會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)知識(shí)體系框架外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)

會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)知識(shí)體系框架外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)知識(shí)體系框架外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)(文檔含英文原文和中文翻譯)提高財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)判斷水平：一個(gè)原則性方法2007年7月，美國證券交易委員會(huì)(SEC)授權(quán)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告咨詢委員會(huì)(CIFR)審查美國財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告制度，提出修改建議，以提高報(bào)告的財(cái)務(wù)信息的有用性，同時(shí)降低其復(fù)雜性。CIFR在定期提交的報(bào)告中，已經(jīng)提出了若干項(xiàng)建議措施，包括：改進(jìn)美國以原則性為基礎(chǔ)(或以目標(biāo)為基礎(chǔ))的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則，與現(xiàn)行的準(zhǔn)則相比，主張更少的進(jìn)行明確指導(dǎo)，更少的例外情況說明，而更多的依賴會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的職業(yè)判斷。為適用這個(gè)建議——最初提出的和之后明顯修改過的，CIFR致力于建立起一個(gè)嚴(yán)密的框架體系，以達(dá)到增強(qiáng)施行以原則性為基礎(chǔ)的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則所必需職業(yè)判斷能力的目的。雖然CIFR的報(bào)告提出了許多建議，其重點(diǎn)有兩個(gè)——基于原則的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的采用和會(huì)計(jì)判斷運(yùn)用的指導(dǎo)——這有可能大大改變財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告和審計(jì)業(yè)務(wù)。下文是這樣一個(gè)探討：財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)中職業(yè)判斷框架指南的重要性和經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律、道德因素對會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)判斷的潛在影響。筆者通過提出一個(gè)全面的模型，借以促進(jìn)理論體系的完善，以期提高會(huì)計(jì)和審計(jì)的職業(yè)判斷水平。建立會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)判斷框架體系的必要性在會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)中運(yùn)用原則性判斷并不是一件新鮮事，并且是必要的，而不論會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是以規(guī)則，還是以原則為基礎(chǔ)的。基于規(guī)則的準(zhǔn)則寫明會(huì)計(jì)師去做些什么，基于原則的準(zhǔn)則更關(guān)注于決定如何去做。兩者都需要在一定程度上進(jìn)行判斷，但后者較前者要求具有更高的判斷水平。基于規(guī)則的準(zhǔn)則最典型的例子是美國公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則(U.S.GAAP)的SFAS13租賃事項(xiàng)的適當(dāng)披露，根據(jù)這一準(zhǔn)則，如果一項(xiàng)租賃符合四項(xiàng)測試中的一項(xiàng)，則被視為融資租賃，需要在承租人資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表的資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債中分別反映。否則，該租賃被視為經(jīng)營租賃，不在承租人資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表中反映。至少要做兩項(xiàng)測試——租賃期是否占資產(chǎn)可使用年限的75%和未來租賃付款額的凈現(xiàn)值是否占資產(chǎn)公允價(jià)值的90%——都需要會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的職業(yè)判斷。相反，與之對應(yīng)的國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則(IAS17，租賃)，更多的是原則性準(zhǔn)則，較少有具體指導(dǎo)。同SFAS13一樣，IAS17將融資租賃定義為在實(shí)質(zhì)上轉(zhuǎn)移一項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)所有權(quán)有關(guān)的幾乎全部風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和報(bào)酬的一種租賃。但與SFAS13不同的是，IAS17明確指出：租賃屬于融資租賃還是經(jīng)營租賃取決于交易的性質(zhì)，而不是合同的形式。在這方面，IAS17包含五個(gè)廣泛運(yùn)用的判斷指南，不包括像美國準(zhǔn)則中的明確指導(dǎo)。國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則也有少數(shù)例外和一些解釋性指南，例如其中農(nóng)業(yè)方面的準(zhǔn)則，這在SFAS13中是沒有的。因此，與SFAS13相比，IAS17給予和要求會(huì)計(jì)師在實(shí)務(wù)更高水平的職業(yè)判斷——確認(rèn)承租人是否承擔(dān)與資產(chǎn)所有權(quán)有關(guān)的幾乎全部風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和報(bào)酬。CIFR指出，制定一個(gè)公認(rèn)的會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)判斷框架是必要的，因?yàn)樵摽蚣苡幸韵滤膫€(gè)好處：會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師遵循嚴(yán)格的程序所形成的職業(yè)判斷，可以增強(qiáng)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表使用者對報(bào)表的信心。會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的職業(yè)判斷符合監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)(例如SEC和CPAOB)的要求，能減少對其的懷疑。有利于財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表使用者和執(zhí)行原則性準(zhǔn)則的審計(jì)師等不同利益主體，對報(bào)表形成更為基礎(chǔ)的判斷。有利于各利益主體對報(bào)表形成普遍一致的看法。雖然，最近CIFR短期地暫停了職業(yè)判斷框架的研究，但他們建議SEC和CPAOB正式聲明其判斷政策的執(zhí)行將為發(fā)展這樣一個(gè)框架提供參數(shù)支持。如果沒有該框架，基于原則的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則是很難始終如一地貫徹實(shí)施的，甚至是不可能的。此外，職業(yè)判斷框架是離不開道德成分的。如上文所述，CIFR認(rèn)為：會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)判斷應(yīng)基于一個(gè)重要的和理性的基礎(chǔ)，以“公正、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)、深思、慎重”的方式進(jìn)行。公正的判斷需道德原則的融入。國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(IASB)主席大衛(wèi)?特威迪曾指出：我們基于原則的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則，要求所有的公司和他們的審計(jì)師以公眾的利益為準(zhǔn)，運(yùn)用職業(yè)判斷。準(zhǔn)則要求會(huì)計(jì)師，對所出具的報(bào)表是否真實(shí)反映所有交易事項(xiàng)，提供有強(qiáng)有力的保障。準(zhǔn)則保證審計(jì)師能抵抗來自客戶的壓力。離開這些約束條件，會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則無法發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的作用(銀行委員會(huì)申明，英國議會(huì)，2002年9月2日)。會(huì)計(jì)判斷中刺激因素的影響會(huì)計(jì)師承諾提供真實(shí)的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告并不是影響會(huì)計(jì)判斷的唯一因素。學(xué)術(shù)研究中已有大量證據(jù)表明：刺激因素在很大程度上影響會(huì)計(jì)師對財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告的判斷。進(jìn)行原則性判斷要達(dá)到明智決策的目的，涉及到確認(rèn)和處理刺激因素的問題，刺激因素主要有三種：經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)、道德。經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激促使個(gè)體傾向于使自身利益最大化，一般形式是獲取經(jīng)濟(jì)收益。例如：利用股票期權(quán)補(bǔ)償?shù)姆绞叫纬梢还蓮?qiáng)大的經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激，使得高層主管報(bào)告過于樂觀的財(cái)務(wù)狀況。社會(huì)刺激促使個(gè)體厭惡被他人視為非法的行為。報(bào)告方的企業(yè)文化能形成正式和非正式兩種社會(huì)刺激形式。例如：避免法律的懲罰（如罰款，監(jiān)禁，賠償金），并避免不利的宣傳是重要的社會(huì)刺激措施，可以限制個(gè)體從事欺詐行為。道德刺激促使個(gè)體厭惡自己認(rèn)為是錯(cuò)誤的行為。道德刺激注重于職責(zé)、責(zé)任、義務(wù)。例如：安然和世通事件中謝里?沃特金和辛西婭?庫珀的揭發(fā)行為，分別的在一定程度上是他們職業(yè)道德中責(zé)任、義務(wù)等因素作用的結(jié)果。經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)刺激能夠影響會(huì)計(jì)師的道德刺激因素。例如，20世紀(jì)90年代，會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所在社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境方面發(fā)生了重大的變化，主要表現(xiàn)在：第一，法律變動(dòng)(1995年的私營公司訴訟改革法案)使得會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所在訴訟案件中處于劣勢—一個(gè)降低的社會(huì)阻礙因素。第二，非審計(jì)業(yè)務(wù)收入的大幅增長為會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所帶來了豐厚的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。因此，與道德刺激相適應(yīng)的，審計(jì)師出具對客戶不利的審計(jì)意見，這種情況在減少。合理的、運(yùn)用良好的會(huì)計(jì)判斷能產(chǎn)生長遠(yuǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。準(zhǔn)則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的提升是有益處的，但其自身不足以過渡到基于原則的會(huì)計(jì)制度，這需要依賴會(huì)計(jì)師提高判斷的能力。同樣，職業(yè)判斷的程序也需要改進(jìn)，這將會(huì)改變會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的態(tài)度、行為、專業(yè)知識(shí)。原則性判斷決策的程序會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師進(jìn)行職業(yè)判斷是一個(gè)過程，該過程受到經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律、道德、倫理等因素的影響。第一步，運(yùn)用決策模型陳述相關(guān)問題、可能的選擇、面臨的機(jī)會(huì)。整體上考慮所有利益相關(guān)者，以中立的立場來說明問題并將此延續(xù)到之后的分析中。每類問題都應(yīng)考慮主要的刺激因素，以經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律、道德為分析基礎(chǔ)。在經(jīng)濟(jì)分析中，以決策原則來確認(rèn)替代方案，并選擇行動(dòng)方案，方案可以是使個(gè)人利潤、個(gè)人收入或個(gè)人私利最大化。開放、自由、競爭的市場個(gè)人私利的行為是以社會(huì)整體利益為前提的。從個(gè)體經(jīng)濟(jì)決策中所能得到的社會(huì)成果是什么？在選擇使個(gè)體利益最大化的方案后，需衡量由個(gè)體決策方案引起的整個(gè)社會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)后果(收益或成本)。最后，個(gè)體需考慮在特定的情況下，遵循純粹的經(jīng)濟(jì)理論所做出的決策的有效性，現(xiàn)實(shí)情況在多大程度上符合經(jīng)濟(jì)理論的假設(shè)？是否所有的市場都是自由、開放、競爭的？是否所有成本費(fèi)用都包括在內(nèi)？法律分析是一種利用遵守法律這種正式的社會(huì)刺激形式來形成決策動(dòng)機(jī)的這樣一種分析。決策規(guī)則是所選擇的方案一定要符合法律的規(guī)定。該邏輯是民主體制下法律領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的集體道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。法律分析的最后一步是對當(dāng)前情況進(jìn)行法律上的確認(rèn)和應(yīng)用。除考慮現(xiàn)行適用的法律，還可考慮法律應(yīng)當(dāng)是什么。這方面的法律分析是一個(gè)應(yīng)用方面“無知之幕”的概念。如果法律不考慮利益相關(guān)者的立場而僅考慮社會(huì)利益，利益相關(guān)者是否會(huì)贊同？這防止利益相關(guān)者的立場和刺激因素偏離判斷。比較現(xiàn)行法律和規(guī)范法律，意味著評估現(xiàn)行法律的有效性和公平性，緩解法律沖突，減少歧義。道德分析主要依賴于判斷引導(dǎo)中道德刺激所產(chǎn)生的職責(zé)、責(zé)任、義務(wù)等因素。道德是每個(gè)社會(huì)成員所擁有的責(zé)任和義務(wù)。道德分析中的決策原則是選擇符合倫理道德的方案。該分析中的挑戰(zhàn)來自于確認(rèn)不同的道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和不同利益相關(guān)者具備的道德水平。經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激、分析以及由此做出的決定應(yīng)指導(dǎo)和支持最終的決策方案，應(yīng)當(dāng)怎樣做？為什么這樣做？對最終決策方案進(jìn)行實(shí)施后果的評估，同樣影響方案選擇的公平性。是什么影響了各利益相關(guān)者所提議的方案？方案如何實(shí)現(xiàn)利益(或損失)的公平分配和權(quán)利的行使(或放棄)？利益(或危害)。確認(rèn)主要的個(gè)體或群體在多大程度上獲得利益(或遭到損失)以及這種利益(或損失)的性質(zhì)。權(quán)利的行使(或放棄)。確認(rèn)擬定的方案將行使(或放棄)哪些權(quán)利，在多大范圍內(nèi)由誰行使(或放棄)權(quán)利。例如，法律規(guī)定的權(quán)利：合同權(quán)利或者權(quán)利性質(zhì)：不可剝奪的人權(quán)。以上分析的影響因素，可能導(dǎo)致在消除不平等現(xiàn)象的過程中修改任何提出的決策方案，最終的決策方案應(yīng)以下列幾點(diǎn)為制定的基礎(chǔ)：經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激和執(zhí)行結(jié)果影響的公平分配。刺激因素影響判斷在美國CIFR已經(jīng)提出了許多建議措施，試圖通過降低財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告編制過程的復(fù)雜性來提高報(bào)告的質(zhì)量、有效性和透明度。關(guān)鍵的一個(gè)建議是：美國財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告制度過渡到以原則為基礎(chǔ)(目標(biāo)為基礎(chǔ))的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則，與現(xiàn)行的以規(guī)則為基礎(chǔ)的U.S.GAAP相比，這更加需要依賴會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的職業(yè)判斷。職業(yè)判斷的增多，要求有更多的指南來指導(dǎo)會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師如何去做，怎樣才能符合監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)對他們的要求。筆者認(rèn)為，經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激、法律刺激、道德刺激會(huì)在很大程度上影響會(huì)計(jì)師和審計(jì)師的職業(yè)判斷。全面的原則性判斷框架中包含這些刺激因素，例如上述的詳細(xì)情況，將對他們起到相當(dāng)大的影響作用。今后，在會(huì)計(jì)披露中職業(yè)判斷將更為重要，會(huì)計(jì)師的后續(xù)和正式教育應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注于提高其原則性判斷的能力，并且這種判斷涉及到經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律、道德方面的問題。ImprovedJudgmentinFinancialAccounting:APrincipledApproachImprovedJudgmentinFinancialAccounting:APrincipledApproachByC.WilliamThomasInJuly2007,theSECcharteredtheAdvisoryCommitteeonImprovementstoFinancialReporting(CIFR)toexaminetheU.S.financialreportingsystemandtorecommendchangesthatwouldimprovetheusefulnessofreportedfinancialinformationwhilereducingitscomplexity.Inperiodicprogressreports,theCIFRhasmadeseveralproposals,includingthepromotionof"principles-based"(orobjectives-based)accountingstandardsintheUnitedStatesthatincorporatefewer"bright-line"tests,fewerexceptions,andgreaterrelianceonpreparerandauditorjudgmentthanisrequiredbypresentstandard.ToaccommodatethisrecommendationtheCIFRinitiallyproposed—andlatersignificantlymodified—arecommendationthatwouldleadtothecreationofadisciplinedframeworkfortheincreaseduseofprofessionaljudgmentrequiredtoimplementthesestandards.WhiletheCIFRreportcontainsmanysuggestions,thefocushereisontwo—adoptionofprinciples-basedaccountingandguidanceforapplicationofaccountingjudgments—thatcoulddramaticallyreshapefinancialreportingandauditing.Thefollowingisadiscussionoftheimportanceofguidelinesformakingjudgmentsinfinancialaccountingandthepotentialimpactofeconomic,legal,andethicalincentivesonaccountingjudgments.Theauthorsrecommendacomprehensivemodelthatconsiderstheseincentivesindevelopingatheoreticalframeworkformakingimprovementsinaccountingandauditingjudgments.TheNecessityofaFrameworkforJudgmentinAccountingTheapplicationofprincipledjudgmentisnotnewtoaccounting,andisnecessaryregardlessofwhetheraccountingstandardsarerules-basedorprinciples-based.Rules-basedstandardsprescribeforthepreparerwhattodo,whileprinciples-basedstandardsfocusmoreonhowtodecidewhattodo.Whilethelattermayrequirejudgmentathigherlevelsthantheformer,bothrequirejudgmentatsomelevel.TheNecessityofaFrameworkforJudgmentinAccountingOneofthemostrules-basedexamplesinU.S.GAAPisSFAS13governingproperdisclosureforleases.Underthisstandard,aleaseisregardedasacapitallease,requiringrecognitionofboththeassetandliabilityonthelessee'sbalancesheet,ifoneoffourbright-linetestsismet.Otherwise,theleaseisclassifiedasanoperatingleaseandiswithheldfromthebalancesheet.Applicationofatleasttwoofthesetests—therelationshipof75%oftheleasetermtotheasset'susefullifeandtherelationshipofthenetpresentvalueofthefutureleasepaymentsto90%oftheasset'sfairmarketvalue—requiretheapplicationofjudgmentbybothpreparersandauditors.Incontrast,thecorrespondinginternationalstandard(IAS17,Leases)ismuchmoreprinciples-based,withlessdetailedguidance.LikeSFAS13.itdefinesafinanceleaseasonethattransferssubstantiallyalltherisksandrewardsofownershipofthepropertytothelessee.UnlikeSFAS13.however.AS17makesitclearthatwhetheraleaseisclassifiedascapitaloroperatinginnaturedependsonthesubstanceofthetransactionratherthantheformofthecontract.Itcontainsfivebroadguidelinesforapplicationofjudgmentinthisregard,butnoneofthebrightlinesofitsU.S.counterpart.Thereareafewexceptionsandsomeinterpretiveguidance,includingonefortheagriculturalindustry,butnothingapproachingthatofSFAS13.Thus.IAS17bothgrantsandrequirestheexerciseofprofessionaljudgmentatafarhigherlevel—thatis,determiningwhetherthelesseeassumestherisksandrewardsofownership—thanSFAS13.TheCIFRmakesthepointthatanagreed-uponframeworkformakinginformedjudgmentsisnecessarybecauseitprovidesthefollowingfourbenefits:addedconfidenceforusersoffinancialstatementsthatpreparersandauditorsarefollowingarigorousprocessinformingjudgments;respectfromregulators(i.e.,theSECandPCAOB)forthejudgmentsofpreparersandauditors,resultinginfewercasesofsecond-guessing;generalagreementonthepartofallpartiesastothecriteriauponwhichjudgmentswillbebasedandgreatercomfortonthepartoffinancialstatementusersandauditorsinimplementingprinciples-basedstandards.ImprovedJudgmentinFinancialAccounting:APrincipledApproachWhilethelatestCIFRrecommendationsstopshortofendorsingthedevelopmentofsuchaframework,theirrecommendationthattheSECandPCAOBformallystatetheirpoliciesforevaluationofjudgmentwillprovidetheparametersforthedevelopmentofsuchaframework.Withoutthisframework,consistentapplicationofprinciples-basedstandardswillbedifficult,ifnotimpossible.Furthermore,noframeworkforjudgmentiscompletewithoutanethicalcomponent.Asstatedabove,theCIFRhasexpresseditsbeliefthataccountingjudgmentsshouldbebasedonacriticalandreasonedevaluationmade"ingoodfaithandinarigorous,thoughtful,anddeliberativemanner."Good-faithjudgmentsrequiretheapplicationofethicalprinciples.IASBChairDavidTweediehasstated:Our[principles-based]approachrequiresbothcompaniesandtheirauditorstoexerciseprofessionaljudgmentinthepublicinterest.Ourapproachrequiresastrongcommitmentfrompreparerstofinancialstatementsthatprovideafaithfulrepresentationofalltransactionsandastrongcommitmentfromauditorstoresistclientpressures.Itwillnotworkwithoutthesecommitments(StatementBeforetheCommitteeonBanking,U.K.Parliament,September2,2002).TheinfluenceofIncentivesonAccountingJudgmentsAnaccountant'scommitmenttoprovidingafaithfulrepresentationisnottheonlyfactorinfluencingfinancialreportingjudgments.Academicresearchhasprovidedsubstantialevidencethatincentivessignificantlyinfluencefinancialreportingjudgments.Makingprincipledjudgmentsthatresultinsounddecisionsinvolvesidentifyingandmanagingtheseincentives.Incentivestakethreeprimaryforms:economic,social,andmoral.Economicincentivesinvolveindividuals'tendencytomaximizetheirownself-interests,usuallyintheformoffinancialgains.Forexample,theuseofstockoptioncompensationprovidesastrongeconomicincentiveforexecutivestoreportoverlyoptimisticfinancialperformance.Socialincentivesinvolveindividuals'aversiontobeingseenbyothersasengaginginwrongfulbehavior.Socialincentivescanbeeitherformalorinformal,areportingentity'scorporateculturecancreateboth.Forexample,avoidanceoflegalpenalties(e.g.fines,PrincipledDecision-MakingProcessimprisonment,monetarydamages)andavoidanceofadversepublicityareimportantsocialincentivesthatmightlimitpersonsfromengaginginfraudulentbehavior.Moralincentivesinvolveindividuals'aversiontodoingsomethingtheyconsidertobewrong.Moralincentivesfocusonethicalduties,responsibilities,andobligations.Forexample,SherronWatkins'andCynthiaCooper'swhistleblowingdecisionsinEnronandWorldCom,respectively,were,inpart,influencedbymoralconsiderationsoftheduties,responsibilitiesandobligationsinherentintheirprofessionalpositions.Economicandsocialincentivescaninfluenceaprofessional'smoralorethicalincentives.Forexample,considertheimportantchangesthatweremadetobothsocial(legal)andeconomicincentivesforaccountingfirmsinthe1990s.First,changesinthelaw(thePrivateCompaniesLitigationReformActof1995)madeaccountingfirmslessvulnerabletoliabilityfromprivateplaintiffts—areducedsocialdisincentive.Second,dramaticgrowthinnonauditservicerevenueprovidedasignificantaddedeconomicincentiveforaccountingfirms.Thus,auditors'moralincentivestotakepositionsadversetothoseofclientswithrespecttoaggressivetreatmentsdiminishedcorrespondingly.Well-reasonedandwell-executedaccountingjudgmentsshouldmakelong-runeconomicsense.Improvementsinstandards,ashelpfulastheymightbe,arenotinthemselvessufficientinthetransitiontoaprinciples-basedaccountingsystemthatplacesgreaterrelianceonjudgment.Improvementsmustalsobemadeinthejudgmentprocessesofprofessionals.This,inturn,willrequireshiftsinattitude,behavior,andexpertiseofbothpreparersandauditors.PrincipledDecision-MakingProcessAjudgmentdecisionprocessthattakesintoaccounttheeconomic,legal,andmoralorethicalincentivesoffinancialstatementpreparersandauditors.Thefirststepinapplyingthedecisionmodelistostatetheproblemandpossiblealternativesandopportunities.Statingtheproblemasaneutralquestionrecognizesthepositionsofallstakeholdersandmakesitpossibletoincludetheminsubsequentanalyses.Theproblemshouldbeanalyzedoneconomic,legal,andethicalbases,consideringtheprimaryincentivesthatexistineachcategory.Intheeconomicanalysis,thedecisionImprovedJudgmentinFinancialAccounting:APrincipledApproachruleistoidentityalternativesandchooseanactionthatmaximizesindividualprofit,return,orindividualself-interest.Open,free,andcompetitivemarketsassurethatindividualsactingintheirownself-interestmaximizethenetbenefittosocietyasawhole.Whatarethesocietaloutcomesfromtheindividual'seconomicdecision?Afterchoosingtheindividual'sprofit-maximizingalternative,considertheeconomicoutcomes(benefitsandcosts)tosocietyasaresultoftheindividual'sdecision.Finally,onemustconsiderthevalidityofusingpurelyeconomictheorytomakethedecisioninthegivenscenario.Howwelldoesthecurrentsituationmeettheassumptionsofeconomictheory?Areallmarketsfree,open,andcompetitive?Arealllawsobeyed?Areallcostsincluded?Thelegalanalysisusestheformalsocialincentiveoflegalcompliancetomotivateadecision.Thedecisionruleistochoosethealternativethatmostcloselycomplieswiththelaw.Thelogicisthatdemocraticallyenactedlawsexpresssociety'scollectivemoralstandards.Thefirststepinalegalanalysisistoidentifyandapplyrelevantlawstothecurrentfacts.Inadditiontoconsideringapplicablecurrentlaw,alegalanalysiscanconsiderwhatthelawshouldbe.Thisaspectofalegalanalysisisanapplicationofthe"veilofignorance"concept.Whatlawwouldstakeholdersagreeshouldbethenormiftheydidnottaketheirpositionwithinsocietyintoaccount?Thispreventspositionandincentivesfrombiasingjudgments.Comparingcurrentlawtonormativelawisameansofassessingthevalidityandequityofcurrentlaw,resolvingconflictinglaws,andreducingambiguity.Anethicalanalysisreliesprimarilyontheduties,responsibilities,andobligationsresultingfrommoralincentivestoguidejudgment.Ethicaldutiesareresponsibilitiesorobligationsowedbymembersofsocietytoeachother.Thedecision-makingruleinanethicalanalysisistochoosetheactionthatfulfillsethicalduties.Thechallengeinanethicalanalysisistoidentifyspecificethicaldutiesandstakeholderstowhomthesedutiesareowed.Theeconomic,legal,andethicalincentives,analyses,andresultingdecisionsshouldguideandsupporttheeventualsolution.Whatshouldbedoneandwhy?Assessingtheimpactsandoutcomesofthefinaldecisionalsoevaluatesthefairnessofthechosen.IncentivesInfluenceJudgmentWhatistheeffectoftheproposedsolutiononvariousstake-holders?Howdoesthedecisionachieveanequitableallocationofbenefits(harms)andrightsexercised(denied)?Benefits(harms).Identifythemajorindividualsorgroupsofpeoplewhosewell-beingwillbeimproved(damaged)andthenatureofthatimprovement(damage).Rightsexercised(denied).Identifytherightsthatwillbeexercised