租赁会计准则若干理论问题研究
|
摘要
自2002年9月诺沃克协议签订以来,IASB和FASB先后展开了一系列旨在趋同的联合项目的研究,对租赁准则的修订位列其中。2010年8月,两委员会发布了租赁会计准则征求意见稿。2013年6月,在对各界的反馈意见进行多次深入研究和讨论后,再次发布了修订后的租赁准则征求意见稿。选择租赁准则作为研究对象,追溯其历史,剖析其现状,探寻其亟需的修正,不仅可以完整勾勒出租赁准则变化的前因后果,而且其意义已超出租赁准则研究本身。
研究租赁准则,需要两个前提：一是对租赁本质的正确把握,二是对租赁行业的深刻了解。本文以物权理论为基础,结合租赁合同的特征和内容以及《物权法》颁布以来物权理念的发展,提出租赁权即用益物权的论断,突破了租赁权为债权的传统理论。现行租赁被划分为融资租赁和经营租赁,而法律上的融资租赁不属于租赁的范畴,与租赁有本质的差别,会计采用“融资租赁”的表述,是对法律“融资租赁”概念的背离。通过研究租赁的法律实质,进而研究其经济实质,本文重新梳理了法律形式和经济实质的关系,同时进一步探索法律实质和经济实质的关系,对法律与会计的互动作出摸索性的研究。在租赁业的发展过程中,法律、税收、监管和会计,逐渐成为支撑租赁产业的四大支柱。会计成为行业发展的支柱是租赁业的一个非常重要也非常奇特的特征。会计上对经营租赁和融资租赁的划分,不只是影响着租赁业的规模,甚至决定着租赁业的发展方向。很难再有其他行业会计对其发展会如此显著。从这个角度说,研究会计准则和其经济后果的互动,租赁准则是一个典型的范例。租赁权物权本质的明确,会计成为行业支柱的特性,是解读租赁准则的必要铺垫。
比较各国现行租赁准则,并没有本质区别,只是美国租赁准则带有更明显的规则导向痕迹。美国租赁准则历时已久,国际租赁准则包括中国租赁准则在内,与其实际是一脉相承。美国最初在财务报表中披露租赁业务是因为担心长期租赁带来的负债被低估,而对租赁带来的资产的低估似乎并不十分关注。随着租赁业的发展,实质为资产购买的租赁大幅度增多。早在1964年美国会计原则委员会(APB)发布的第五号意见书就提出对租赁资产资本化的“购买模式”,并制定了相应判定为“购买实质”的标准。在后来的对租赁准则的修订中,虽讨论过诸如法律债务模型、产权模型、负债模型和待执行合同模型,但在1976年发布的SFAS13中,最终依然选择以“与所有权相关的风险和报酬转移”为内涵的购买法对部分租赁业务实行资本化。其后的准则修订只体现在技术标准细枝末节的变动。然而,对现行租赁准则的诟病不绝于耳。1997年,美国曾把租赁准则评为五个最差准则之一。租赁准则被看作规则导向的典型,在各个利益集团的角逐下已支离破碎。同年,美国提出高质量会计准则的概念,虽然至今还没有形成统一权威的标准,但符合财务概念框架、以原则为制定导向、公允反映财务信息被认为是其核心内容。以此来衡量现行租赁准则,其将被重新修订已成必然。现行租赁准则对于经营租赁和融资租赁的明线划分,不仅为会计主体提供会计政策选择的余地,更为糟糕的是它还可能引导会计主体进行利润操纵,甚至会沦为掩藏会计信息的庇护所。划分经营租赁和融资租赁的理论基础是所有权观念而非使用权观念,以及由此衍生的“与所有权相关的风险和报酬”标准,是现行租赁准则最大的困境。
2010年8月,IASB和FASB联合发布的租赁会计准则征求意见稿提出“使用权资产”概念。租赁会计处理采用使用权思想,美国有学者在1962年便有提及。1996年和1999年的两份G4+1特别报告,更进一步阐述了租赁会计处理的使用权方法,但因租赁会计处理的改变对行业影响过于巨大,被一直搁置。美国安然事件之后,会计准则的制定由规则导向转变到原则导向,经济一体化以及对全球金融危机的应对,要求制定一套统一的、高质量的、国际通用的会计准则的呼声日益高涨。2006年,FASB和TASB签署备忘录并启动了包括财务报告概念框架等一系列联合项目的研究,这为租赁准则改革提供了绝佳契机。租赁征求意见稿取消经营租赁和融资租赁的分类,采用使用权思想,是对租赁本质认识的回归,是会计资产负债观和原则导向的内在要求,与财务概念框架的修订有逻辑上的统一,反映了会计目标的价值取向,符合会计资产要素的定义,满足会计信息质量特征的需要。由于租赁会计改革突出的经济后果,在征求意见过程中充满争议不可避免。
租赁国际准则的修订已是不可逆的趋势。2013年5月,国际会计准则理事会主席重申了国际会计准则修订的必要性,尤其着重提到租赁准则的变革,表达了其坚定的决心。“使用权资产”的基本理念,符合租赁的经济实质,也是提高会计信息质量的应有要求,在这一方面,中国应该无条件接受。会计国际化及会计国际趋同的背景下,中国承诺中国会计准则将与国际准则持续趋同,同时声明趋同的目的是等效,租赁准则的修订,是包括中国在内的各国共同的任务。鉴于中国在租赁业宏观和微观的实际国情,中国应对租赁准则的变革策略,可概括为：基本理念上完全接受、概念技术上积极讨论、趋同路线上审慎暂缓。
Ever since the signing of the Norwalk Agreement in September2002, IASB and FASB have successively launched a series of joint projects aimed to develop a high-quality and compatible accounting standards. The research of leases standard is among their first of such joint projects. The two boards have issued the exposure draft for leases accounting standard in August,2010, and after consideration and discussion of the feedback from the exposure draft, a revised version of ED has been launched in May,2013. Selecting the leases standard as the subject of my study, to trace back its history of development, to analyze its status quo and to explore its much-needed reform, not only can sketch out a complete picture of the reasons and consequences of the changes of the standard, but also its significance has exceeded itself. The amendment of the accounting standard embodies and interpretes the development of the philosophy, theory and concept of the accounting standanard evolution.
There are two premises in the study of the leases standard:first, correctly grasp the nature of leases; secondly, deep understanding of the leasing industry. This paper has based on real right theory, together with the features and contents of leases contracts and the development of real right theory since the enforcement of the Real Right Law in2007and pointed out that leasehold is usufructuary right, which is a breakthrough regarding the traditional theory that takes leasehold as obiligatory right. Currently, leases are divided into operating leases and financialleases, but financial leases are not within the scopeof traditional leases from the legal point of view and they have differences in nature. The use of "financial lease" in accounting literature is diverged from their legal conception. Through the study of the legal and economic nature of leases, this paper has also rationalized the relationship between legal form and economic substance and tried to explore the interaction between law and accounting standards. During the development of the leasing industry, the factors of law, tax, regulation and accounting standard have gradually formed the four pillars of the business. It's usual and peculiar for accounting to have become one of these four pillars. Since there is a classification of operation lease and financial lease in leases accounting and this classification not only affects the size of the industry, but also determines the direction of the leasing business. It's so rare that an accounting standard plays such a significant role in shaping the development of an industry. From this perspective, studying the leases standard would be a typical example to to study the interaction between the accounting standards and their consequences. The acknowledgment of the real right nature of leases and the characteristics of leases accounting becoming of of the pillars of the industry are necessary to pave the way to interprete the leases standard. Comparing the existing national and international lease standards, there is no essential difference, except that SFAS13, which governs the American leases accounting, has a clear rule-oriented approach. American leases standard has been the earliest of its kind, which later has shaped the issuance of international leases standards. The initial purpose of disloure of leases activities in American financial report was the worrier of the underestimated liabilities brought along by long-term leases, with no regard to the underestimated assets generated by leases. With the development of leasing industry, leases that are in substance a purchase account for the majority of the business, and the Accounting Principles Board revealed a purchase model to capitalize those leases and issued relevant criteria in determining the purchasingsubstance. In the following discussions, several models have been put
forward, such as legal debt model, property right model, liability model and executory contract model, FASB finally chose the purchase model featured with transfer of risks and rewards incident to ownership to be the principle to determine leases which are needed to be capitalized. Although, there have been many amendments to SFAS13afer its intial issuance in1976, most of them remain in minor details, nothingsubstantial. The current leases standard has been heavily criticized. In1997, it's even been chosen to be one of the five worst accounting standards in US GAAP and has already fallen apart among the fight between various interest groups. It is seen as a typical embodiment of rule-oriented standard. The same year, the notion of high-quality standards has been brought out. Though till today there haven't formedany unified authoritative criteria, compliance with the conceptual framework, principle-orientation and faithful representation of the financial information would be its core contents. Based on this understanding, the reform of leases standard would be forthcoming and inevitable. The current bright-line test of operating leases and financial leasesprovides options for the entities to choose accounting policies favorable to them, and what's worse is to creat possibilities for them to manipulate profits, even provide shelter for them to cover up financial information. The current leases standard, which classifies leases into operating lease and financial lease, is theoretically based on the ownership point of view and the criteria of risks and rewards incident to this ownship, rather than the right-of-use point of view, where lies the greatest predicament of the reform of the current leases standard.
The exposure draft of the lease standard issued in August2010jointly by IASB and FASB put forward the "right-of-use asset" concept. As early as1962, this concept has been refered to by American scholar. And two special reports published by G4+1in1996and1999, have already systematically elaborated on the right-of-use approach for leases accounting. But considering the huge ramification it would arouse for the industry, it has been put on hold. After the Enron incident, the shift from rule-oriented accounting standards to the principle-oriented standards, globalization and the coping with the worldwidefinancialcrisis, the calling for a unified set of high-quality international standards is higer than ever. In order to achieve this goal, in2006, IASB and FASB have signed a memorandum of understanding and initiated a series of joint projects including the revision of the financial conceptual framework. This has provided the best opputunity for the leases standard to take a change. The exposure draft of the leases standard adopting the right-of-use concept suggests removing the classification of operating leases and financial leases. This is the return to the nature of leases and is the internal need for asset-liability view and principle-oriented accounting standards. It is also consistent with the logic of the financial conceptual framework, reflecting the value orientation of the accounting objective. It is in accordance with the definition of asset and satisfies the quality requirement of the characerteritics of the accounting information. Because of the serious economic consequences the change would cast on the industry, it is unavoidable to encounter waves of controversies.
The reform of the leases accounting standard is inevitable. In May2013, the Chairman of International Accounting Standards Board Hans Hoogervorst reinterated the importance of this reform and expressed his determination in doing so. The basic concept of "right-of-use asset" is in accordance of the economic substance of leases and is an internal need of high-quality accounting information. On this regard, China should embrace it completely. Under the background of international convergence of accounting standards, China has also made its promise with theultimate goal of accounting equivalence, and the reform and revision of the leases standards would be part of this commitment. Given the specific economic environment in leases industryin China, the coping strategy for China could be summerrised as:complete acceptance in basic concept, active participation in technique debate and postponed and prudent convergence strategy.
研究租赁准则,需要两个前提：一是对租赁本质的正确把握,二是对租赁行业的深刻了解。本文以物权理论为基础,结合租赁合同的特征和内容以及《物权法》颁布以来物权理念的发展,提出租赁权即用益物权的论断,突破了租赁权为债权的传统理论。现行租赁被划分为融资租赁和经营租赁,而法律上的融资租赁不属于租赁的范畴,与租赁有本质的差别,会计采用“融资租赁”的表述,是对法律“融资租赁”概念的背离。通过研究租赁的法律实质,进而研究其经济实质,本文重新梳理了法律形式和经济实质的关系,同时进一步探索法律实质和经济实质的关系,对法律与会计的互动作出摸索性的研究。在租赁业的发展过程中,法律、税收、监管和会计,逐渐成为支撑租赁产业的四大支柱。会计成为行业发展的支柱是租赁业的一个非常重要也非常奇特的特征。会计上对经营租赁和融资租赁的划分,不只是影响着租赁业的规模,甚至决定着租赁业的发展方向。很难再有其他行业会计对其发展会如此显著。从这个角度说,研究会计准则和其经济后果的互动,租赁准则是一个典型的范例。租赁权物权本质的明确,会计成为行业支柱的特性,是解读租赁准则的必要铺垫。
比较各国现行租赁准则,并没有本质区别,只是美国租赁准则带有更明显的规则导向痕迹。美国租赁准则历时已久,国际租赁准则包括中国租赁准则在内,与其实际是一脉相承。美国最初在财务报表中披露租赁业务是因为担心长期租赁带来的负债被低估,而对租赁带来的资产的低估似乎并不十分关注。随着租赁业的发展,实质为资产购买的租赁大幅度增多。早在1964年美国会计原则委员会(APB)发布的第五号意见书就提出对租赁资产资本化的“购买模式”,并制定了相应判定为“购买实质”的标准。在后来的对租赁准则的修订中,虽讨论过诸如法律债务模型、产权模型、负债模型和待执行合同模型,但在1976年发布的SFAS13中,最终依然选择以“与所有权相关的风险和报酬转移”为内涵的购买法对部分租赁业务实行资本化。其后的准则修订只体现在技术标准细枝末节的变动。然而,对现行租赁准则的诟病不绝于耳。1997年,美国曾把租赁准则评为五个最差准则之一。租赁准则被看作规则导向的典型,在各个利益集团的角逐下已支离破碎。同年,美国提出高质量会计准则的概念,虽然至今还没有形成统一权威的标准,但符合财务概念框架、以原则为制定导向、公允反映财务信息被认为是其核心内容。以此来衡量现行租赁准则,其将被重新修订已成必然。现行租赁准则对于经营租赁和融资租赁的明线划分,不仅为会计主体提供会计政策选择的余地,更为糟糕的是它还可能引导会计主体进行利润操纵,甚至会沦为掩藏会计信息的庇护所。划分经营租赁和融资租赁的理论基础是所有权观念而非使用权观念,以及由此衍生的“与所有权相关的风险和报酬”标准,是现行租赁准则最大的困境。
2010年8月,IASB和FASB联合发布的租赁会计准则征求意见稿提出“使用权资产”概念。租赁会计处理采用使用权思想,美国有学者在1962年便有提及。1996年和1999年的两份G4+1特别报告,更进一步阐述了租赁会计处理的使用权方法,但因租赁会计处理的改变对行业影响过于巨大,被一直搁置。美国安然事件之后,会计准则的制定由规则导向转变到原则导向,经济一体化以及对全球金融危机的应对,要求制定一套统一的、高质量的、国际通用的会计准则的呼声日益高涨。2006年,FASB和TASB签署备忘录并启动了包括财务报告概念框架等一系列联合项目的研究,这为租赁准则改革提供了绝佳契机。租赁征求意见稿取消经营租赁和融资租赁的分类,采用使用权思想,是对租赁本质认识的回归,是会计资产负债观和原则导向的内在要求,与财务概念框架的修订有逻辑上的统一,反映了会计目标的价值取向,符合会计资产要素的定义,满足会计信息质量特征的需要。由于租赁会计改革突出的经济后果,在征求意见过程中充满争议不可避免。
租赁国际准则的修订已是不可逆的趋势。2013年5月,国际会计准则理事会主席重申了国际会计准则修订的必要性,尤其着重提到租赁准则的变革,表达了其坚定的决心。“使用权资产”的基本理念,符合租赁的经济实质,也是提高会计信息质量的应有要求,在这一方面,中国应该无条件接受。会计国际化及会计国际趋同的背景下,中国承诺中国会计准则将与国际准则持续趋同,同时声明趋同的目的是等效,租赁准则的修订,是包括中国在内的各国共同的任务。鉴于中国在租赁业宏观和微观的实际国情,中国应对租赁准则的变革策略,可概括为：基本理念上完全接受、概念技术上积极讨论、趋同路线上审慎暂缓。
Ever since the signing of the Norwalk Agreement in September2002, IASB and FASB have successively launched a series of joint projects aimed to develop a high-quality and compatible accounting standards. The research of leases standard is among their first of such joint projects. The two boards have issued the exposure draft for leases accounting standard in August,2010, and after consideration and discussion of the feedback from the exposure draft, a revised version of ED has been launched in May,2013. Selecting the leases standard as the subject of my study, to trace back its history of development, to analyze its status quo and to explore its much-needed reform, not only can sketch out a complete picture of the reasons and consequences of the changes of the standard, but also its significance has exceeded itself. The amendment of the accounting standard embodies and interpretes the development of the philosophy, theory and concept of the accounting standanard evolution.
There are two premises in the study of the leases standard:first, correctly grasp the nature of leases; secondly, deep understanding of the leasing industry. This paper has based on real right theory, together with the features and contents of leases contracts and the development of real right theory since the enforcement of the Real Right Law in2007and pointed out that leasehold is usufructuary right, which is a breakthrough regarding the traditional theory that takes leasehold as obiligatory right. Currently, leases are divided into operating leases and financialleases, but financial leases are not within the scopeof traditional leases from the legal point of view and they have differences in nature. The use of "financial lease" in accounting literature is diverged from their legal conception. Through the study of the legal and economic nature of leases, this paper has also rationalized the relationship between legal form and economic substance and tried to explore the interaction between law and accounting standards. During the development of the leasing industry, the factors of law, tax, regulation and accounting standard have gradually formed the four pillars of the business. It's usual and peculiar for accounting to have become one of these four pillars. Since there is a classification of operation lease and financial lease in leases accounting and this classification not only affects the size of the industry, but also determines the direction of the leasing business. It's so rare that an accounting standard plays such a significant role in shaping the development of an industry. From this perspective, studying the leases standard would be a typical example to to study the interaction between the accounting standards and their consequences. The acknowledgment of the real right nature of leases and the characteristics of leases accounting becoming of of the pillars of the industry are necessary to pave the way to interprete the leases standard. Comparing the existing national and international lease standards, there is no essential difference, except that SFAS13, which governs the American leases accounting, has a clear rule-oriented approach. American leases standard has been the earliest of its kind, which later has shaped the issuance of international leases standards. The initial purpose of disloure of leases activities in American financial report was the worrier of the underestimated liabilities brought along by long-term leases, with no regard to the underestimated assets generated by leases. With the development of leasing industry, leases that are in substance a purchase account for the majority of the business, and the Accounting Principles Board revealed a purchase model to capitalize those leases and issued relevant criteria in determining the purchasingsubstance. In the following discussions, several models have been put
forward, such as legal debt model, property right model, liability model and executory contract model, FASB finally chose the purchase model featured with transfer of risks and rewards incident to ownership to be the principle to determine leases which are needed to be capitalized. Although, there have been many amendments to SFAS13afer its intial issuance in1976, most of them remain in minor details, nothingsubstantial. The current leases standard has been heavily criticized. In1997, it's even been chosen to be one of the five worst accounting standards in US GAAP and has already fallen apart among the fight between various interest groups. It is seen as a typical embodiment of rule-oriented standard. The same year, the notion of high-quality standards has been brought out. Though till today there haven't formedany unified authoritative criteria, compliance with the conceptual framework, principle-orientation and faithful representation of the financial information would be its core contents. Based on this understanding, the reform of leases standard would be forthcoming and inevitable. The current bright-line test of operating leases and financial leasesprovides options for the entities to choose accounting policies favorable to them, and what's worse is to creat possibilities for them to manipulate profits, even provide shelter for them to cover up financial information. The current leases standard, which classifies leases into operating lease and financial lease, is theoretically based on the ownership point of view and the criteria of risks and rewards incident to this ownship, rather than the right-of-use point of view, where lies the greatest predicament of the reform of the current leases standard.
The exposure draft of the lease standard issued in August2010jointly by IASB and FASB put forward the "right-of-use asset" concept. As early as1962, this concept has been refered to by American scholar. And two special reports published by G4+1in1996and1999, have already systematically elaborated on the right-of-use approach for leases accounting. But considering the huge ramification it would arouse for the industry, it has been put on hold. After the Enron incident, the shift from rule-oriented accounting standards to the principle-oriented standards, globalization and the coping with the worldwidefinancialcrisis, the calling for a unified set of high-quality international standards is higer than ever. In order to achieve this goal, in2006, IASB and FASB have signed a memorandum of understanding and initiated a series of joint projects including the revision of the financial conceptual framework. This has provided the best opputunity for the leases standard to take a change. The exposure draft of the leases standard adopting the right-of-use concept suggests removing the classification of operating leases and financial leases. This is the return to the nature of leases and is the internal need for asset-liability view and principle-oriented accounting standards. It is also consistent with the logic of the financial conceptual framework, reflecting the value orientation of the accounting objective. It is in accordance with the definition of asset and satisfies the quality requirement of the characerteritics of the accounting information. Because of the serious economic consequences the change would cast on the industry, it is unavoidable to encounter waves of controversies.
The reform of the leases accounting standard is inevitable. In May2013, the Chairman of International Accounting Standards Board Hans Hoogervorst reinterated the importance of this reform and expressed his determination in doing so. The basic concept of "right-of-use asset" is in accordance of the economic substance of leases and is an internal need of high-quality accounting information. On this regard, China should embrace it completely. Under the background of international convergence of accounting standards, China has also made its promise with theultimate goal of accounting equivalence, and the reform and revision of the leases standards would be part of this commitment. Given the specific economic environment in leases industryin China, the coping strategy for China could be summerrised as:complete acceptance in basic concept, active participation in technique debate and postponed and prudent convergence strategy.
引文
① Hans Hoogervorst, "Accounting Harmonisation and Global Economic Consequences",2012年11月
① 数据来自Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 401(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 On Arrangement with Off-Balance Sheet Implications, Special Purpose Entities, and Transparancy of Fillings by Issuers
① 秦国勇编著,法律出版社,2012
① 郑玉波,《民法债编各论》(上册),台湾三民书局,1981年,P200
② 史尚宽,《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年,P179
① 柯凌汉,《中国债法论纲》(下册),商务印书馆,2001年,P278
① 资料来源：World Leasing Yearbook 2008, Andria Hornbrook, UK和White Clarke Annual Report 2010。大洋洲的租赁交易额只统计了澳大利亚和新西兰两个国家.
① 来源：《全球租赁报告》,伦敦金融集团,2003
② 来源：《全球租赁报告》,伦敦金融集团,2003
① 数据来自中国金融学会金融租赁专业委员会www.cfla.cn和www.chinaleasing.org/doc/doc386.htm《租赁业的风雨命途》
① Committee of Accounting Procedure, ARB 38,1949,第五段
① AICPA,ARS 4,Reporting of Leases in Financial Statements,P39
① 葛家澍, 《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,会计研究,1999年
② 裘宗舜、韩洪灵, 《论高质量的会计准则》,上海会计,2003年第11期
① 例子整理自IASB的"Leases:Illustrative Examples",2013年6月
① 冯淑萍,《中国会计改革与国际协调》,中国财政经济出版社,2002
① 数据来源：金融租赁协会季度统计
[1]财政部会计司编写组,《企业会计准则讲解(2010)》,人民出版社,2010年
[2]国际会计准则理事会,《国际财务报告准则2004)),财政部会计准则委员会译,中国财经出版社,2005
[3]汪祥耀等,《国际会计准则与财务报告准则：研究与比较》,立信会计出版社,2005
[4]苏迪尔·阿波曼,《国际租赁完全指南》,李命志等译,北京大学出版社,2007
[5]美国财务会计准则委员会,《美国财务会计准则》,王世定等译,经济科学出版社,2002
[6]大卫·波特、吉娜·弗玛嘉丽等,《疲软的美元掩盖了不良的租赁市场》,伦敦金融集团有限公司,2003
[7]汪祥耀、邵毅平,《美国会计准则研究——从经济大萧条到全球金融危机》,立信会计出版社,2010
[8]罗素清,《租赁会计研究》,上海三联书店,2005
[9]《中华人民共和国物权法》,2007年
[10]《中华人民共和国合同法》,1999年
[11]史燕平,《融资租赁原理与实务》,对外经济贸易大学出版社,2005
[12]裘企阳,《融资租赁：理论探讨与实务操作》,中国财政经济出版社,2001
[13]秦国勇,《融资租赁法律实务》,法律出版社,2011
[14]高圣平等,《中国融资租赁现状与发展战略》,中信出版社,2012
[15]史树林等,《融资租赁制度概论》,中信出版社,2012
[16]冯淑萍,《中国会计改革和国际协调》,中国财政经济出版社,2002
[17]郑雷,《船舶融资租赁法律问题研究》,法律出版社,2012
[18]史树林等,《融资租赁制度总论》,中国金融出版社,2011
[19]杨勇,《租赁服务业研究》,经济科学出版社,2012
[20]孙菊生,《表外筹资会计问题研究》,中国财政经济出版社,2000
[21]郑玉波,《民法债编各论》(上册),台湾三民书局,1981
[22]史尚宽,《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000
[1]陈基周,《论租赁物权化》,厦门大学硕士论文,2006
[2]黄燕飞,《中国会计准则国际趋同策略研究》,财政部科研所博士论文,2012
[-3]卢洁琼, 《租赁会计研究》,武汉理工大学硕士论文,2004
[4]施颖燕,《租赁会计准则若干问题研究》,上海海事大学硕士论文,2005
[5]安永生,《租赁权的用益物权性质研究》,吉林大学硕士论文,2007
[6]何慧娟,《“买卖不破租赁”原则若干法律问题研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,2012
[7]黄海燕,《租赁权性质研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2006
[8]任继峰,《论不动产租赁权的用益物权性》,山东大学硕士论文,2012
C.期刊
[1]冯淑萍,《关于中国会计标准的国际化问题》,会计研究,2001年第11期
[2]井尻雄士,《美国会计准则及其环境：75年发展历史的二元研究》,陆建桥等译,财会通讯,2005年第10期
[3]汉斯·胡格伍斯特,《不精确的会计世界》,季韩波译,金融会计,2012年第12期
[4]葛家澍,《试评IASB/FASB联合概念框架的某些改进——截止2008年10月16日的进展》,会计研究,2009年第4期
[5]陈毓圭,《原则导向还是规则导向——关于会计准则制定方法的思考》,中国注册会计师,2005年6月号
[6]葛家澍,《财务概念框架的新篇章——评美国FASB第8号概念公告》,会计研究,2011年第3期
[7]葛家澍、陈朝琳,《实质重于形式,欲速则不达——分两步走制定中国的财务会计概念框架》,会计研究,2005年第6期
[8]成小云、任永川,《IASB/FASB概念框架联合项目中的资产概念研究评述》,会计 研究,2010年第5期
[9]葛家澍,《关于高质量会计准则的几个问题》,会计研究,2002年第10期
[10]陈华,《经济后果观与美国会计准则的制定》,财会月刊,2004年第4期
[11]葛家澍,《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,会计研究,1999年第5期
[12]裘宗舜、韩洪灵,《论高质量会计准则》,上海会计,2003年第11期
[13]苑泽明、姚王信,《趋同、等效抑或存异：对用益物权会计的一个诠释》,中国会计学会财务成本分会2009年理论讨论文集
[14]奥喜平,《论资产定义的不足及资产的本质》,财会月刊,2012年11月(上旬)
[15]邓宇星,《会计契约论的形成和发展》,财会研究,2003年3月(下)
[16]平来禄、刘峰、雷科罗,《后安然时代的会计准则：原则导向还是规则导向》,会计研究,2003年第5期
[17]王海林、陆新葵,《租赁会计准则与实质重于形式原则》,经济师,2002年第11期
[18]王瑞华、张奇渊,《美国会计准则制定模式变迁对我国的启示》,中央财经大学学报,2004年第4期
[19]余杰,《经济实质与法律形式的选择、判断及经济后果》,财经科学,2009年第11期
[20]胡志成,《资产转移确认中风险与报酬法同金融合成法比较研究》,云南财经大学学报,2010年第5期
[21]刘小年、吴联生,《会计规则的制定目标：信息中立还是经济后果》,会计研究,2004年第6期
[22]李英、付培,《会计准则的“政治程序观”与“经济后果观”分析》,财政监督,2012年第17期
[23]杨巧英,《联合概念框架财务报告目标和信息质量特征的评述及思考》,经济论坛,2010年第7期
[24]黄思聪,《联合概念框架：“如实反映”与“可靠性”比较分析》,经营管理者,2012年第10期
[25]曲晓辉、陈瑜,《会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析》,会计研究,2003年第1期
[26]董盈厚、侯铁建,《基于IASB概念框架的可靠性质量特征之认识理性——一个经济学视角的分析与讨论》,会计研究,2011年第1期
[27]曲晓辉、李明辉,《论会计准则的法律地位》,会计研究,2004年第5期
[28]汪祥耀,《“公认会计原则”探析》,财经论丛,2001年第5期
[29]王跃堂,《经济后果学说对会计准则制定理论的影响》,财经研究,2000年8月第26卷
[30]田鹃,《基于经济后果观的美国会计准则制定导向研究》,财会通讯,2010年第2期(下)
[31]彭睿,《我国会计准则国际化的经济后果》,合作经济与科技,2012年3月号上
[32]刘红兵、胡智超,《租赁会计准则问题研究》,财会月刊,2011年7月下旬
[33]赵慧芝,《租赁准则“两租合一”的探析》,会计管理,2011年第7期
[34]唐红鹃,《我国租赁会计准则面临新挑战——基于IASB/FASB租赁会计准则征求意见稿的分析》,财会月刊,2011年7月中旬
[35]胡娟、郭庆,《IASB/FASB租赁准则变革及其影响分析》,财会月刊,2011年7月上旬
[36]胡志成,《资产转移确认中风险与报酬法同金融合成法比较研究》,云南财经大学学报,2010年第5期
[37]陈彬,《从IASB/FASB联合概念框架看财务报表列报的变革》,会计之友,2012年第7期
[38]刘玲,《变革“两租”划分制度趋势和我国适应性研究》,现代商贸工业,2011
[39]许婷婷,《“两租合一”可行性及其会计处理探析》,湖北经济学院学报,2012年第9期
[40]孙燕东、谢小莹,《联合概念框架下如实反映与可靠性的比较分析》,现代管理科学,2012年第8期
[41]沈恒林,《所有权的内涵、功能与产业定位》,东北大学学报,2003年7月
[42]彭燕、李晋阳,《租赁会计准则的新发展》,财会通讯,2011年第25期
[43]魏威、姜洋,《IASB/FASB租赁准则修订及其影响分析》,会计之友,2011年第8期
[44]黄亚玲,《高质量的会计准则评价：一个框架》,湖北民族学院学报,2006年第4期
[45]魏林燕、朱丽敏、魏飞,《会计准则制定模式：原则导向与规则导向“谁主沉浮”》,河北科技师范学院学报,2005年9月
[46]何敏,《国际会计租赁准则变化对我国融资租赁行业的影响》,西南金融,2013年第1期
[47]陈华,《经济后果观与美国会计准则的制定》,财会月刊,2002年第4期
[48]宋刚,《论我国用益物权的重构》,河南社会科学,2005年第13卷
[49]颜延,《物权法的会计含义——物权法对会计确认和计量的影响》,会计研究,2007年第4期
[50]田园,《浅谈物权法对会计确认和计量的影响》,商业时代,2008年第35期
[51]夏杰,《论动产用益物权制度设立的必要性及可行性》,广西大学学报,2009年第6期
[52]莫蕾,《论租赁权的性质》,广东科技,2008年第180期
[53]张慧,《租赁权的性质探析》,河南广播电视大学学报,2009年第3期
[1]IASB, Exposure Draft, Leases, www.ifrs.org,2013
[2]IASB, Exposure Draft, Leases, www.ifrs.org,2010
[3]IASB, Leases:Illustrative Examples, www.ifrs.org,2013
[4]Hans Hoogervorst, Accounting Harmonisation and Global Economic Consequences, Lecture at LSE, November 2012
[5]PwC & the Rotterdam School of Management, Preparer's View on New Lessee Accounting:European Impact Survey 2010, www.pwc.com,2010
[6]Jonathan Weil, How Leases Play a Shadowy Role in Accounting, www.wsj.com, Septenber 2004
[7]FASB and IASB, Memorandum of Understanding, the Norwalk Agreement, www.fasb.org,September 18,2002
[8]IASB and FASB, Discussion Paper, Leases, Preliminary View,2009
[9]PwC IFRS blogs, Leasing:a Tale of Two Balance Sheet, www.pwc.blogs.com, October 2010
[10]KPMG, New on the Horizon:Leases, www.kpmg.com,2010
[11]G4+1, Lease:Implementation of a New Approach,2000
[12]Warren McGregor, Personal Reflactions on Ten years of the IASB, Austrian Accounting Review, Sept 2012
[13]Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 401(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on Arrangement with Off-Balance Sheet Implementations, Special Entities, and Transparency of Fillings by Issuers, www. sec. gov, June 2005
[14]Vivien Beattie, Alan Goodacre, et. Sarah Jane Thomason, Lease Accounting Reform and Economic consequnces:the View of Preparer and Users, www. ssrn, 2001
[15]Fei Han, Lease Accounting and the Cost of Equity Capital, University of Connecticut,2010
[16]Peter K. Nevitt, Frank J. Fabozzi, Equipment Leasing, Wiley,2000
[17]AICPA, ARB 38, Discloure of Long-Term Leases in Financial Statements of Lessees,1949
[18]AICAP, ARS 4, Reporting of Leases in Financial Statements,1962
[19]APB, APB Opinion 5, Reporting of Financial Leases in Financial Statements of lessee,1964
[20]APB, APB Opinion 7, Accounting for Leases in Financial Statements of Lessors,1966
[21]APB, APB Opinion 27, Accounting for Lease transactions by Manufacturer or Dealer Lessors,1972
[22]SEC, ASR 132, Reporting of Leases in Financial Statementsof Lessees,1973
[23]SEC, ASR 141, Interpretation and Minor Amendments Applicable to Certain Revisions of Regulation S-X,1973
[24]APB, APB Opinion 31, Disclosure of Lease Commitments by Lessees,1973
[25]SEC, ASR 147, Notice of Adoption of Amendments to Regulation S-X Requiring Improved Discloure of Leases,1973
[26]FASB, Discussion Memorandum, An Analysis of Issues Related to Accounting for Leases,1974
[27]FASB, Exposure Draft, Accounting for Leases,1975
[28]FASB, Exposure Draft (revised), Accounting for Leases,1976
[29]FASB, SFAS13, Accounting for Leases,1976
[30]IASC, Exposure Draft (E19), Accounting for Leases,1980
[31]IASC, IAS 17, Accounting for Leases,1982
[32]IASC, Exposure Draft (E56), Leases,1997
[33]IASC, IAS 17 (revised), Leases,1997
[34]IASC, IAS 17 (revised), Leases,2003
[35]Kimberly J. Cornaggia, etc, Bringing Leased Assets onto the Balance Sheet, www.ssrn.com,2012
[36]Yuri Biondi, etc., A Perspective on the Joint IASB/FASB Exposure Draft on Accounting for Leases, www.ssrn.com,2011
[37]CHP Consulting Whitepaper, Lease Accounting Reform:the System Impact for Assets Finance Lessors, March 2012
[38]Ernst & Young, What Do the Proposed Lease Accounting Changes Mean for Financial Institutions? www. ey. com, Septemer 2010
[39]Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the Future of Leasing, www.pwccn.com,2010
[40]Arthur Levitt, The Importance of High Quality Accounting Standards, Accounting Horizon,1998
[41]Stephen, G. Ryan, etc, Evaluation of the Lease Accountingg Proposed in G4+1 Special Report, Accounting Horizon, Sep.2001, PP.289-298
[42]Robert C. Lipe, Lease Accounting Research and the G4+1 Proposal, Accounting Horizon, Sep.2001, PP.299-31
① 数据来自Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 401(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 On Arrangement with Off-Balance Sheet Implications, Special Purpose Entities, and Transparancy of Fillings by Issuers
① 秦国勇编著,法律出版社,2012
① 郑玉波,《民法债编各论》(上册),台湾三民书局,1981年,P200
② 史尚宽,《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年,P179
① 柯凌汉,《中国债法论纲》(下册),商务印书馆,2001年,P278
① 资料来源：World Leasing Yearbook 2008, Andria Hornbrook, UK和White Clarke Annual Report 2010。大洋洲的租赁交易额只统计了澳大利亚和新西兰两个国家.
① 来源：《全球租赁报告》,伦敦金融集团,2003
② 来源：《全球租赁报告》,伦敦金融集团,2003
① 数据来自中国金融学会金融租赁专业委员会www.cfla.cn和www.chinaleasing.org/doc/doc386.htm《租赁业的风雨命途》
① Committee of Accounting Procedure, ARB 38,1949,第五段
① AICPA,ARS 4,Reporting of Leases in Financial Statements,P39
① 葛家澍, 《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,会计研究,1999年
② 裘宗舜、韩洪灵, 《论高质量的会计准则》,上海会计,2003年第11期
① 例子整理自IASB的"Leases:Illustrative Examples",2013年6月
① 冯淑萍,《中国会计改革与国际协调》,中国财政经济出版社,2002
① 数据来源：金融租赁协会季度统计
[1]财政部会计司编写组,《企业会计准则讲解(2010)》,人民出版社,2010年
[2]国际会计准则理事会,《国际财务报告准则2004)),财政部会计准则委员会译,中国财经出版社,2005
[3]汪祥耀等,《国际会计准则与财务报告准则：研究与比较》,立信会计出版社,2005
[4]苏迪尔·阿波曼,《国际租赁完全指南》,李命志等译,北京大学出版社,2007
[5]美国财务会计准则委员会,《美国财务会计准则》,王世定等译,经济科学出版社,2002
[6]大卫·波特、吉娜·弗玛嘉丽等,《疲软的美元掩盖了不良的租赁市场》,伦敦金融集团有限公司,2003
[7]汪祥耀、邵毅平,《美国会计准则研究——从经济大萧条到全球金融危机》,立信会计出版社,2010
[8]罗素清,《租赁会计研究》,上海三联书店,2005
[9]《中华人民共和国物权法》,2007年
[10]《中华人民共和国合同法》,1999年
[11]史燕平,《融资租赁原理与实务》,对外经济贸易大学出版社,2005
[12]裘企阳,《融资租赁：理论探讨与实务操作》,中国财政经济出版社,2001
[13]秦国勇,《融资租赁法律实务》,法律出版社,2011
[14]高圣平等,《中国融资租赁现状与发展战略》,中信出版社,2012
[15]史树林等,《融资租赁制度概论》,中信出版社,2012
[16]冯淑萍,《中国会计改革和国际协调》,中国财政经济出版社,2002
[17]郑雷,《船舶融资租赁法律问题研究》,法律出版社,2012
[18]史树林等,《融资租赁制度总论》,中国金融出版社,2011
[19]杨勇,《租赁服务业研究》,经济科学出版社,2012
[20]孙菊生,《表外筹资会计问题研究》,中国财政经济出版社,2000
[21]郑玉波,《民法债编各论》(上册),台湾三民书局,1981
[22]史尚宽,《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000
[1]陈基周,《论租赁物权化》,厦门大学硕士论文,2006
[2]黄燕飞,《中国会计准则国际趋同策略研究》,财政部科研所博士论文,2012
[-3]卢洁琼, 《租赁会计研究》,武汉理工大学硕士论文,2004
[4]施颖燕,《租赁会计准则若干问题研究》,上海海事大学硕士论文,2005
[5]安永生,《租赁权的用益物权性质研究》,吉林大学硕士论文,2007
[6]何慧娟,《“买卖不破租赁”原则若干法律问题研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,2012
[7]黄海燕,《租赁权性质研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2006
[8]任继峰,《论不动产租赁权的用益物权性》,山东大学硕士论文,2012
C.期刊
[1]冯淑萍,《关于中国会计标准的国际化问题》,会计研究,2001年第11期
[2]井尻雄士,《美国会计准则及其环境：75年发展历史的二元研究》,陆建桥等译,财会通讯,2005年第10期
[3]汉斯·胡格伍斯特,《不精确的会计世界》,季韩波译,金融会计,2012年第12期
[4]葛家澍,《试评IASB/FASB联合概念框架的某些改进——截止2008年10月16日的进展》,会计研究,2009年第4期
[5]陈毓圭,《原则导向还是规则导向——关于会计准则制定方法的思考》,中国注册会计师,2005年6月号
[6]葛家澍,《财务概念框架的新篇章——评美国FASB第8号概念公告》,会计研究,2011年第3期
[7]葛家澍、陈朝琳,《实质重于形式,欲速则不达——分两步走制定中国的财务会计概念框架》,会计研究,2005年第6期
[8]成小云、任永川,《IASB/FASB概念框架联合项目中的资产概念研究评述》,会计 研究,2010年第5期
[9]葛家澍,《关于高质量会计准则的几个问题》,会计研究,2002年第10期
[10]陈华,《经济后果观与美国会计准则的制定》,财会月刊,2004年第4期
[11]葛家澍,《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,会计研究,1999年第5期
[12]裘宗舜、韩洪灵,《论高质量会计准则》,上海会计,2003年第11期
[13]苑泽明、姚王信,《趋同、等效抑或存异：对用益物权会计的一个诠释》,中国会计学会财务成本分会2009年理论讨论文集
[14]奥喜平,《论资产定义的不足及资产的本质》,财会月刊,2012年11月(上旬)
[15]邓宇星,《会计契约论的形成和发展》,财会研究,2003年3月(下)
[16]平来禄、刘峰、雷科罗,《后安然时代的会计准则：原则导向还是规则导向》,会计研究,2003年第5期
[17]王海林、陆新葵,《租赁会计准则与实质重于形式原则》,经济师,2002年第11期
[18]王瑞华、张奇渊,《美国会计准则制定模式变迁对我国的启示》,中央财经大学学报,2004年第4期
[19]余杰,《经济实质与法律形式的选择、判断及经济后果》,财经科学,2009年第11期
[20]胡志成,《资产转移确认中风险与报酬法同金融合成法比较研究》,云南财经大学学报,2010年第5期
[21]刘小年、吴联生,《会计规则的制定目标：信息中立还是经济后果》,会计研究,2004年第6期
[22]李英、付培,《会计准则的“政治程序观”与“经济后果观”分析》,财政监督,2012年第17期
[23]杨巧英,《联合概念框架财务报告目标和信息质量特征的评述及思考》,经济论坛,2010年第7期
[24]黄思聪,《联合概念框架：“如实反映”与“可靠性”比较分析》,经营管理者,2012年第10期
[25]曲晓辉、陈瑜,《会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析》,会计研究,2003年第1期
[26]董盈厚、侯铁建,《基于IASB概念框架的可靠性质量特征之认识理性——一个经济学视角的分析与讨论》,会计研究,2011年第1期
[27]曲晓辉、李明辉,《论会计准则的法律地位》,会计研究,2004年第5期
[28]汪祥耀,《“公认会计原则”探析》,财经论丛,2001年第5期
[29]王跃堂,《经济后果学说对会计准则制定理论的影响》,财经研究,2000年8月第26卷
[30]田鹃,《基于经济后果观的美国会计准则制定导向研究》,财会通讯,2010年第2期(下)
[31]彭睿,《我国会计准则国际化的经济后果》,合作经济与科技,2012年3月号上
[32]刘红兵、胡智超,《租赁会计准则问题研究》,财会月刊,2011年7月下旬
[33]赵慧芝,《租赁准则“两租合一”的探析》,会计管理,2011年第7期
[34]唐红鹃,《我国租赁会计准则面临新挑战——基于IASB/FASB租赁会计准则征求意见稿的分析》,财会月刊,2011年7月中旬
[35]胡娟、郭庆,《IASB/FASB租赁准则变革及其影响分析》,财会月刊,2011年7月上旬
[36]胡志成,《资产转移确认中风险与报酬法同金融合成法比较研究》,云南财经大学学报,2010年第5期
[37]陈彬,《从IASB/FASB联合概念框架看财务报表列报的变革》,会计之友,2012年第7期
[38]刘玲,《变革“两租”划分制度趋势和我国适应性研究》,现代商贸工业,2011
[39]许婷婷,《“两租合一”可行性及其会计处理探析》,湖北经济学院学报,2012年第9期
[40]孙燕东、谢小莹,《联合概念框架下如实反映与可靠性的比较分析》,现代管理科学,2012年第8期
[41]沈恒林,《所有权的内涵、功能与产业定位》,东北大学学报,2003年7月
[42]彭燕、李晋阳,《租赁会计准则的新发展》,财会通讯,2011年第25期
[43]魏威、姜洋,《IASB/FASB租赁准则修订及其影响分析》,会计之友,2011年第8期
[44]黄亚玲,《高质量的会计准则评价：一个框架》,湖北民族学院学报,2006年第4期
[45]魏林燕、朱丽敏、魏飞,《会计准则制定模式：原则导向与规则导向“谁主沉浮”》,河北科技师范学院学报,2005年9月
[46]何敏,《国际会计租赁准则变化对我国融资租赁行业的影响》,西南金融,2013年第1期
[47]陈华,《经济后果观与美国会计准则的制定》,财会月刊,2002年第4期
[48]宋刚,《论我国用益物权的重构》,河南社会科学,2005年第13卷
[49]颜延,《物权法的会计含义——物权法对会计确认和计量的影响》,会计研究,2007年第4期
[50]田园,《浅谈物权法对会计确认和计量的影响》,商业时代,2008年第35期
[51]夏杰,《论动产用益物权制度设立的必要性及可行性》,广西大学学报,2009年第6期
[52]莫蕾,《论租赁权的性质》,广东科技,2008年第180期
[53]张慧,《租赁权的性质探析》,河南广播电视大学学报,2009年第3期
[1]IASB, Exposure Draft, Leases, www.ifrs.org,2013
[2]IASB, Exposure Draft, Leases, www.ifrs.org,2010
[3]IASB, Leases:Illustrative Examples, www.ifrs.org,2013
[4]Hans Hoogervorst, Accounting Harmonisation and Global Economic Consequences, Lecture at LSE, November 2012
[5]PwC & the Rotterdam School of Management, Preparer's View on New Lessee Accounting:European Impact Survey 2010, www.pwc.com,2010
[6]Jonathan Weil, How Leases Play a Shadowy Role in Accounting, www.wsj.com, Septenber 2004
[7]FASB and IASB, Memorandum of Understanding, the Norwalk Agreement, www.fasb.org,September 18,2002
[8]IASB and FASB, Discussion Paper, Leases, Preliminary View,2009
[9]PwC IFRS blogs, Leasing:a Tale of Two Balance Sheet, www.pwc.blogs.com, October 2010
[10]KPMG, New on the Horizon:Leases, www.kpmg.com,2010
[11]G4+1, Lease:Implementation of a New Approach,2000
[12]Warren McGregor, Personal Reflactions on Ten years of the IASB, Austrian Accounting Review, Sept 2012
[13]Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 401(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on Arrangement with Off-Balance Sheet Implementations, Special Entities, and Transparency of Fillings by Issuers, www. sec. gov, June 2005
[14]Vivien Beattie, Alan Goodacre, et. Sarah Jane Thomason, Lease Accounting Reform and Economic consequnces:the View of Preparer and Users, www. ssrn, 2001
[15]Fei Han, Lease Accounting and the Cost of Equity Capital, University of Connecticut,2010
[16]Peter K. Nevitt, Frank J. Fabozzi, Equipment Leasing, Wiley,2000
[17]AICPA, ARB 38, Discloure of Long-Term Leases in Financial Statements of Lessees,1949
[18]AICAP, ARS 4, Reporting of Leases in Financial Statements,1962
[19]APB, APB Opinion 5, Reporting of Financial Leases in Financial Statements of lessee,1964
[20]APB, APB Opinion 7, Accounting for Leases in Financial Statements of Lessors,1966
[21]APB, APB Opinion 27, Accounting for Lease transactions by Manufacturer or Dealer Lessors,1972
[22]SEC, ASR 132, Reporting of Leases in Financial Statementsof Lessees,1973
[23]SEC, ASR 141, Interpretation and Minor Amendments Applicable to Certain Revisions of Regulation S-X,1973
[24]APB, APB Opinion 31, Disclosure of Lease Commitments by Lessees,1973
[25]SEC, ASR 147, Notice of Adoption of Amendments to Regulation S-X Requiring Improved Discloure of Leases,1973
[26]FASB, Discussion Memorandum, An Analysis of Issues Related to Accounting for Leases,1974
[27]FASB, Exposure Draft, Accounting for Leases,1975
[28]FASB, Exposure Draft (revised), Accounting for Leases,1976
[29]FASB, SFAS13, Accounting for Leases,1976
[30]IASC, Exposure Draft (E19), Accounting for Leases,1980
[31]IASC, IAS 17, Accounting for Leases,1982
[32]IASC, Exposure Draft (E56), Leases,1997
[33]IASC, IAS 17 (revised), Leases,1997
[34]IASC, IAS 17 (revised), Leases,2003
[35]Kimberly J. Cornaggia, etc, Bringing Leased Assets onto the Balance Sheet, www.ssrn.com,2012
[36]Yuri Biondi, etc., A Perspective on the Joint IASB/FASB Exposure Draft on Accounting for Leases, www.ssrn.com,2011
[37]CHP Consulting Whitepaper, Lease Accounting Reform:the System Impact for Assets Finance Lessors, March 2012
[38]Ernst & Young, What Do the Proposed Lease Accounting Changes Mean for Financial Institutions? www. ey. com, Septemer 2010
[39]Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the Future of Leasing, www.pwccn.com,2010
[40]Arthur Levitt, The Importance of High Quality Accounting Standards, Accounting Horizon,1998
[41]Stephen, G. Ryan, etc, Evaluation of the Lease Accountingg Proposed in G4+1 Special Report, Accounting Horizon, Sep.2001, PP.289-298
[42]Robert C. Lipe, Lease Accounting Research and the G4+1 Proposal, Accounting Horizon, Sep.2001, PP.299-31