The underlying concepts of the definition of a liability in financial reporting: A doctrinal research perspective

References

• Baker, R. (2015). Conservatism, prudence and the IASB’s conceptual framework. Accounting and Business Research, 45(4), 514–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R., & McGeachin, A. (2013). Why is there inconsistency in accounting for liabilities in IFRS? An analysis of recognition, measurement, estimation and conservatism. Accounting and Business Research, 43(6), 579–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, C. R., & Burlaud, A. (2015). The historical evolution from accounting theory to conceptual framework in financial standards setting. The CPA Journal. Aug 2015, 54–60.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, M. E. (2014). Measurement in financial reporting: The need for concepts. Accounting Horizons, 28(2), 331–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth, M. E. (2007). Standard-setting measurement issues and the relevance of research. Accounting and Business Research, 37(3), 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, M. E. (2006). Including estimates of the future in today’s financial statements. Accounting Horizons, 20(3), 271–285.
   Google Scholar
• Boland, R. J. (1989). Beyond the objectivist and subjectivist: learning to read accounting as text. Accounting Organizations and Society, 14(5/6), 591–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botosan, C. A., Koonce, L., Ryan, S. G., Stone, M. S., & Wahlen, J. M. (2005). Accounting for liabilities: Conceptual issues, standard setting, and evidence from academic research. Accounting Horizons, 19(3), 159–186.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, M. E. (2003) Implications for the conceptual framework arising from accounting for financial instruments. ABACUS, 39(3), 388–397.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, A., Hoogendoorn, M., & Naarding, E. (2015). Will the changes proposed to the conceptual framework’s definition and recognition criteria provide a better basis for IASB standard-setting? Accounting and Business Research, 45(5), 547–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullen, H. G., & Crook, K. (May 2005) Revisiting the concepts: A new conceptual framework project. Retrieved from http://www.fasb.org/project/communications_paper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chynoweth, P. (2008). Legal research. In Knight, A., & Ruddock, L. (Eds.), Advance research methods in the built environment (pp. 28–38). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, S. (2007). Discussion of ‘Standard-setting measurement issues and the relevance of research’. Accounting and Business Research, 37(3), 17–18.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, S. P. L., van Arensbergen, P., Daemen, F., van der Meulen, B., & van den Besselaar, P. (2011). Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases. Research Evaluation, 20(1), 61–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogarty, T. J. (2014). A dream deferred: interdisciplinary accounting in the US. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1265–1270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaffikin, M. J. R. 2008. Accounting Theory: Research, regulation and accounting practice. Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Gebhardt, G., Mora, A., & Wagenhofer, A. (2014). Revisiting the fundamental concepts of IFRS. ABACUS, 50(1), 107–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson, T. C., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119.
   Google Scholar
• Inanga, E. L., & Schneider, W. B. (2005). The failure of accounting research to improve practice: A problem of theory and lack of communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16, 227–248.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2018a). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2018b). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: Basis of Conclusions. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2017a). IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2017b). IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts: Basic of Conclusion. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2015a). Exposure Draft ED/2015/3 Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2015b). Basis of Conclusions Exposure Draft ED/2015/3 Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2013). Discussion Paper DP/2013/1 A Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2010a). The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2010b). IASB Staff Paper 7 April 2010: Recognising liabilities arising from lawsuits. Retrieved from http://www.ifrs.org/Current-Projects/IASB-Projects/Liabilities/archive/Documents/Recognisingliabilitiesinlawsuits_2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2005). Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IAS 37 Employee Benefits. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2001). IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. London: IASB.
   Google Scholar
• Lys, T. (1996). Abandoning the transaction-based accounting model: Weighing the evidence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, 155–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, W., & Street, L. S. (2007). IASB and FASB face challenges in pursuit of joint conceptual framework. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 18(1), 39–51.
   Google Scholar
• McKerchar, M. (2008). Philosophical paradigms, inquiry strategies and knowledge claims: Applying the principles of research design and conduct to taxation. eJournal of Tax Research, 6(1), 5–22.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, J. (2014). An accounting revolution? The financialisation of standards. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 539–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (2010). What are the essential features of a liability? Accounting Horizons, 24(4), 623–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penman, S. H. (2007). Financial reporting quality: is fair value a plus or a minus? Accounting and Business Research, 37(3), 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, A. (2002). The contest over meaning: hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology of understanding texts. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 12–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees, H. (2006). The IASB’s proposed amendments to IAS 37. Accounting in Europe, 3(1), 27–34.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, M. (2013). Equity and liabilities – A discussion of IAS 32 and a critique of the classification. Accounting in Europe, 10(2), 201–222.
   Google Scholar
• Van Aardt van der Spuy, P. (2015). Non-recognition of internally generated brands: Implications for the usefulness of financial statements. Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences, 8(3), 808–822.
   Google Scholar
• Van Hoecke, M. (2011). Legal doctrine: Which method(s) for what kind of discipline? In M. van Hoecke, (Ed.), Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? (pp. 1–18). Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, P. (2006). A research note: Fair value and executory contacts: Moving the boundaries in international financial reporting. Accounting and Business Research, 36(4), 337–343.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, J. C. (2011). Framework-based approach to teaching principle-based accounting standards. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 20(4), 303–316.
   Google Scholar