1、 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
2、such as railways, insurance companies and banks (Hannah, 1986: 1012； 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
3、 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
4、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 exp
5、ense-as-you-pay accounting for pensions was rationalized 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 part of an employer towards old retai
6、ners 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 t
7、hat 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 thi
8、s 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 第 2 页 were paid entirely at the employers discretion and could be disc
9、ontinued 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 theori
10、sts 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 t
11、he 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 measur
12、e 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 co
13、ntributions 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 appro
14、ach 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
15、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 o
16、f 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
