页

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