《國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則16》對(duì)某項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)的公允價(jià)值和市場(chǎng)價(jià)值的表述非常相似，但事實(shí)并不是這么簡(jiǎn)單。公允價(jià)值這個(gè)概念貫穿整個(gè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則。表面上看，它和市場(chǎng)價(jià)值這個(gè)概念十分相似，都指在交易中的可取得的價(jià)格，但市場(chǎng)價(jià)值實(shí)際上是公允價(jià)值在固定資產(chǎn)上的一個(gè)具體應(yīng)用。市場(chǎng)價(jià)值，在它相對(duì)簡(jiǎn)單的定義背后，有著詳盡的概念體系作為支持。國(guó)際評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則、美國(guó)評(píng)估執(zhí)業(yè)統(tǒng)一準(zhǔn)則和英國(guó)評(píng)估師手冊(cè)等評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則對(duì)市場(chǎng)價(jià)值在各種情形下的具體含義作了清晰的歸納，而公允價(jià)值作為一個(gè)類屬詞在應(yīng)用中缺乏像市場(chǎng)價(jià)值概念體系的指導(dǎo)。

對(duì)于這一點(diǎn)，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)自己也承認(rèn)，準(zhǔn)則中對(duì)公允價(jià)值概念的使用并不完全一致。也就是說，在不同情形下相同的表述可能產(chǎn)生不同的含義。該委員會(huì)已在2003年宣布，要對(duì)所有會(huì)計(jì)賬戶的計(jì)量原則進(jìn)行研究，目前這項(xiàng)課題由加拿大會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)牽頭負(fù)責(zé)。

與此同時(shí)，美國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定機(jī)構(gòu)——美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)也在密切關(guān)注這個(gè)被越來越多地用于會(huì)計(jì)計(jì)量的概念——公允價(jià)值。他們已專設(shè)“公允價(jià)值課題組”展開研究。美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)在早先發(fā)布的有關(guān)文章中也談到，某項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)的公允價(jià)值可能因?yàn)槭褂昧瞬煌脑u(píng)估假設(shè)而有所不同，即，是采用了持續(xù)經(jīng)營(yíng)或“正在使用”的假設(shè)，還是以“作為交易物”為假設(shè)。

為使?fàn)幷撓蚯巴七M(jìn)，國(guó)際評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)率先在2004年初發(fā)表文章，闡明了自己的立場(chǎng)。他們認(rèn)為解決問題的出路在于使用“持續(xù)使用價(jià)值”。這個(gè)概念是市場(chǎng)價(jià)值在資產(chǎn)消耗方面的一個(gè)具體應(yīng)用，其中的資產(chǎn)是企業(yè)持續(xù)經(jīng)營(yíng)的組成部分，并且在企業(yè)整體出賣時(shí)的作為組成部分之一參與交易。這種觀點(diǎn)得到了一些建設(shè)性反饋，但顯然，沿此思路立即深入下去為時(shí)尚早。國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)的課題組認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注“記賬單位”的確定，而美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)似乎也傾向于這種觀點(diǎn)，這在他們2004年6月發(fā)布的征求意見稿中有所體現(xiàn)。該觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)一步指出，在對(duì)任何資產(chǎn)估值前，應(yīng)先確定資產(chǎn)計(jì)量的界限，明確被估資產(chǎn)在何種程度上與其他資產(chǎn)聚合或分離。

爭(zhēng)論仍在繼續(xù)，英國(guó)皇家特許測(cè)量師協(xié)會(huì)以及其他國(guó)家的評(píng)估師組織積極尋求與國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)、美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)進(jìn)行合作。他們表示能夠理解由于會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中對(duì)有關(guān)概念的含糊表述而造成了一些實(shí)際操作困難，但也強(qiáng)調(diào)存在評(píng)估理論和實(shí)務(wù)這樣一項(xiàng)現(xiàn)成的重要資源，利用它會(huì)找到可行的解決辦法，從而還會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則應(yīng)有的一致性和明確性。

Fair Value and Measurement

Chris Thorne

Although in 1 IAS16 there is clearly a similarity between the fair value of its asset and the Market Value of an asset， this is not always the case. Fair value is a concept that is used throughout the Accounting Standards. Although both are superficially similar， as they refer to the price obtainable in an exchange， Market Value is a specific application of this concept to fixed assets. The relatively brief definition of Market Value is supported by a detailed conceptual framework and its application in specific circumstance is codified in established professional valuation standards such as 2 IVS， 3 USPAP and the 4 Red Book. Fair value is a generic term that lacks a similar guidance framework for its application.

⁵IASB acknowledges that fair value is not applied consistently throughout its own standards and could mean different things in different contexts. It announced a project in 2003 to look at the whole principle of measurement in accounts， which is being led by the Accounting Standards Board of Canada.

Concurrently， the Unite States standards setter， 6 FASB， is also looking closely at greater use of fair value measurement in accounts and has its own “Fair Value Project”. One of the early FASB papers recognized that the fair value of an asset could differ depending upon whether one adopted a going concern or “in use”valuation premise or an “in exchange”valuation premise.

In order to try and move this debate forward， 7 IVSC published its own position paper early this year that suggested that the way forward would be to look at the concept of “continuing use value” a specific adaptation of Market Value on the consumption that the asset was exchanged as part of a sale of the enterprise of which it formed part as a going concern. Although some constructive responses were received， it was clear that it was premature to go down this route. The IASB project team has suggested that the way forward is to perhaps focus on the “unit of account” Indeed， this also seems to be a concept also being followed by FASB in its latest draft issued in June 2004. This recognizes that before assessing the value of any asset， there is a need to define the boundary of what is being measured and the degree to which it is to be aggregated or disaggregated from other assets.

The debate is continuing and RICS and other valuation bodies around the world are actively engaging with IASB and FASB to try and ensure that not only do they appreciate some of the practical difficulties created by the current uncertainty in the standards， but also that there is a significant resource of valuation expertise that can assist in finding workable solutions that can then be delivered with a consistency and certainty that may be missing at present.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：

克雷思·斯隆先生是歐洲最大評(píng)估公司ATIS評(píng)估公司英國(guó)部總裁，也是英國(guó)皇家特許測(cè)量師協(xié)會(huì)評(píng)估事務(wù)專家，長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)任國(guó)際評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)委員。

1. International Accounting Standards：國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則

2 .International Valuation Standards：國(guó)際評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則

3. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice：專業(yè)評(píng)估執(zhí)業(yè)統(tǒng)一準(zhǔn)則

4. Red Book：英國(guó)評(píng)估師手冊(cè)，因其封面呈紅色，簡(jiǎn)稱紅皮書

5. International Accounting Standards Board：國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)

6. Financial Accounting Standards Board：美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)

7. International Valuation Standards Committee：國(guó)際評(píng)估準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)