会计养老金准则---外文翻译(原文 译文)

会计养老金准则-----外文翻译(原文+译文)

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,

insurance companies and banks Hannah, 1986: 10?12; Chandar 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 ‘pay-as-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 ‘expense-as-you-pay’ accounting for pensions was

rationalized through the ‘gratuity theory’ of retirement benefits

McGill et al., 2004: theory proposed that retirement benefits were

awarded to retirees at the discretion of the employer, ‘as a kindly act

on the part of an employer towards old retainers who have served him

faithfully 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

were paid entirely at the employer’s discretion and could be discontinued

at any time Stone, 1984: 24.

However, the gratuity theory rapidly came under challenge from

the view that pensions constitute ‘deferred pay’, and that employees

in effect sacrifice current income in exchange for the expectation of

income in the future. On this basis, early accounting theorists such as

Henry Rand Hatfield suggested that employers should include in operating

expenses ‘the amount necessary to provide for future pensions’ Hatfield,

1916: 194. A number of commentators 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: s

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 beginnings of accounting regulation

Early authoritative accounting pronouncements endorsed this

essentially cash-based approach to pension cost determination. The

Committee on Accounting Procedure of the American Institute of Certified

Public Accountants AICPA issued Accounting Research Bulletin No. 47

Accounting

for Costs of Pension Plans in 1956, and expressed the view that ‘costs

based on current and future

services should be systematically accrued during the expected period

of active service of the covered employees’ CAP, 1956. On closer analysis,

‘systematic 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 entirely cost-based ?

there are references to ‘balance-sheet pension accruals’ and

‘balance-sheet pension prepayments or deferred charges’ but no

explanation of these terms or how they are to be determined. Much of the

Opinion addresses not the issue of determining ‘normal 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 ‘past service 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’. The 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 of the 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

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Hannah, 1986: 10?12;

Chandar and Miranti,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，Henry 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 Accounting Rules for Defined Benefit Pension Plans

MARCH 2008 - Issued in September 2006, Statement of Financial

Accounting Standards SFAS 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit

Pension and Other Postretirement Plans?An Amendment of FASB Statements

No. 87, 88, 106, and 132R, significantly changes the balance-sheet

reporting for defined benefit pension plans. Before SFAS 158, the effects

of certain events, such as plan amendments or actuarial gains and losses,

were granted delayed balance-sheet recognition. As a result, a plan’s

funded status plan assets minus obligations was rarely reported on the

balance sheet. SFAS 158 requires companies to report their plans’ funded

status as either an asset or a liability on their balance sheets, which

will cause reported pension liabilities to rise significantly. Although

SFAS 158 also applies to postretirement benefit plans other than pensions

and to not-for-profit entities, the focus below is on for-profit

businesses with defined benefit pension plans.

Balance-Sheet Reporting Under SFAS 158

Under SFAS 87, prepaid or accrued pension cost, which is the net

of a firm’s pension assets, liabilities, and unrecognized amounts, is

reported on the balance sheet. SFAS 158 arguably improves financial

reporting by more clearly communicating the funded status of defined

benefit pension plans. Previously, this information was reported only in

the detailed pension footnotes.

Under SFAS 158, companies with defined benefit pension plans must

recognize the difference between the plan’s projected benefit obligation

and its fair value of plan assets as either an asset or a liability. The

projected benefit obligation is the actuarial present value of the

benefits attributed by the pension plan benefit formula for services

already provided. As a result, the complex and conceptually unsound

“minimum pension liability” rules, which are used when the accumulated

benefit obligation is less than the fair value of pension plan assets,

has been eliminated. The accumulated benefit obligation is similar to the

projected benefit obligation but does not include expected future salary

increases in the calculation of the present value of actuarial benefits.

In addition, the unrecognized prior service costs and actuarial gains and

losses that were previously relegated to the footnotes are now recognized

on the balance sheet, with an offsetting amount in accumulated other

comprehensive income under 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’s pension 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’s

unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs totaling

$7,108 million enabled it to report a pension asset of $2,119 million

$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 important

points. First, each company reports its funded status as either a pension

asset or liability. Second, the balance in accumulated other

comprehensive income equals the amount of previously unrecognized items.

In this example, and likely for many companies with defined benefit plans,

the amount of this contra-shareholders’ equity will increase under SFAS

158, even potentially generating negative shareholders’ equity. The

transition to SFAS 158 might impose costs on leveraged firms due to the

increased likelihood of tightening restrictive debt covenants. Finally,

the balance-sheet presentation, and each company’s funded status, should

be easier to understand after SFAS 158 is implemented.

Subsequent Application of SFAS 158

SFAS 158 does not impact the amount of periodic pension cost

reported on the income statement, but it does impact the reporting of

comprehensive income. For example, assume that after implementing SFAS

158 Lockheed Martin were to report the financial results in Exhibit 4.

Again, these amounts are for illustrative purposes only.

Exhibit 5 shows the required journal entries. The first entry

records the service cost, interest cost, and expected return on plan

assets components of periodic pension cost. The second entry reclassifies

the amortization items from accumulated other comprehensive income to

periodic pension cost, and the third entry adjusts the pension liability

and accumulated other comprehensive income for the difference in actual

pension returns above expectations during the year.

Author: Kenneth W. Shaw

Nationality: Columbia

Originate from: The CPA Journal

译文二

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SFAS 158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