convergence to ifrs: the canadian experience

29

© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).DOI 10.1002/jcaf.21796

featu

reartic

le

Kaitlyn Pfeffer, Anne Jacobs, Cari DeLong, and Roger Y. W. Tang

INTRODUCTION

Adopting Inter-national Accounting Standards will impact Canadian investors and businesses, and change the way financial information is reported in Canada. Beginning in January 2006, the Canadian Account-ing Standards Board (AcSB) announced its decision to replace Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with Interna-tional Financial Reporting Stan-dards (IFRS) for public com-panies. The AcSB announced to the affected companies a 5-year transition period ending on January 1, 2011. This article discusses the background of Canada, including economic fac-tors, the accounting profession, and standard-setting agencies. We also discuss the main reasons for implementing IFRS and the timetable for conversion. We distinguish the key differences between the original Canadian GAAP and IFRS and the reasons

behind Canada’s convergence to IFRS and not U.S. GAAP. In conclusion, we discuss the les-sons learned by Canada, along with those that can be used by the United States to improve potential future convergence to IFRS.

UNDERSTANDING CANADA

A land of immense differ-ences and rich natural resources, Canada consists of 10 provinces and 3 territories. Canada covers 9.9 million square kilometers and is the second-largest country

by land area. The official languages include English and French. The total population consists of around 34 million people.

The country was first settled by French explorers and fur traders. Canada was colonized by both France and Britain, eventually coming fully under Britain’s rule. This led to Canada’s

inheriting their common law system. However, Quebec still retains a civil law system under the French. Both legal systems are subject to the constitution of Canada, which is the supreme law. The constitution outlines Canada’s system of government, as well as the civil rights of all Canadian citizens.

It is important to note that Canada shares a common border with the United States, which greatly influences both econo-mies. According to the U.S. Cen-sus Bureau, in 2011, Canada’s two-way trade of goods with the

Beginning in January 2006, the Canadian Account-ing Standards Board (AcSB) announced its deci-sion to replace Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for public companies. That decision impacted Canadian investors and businesses and changed the way financial information is reported in Canada. So how have things gone since the decision was made? What has Canada learned? And what can the United States learn from the Canadian experi-ence? The authors have found some answers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Convergence to IFRS: The Canadian

Experience

JCAF21796.indd 29JCAF21796.indd 29 8/14/12 10:45:31 PM8/14/12 10:45:31 PM

30 The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance / September/October 2012

DOI 10.1002/jcaf © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

the Toronto Stock Exchange than any other exchange in the world.

Canada’s Accounting Profession and Standard-Setting Agencies

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) accounting handbook is the primary source of GAAP in Canada. Accounting standards for all entities outside the public sector are issued by the Account-ing Standards Board. The three officially recognized accounting designations are Certified Gen-eral Accountants (CGAs), Certi-fied Management Accountants (CMAs), and Chartered Accoun-tants (CAs).

The CICA is the oldest estab-lished accounting organization and its members enjoy practicing rights throughout the whole coun-try and Bermuda. Members of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA Canada) can train both in pub-lic practice and in industry and commerce. However, they do not enjoy nationwide practicing rights and their recognition is restricted to western provinces such as Brit-ish Columbia and Alberta. The Certified Management Accoun-tants of Canada (CMA Canada) is the recognized management accounting body in Canada.

On January 17, 2012, the CICA, the CMA Canada and the CGA Canada presented members with a framework to unify the Canadian accounting profession. This framework includes details of a transition to a new common designation—Chartered Profes-sional Accountant (CPA)—and the development of a new CPA Certification Program. The main purpose is to unite the three Canadian accounting organiza-tions so that the organizations and their members will be able

The United States is Can-ada’s largest trading partner, making up 73% of the country’s exports and 63% of the country’s imports. Canada’s primary export is petroleum products, and their primary import is vehicle parts and accessories. Canada experi-ences strong regionalism due to the country’s strong dependence on natural resources found in each of the different provinces’ diverse economies by region. Canada is the United States’ larg-est foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power. Given its great natural resources, skilled labor force, and modern capital plant, Canada enjoyed solid economic growth from 1993 through 2007. The global financial crisis of 2008 caused a major recession in Canada, which led to ris-ing unemployment. In 2009, Canada’s major banks emerged from the financial crisis among the strongest in the world due to the financial sector’s tradition of conservative lending practices and strong capitalization. During 2011, the economy grew at a rate of 2.8% because of decreased global demand and a highly val-ued Canadian dollar.

The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) is the largest stock exchange in Canada, the third largest in North America and the seventh largest in the world by market capitalization. As of February 29, 2012, the Toronto Stock Exchange had 1,589 listed companies (issuers) with a combined market capitaliza-tion of about $2.1 trillion. A broad range of businesses from Canada, the United States, Europe, and other countries are represented on the exchange. The Toronto Stock Exchange is the leader in the mining and oil and gas sector; more mining and oil and gas companies are listed on

United States was about $600 billion, with Canada enjoying a $35 billion surplus.

The main purpose of this article is to discuss the reasons for implementing IFRS in Canada and the timetable for conversion. We distinguish the key dif-ferences between the original Canadian GAAP and IFRS, and the reasons behind Canada’s con-vergence to IFRS and not U.S. GAAP. In conclusion, we discuss the lessons learned by Canada, along with those that can be used by the United States to improve potential future convergence to IFRS. In the next section, we will discuss some recent developments in the Canadian economy.

Canada’s Economy

Canada is a prosperous, highly technological, industrial society. Canada is similar to the United States in its market-ori-ented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards. The largest foreign importers of Canadian goods are the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The total gross domestic product (GDP) based on official exchange rate was about 1.7 trillion in 2011. Some of their top industries include service, manufacturing, energy, and agriculture.

After World War II, the impressive growth of the manu-facturing, mining, and service sectors in Canada has trans-formed the nation from a largely rural economy into a primarily industrial and urban economy. The 1989 U.S.–Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) spawned a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the United States.


The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance / September/October 2012 31

© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI 10.1002/jcaf

to provide high-quality finan-cial and management account-ing services, while serving and protecting the public interest by establishing consistent codes of professional conduct, disci-plinary systems, and licensing regimes. In the province of Que-bec, the provincial government introduced legislation on March 28, 2012, to merge the designa-tions of CA, CMA, and CGA into the Chartered Professional Accountant designation. Other provincial bodies, boards, and councils of the three accounting bodies have engaged members and stakeholders in discussing the framework. If the unifica-tion framework is approved and implemented by all provinces, all members using the new CPA designation would be required to use it in conjunction with their existing designation (CA, CMA, or CGA) for a period of 10 years. After that, a member could choose to use the CPA designa-tion on its own. If the merger is successful, the operations of the participating bodies would be combined at the provincial and national levels. This is a very important proposal that may change the Canadian accounting profession in the long run.

In Canada, financial report-ing standards are established by two accounting standards boards:

1. The Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) is an indepen-dent body with the author-ity to develop and establish accounting standards for use by all Canadian entities out-side the public sector. In other words, AcSB is responsible for establishing standards of accounting and reporting by Canadian companies and not-for-profit organizations.

2. The Public Sector Account-ing Board (PSAB) has the

authority to set accounting standards for the public sector.

The activities of both the AcSB and PSAB are overseen by the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (AcSOC). The AcSOC was established by the CICA in 2000 to serve the public interest by overseeing and providing input to the activities of AcSB. Beginning in 2003, AcSOC also oversees and pro-vides input to the activities of the PSAB.

The generally accepted auditing standards for financial statement audits in Canada are set by the Auditing and Assur-ance Standards Board (AASB). These auditing standards have to take into account federal and provincial Business Corpora-tions Acts and other legislation and securities regulations. The activities of AASB are overseen by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council (AASOC).

Why IFRS and Why Now

Many businesses and indi-viduals choose to make decisions in a global context. The ulti-mate goal of IFRS is to improve financial reporting internation-ally by formulating a single set of high-quality, consistent, and comparable reporting stan-dards. Over the past few years, over 115 countries, including the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand have adopted IFRS. In the current global econ-omy, the need for clear, relevant, reliable, and consistent reporting standards is vital for improved investor and business decisions.

According to AcSB, convert-ing to IFRS will help Canadian public companies become more competitive within global capital markets. IFRS is becoming the

global language of accounting. Long term, this transition was necessary in order for Canada to achieve the most useful and cost-effective financial report-ing system. In the past, there has been strong support from Cana-dian stakeholders and investors to convert to IFRS in order to compete in global markets. For two years, from 2004 through 2005, the AcSB went through a thorough process before it decided to change over to IFRS. It gave stakeholders sufficient time to prepare for the transition. This was more time than some European countries and Australia gave their stakeholders, even though the differences between IFRS and their country’s report-ing standards were greater.

In January 2006, the Cana-dian Accounting Standards Board announced its intent to replace Canadian GAAP with IFRS for all publicly account-able entities. This began a 5-year transition period for Canada. In 2008, the AcSB confirmed the 2011 changeover date, and has since incorporated IFRS into the CICA Handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accoun-tants. On October 1, 2010, the Canadian Securities Adminis-trators (CSA) published IFRS-related materials about Canada’s upcoming transition in 2011.

For companies with a year-end of December 31, 2011, the initial reporting period under IFRS was the first quarter end-ing March 31, 2011. Before the changeover, the CSA published National Instrument 52-107, Acceptable Accounting Prin-ciples and Auditing Standards, plus IFRS-related amendments to policies including continuous disclosure, prospectus, certifica-tion, and registration require-ments. These changes reflect the new requirements for domestic




The PAEs are required to start collecting IFRS data in 2010 to build the 2010 comparable financial statements (including an opening IFRS balance sheet for January 1, 2010). The official changeover date was effective January 1, 2011, for all publicly accountable enterprises. IFRS compliant statements had to be prepared for Quarter 1, 2011, including comparatives for 2010.

The first reporting issu-ers required to convert their financial statements to IFRS were those with financial years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. A calendar-year company with a year-end of December 31, 2011, would report under IFRS the first quarter, ending March 31, 2011. Issuers had to fully research and plan for the impact of converting to IFRS during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. This includes developing a detailed conversion plan; implementing IFRS training for employees, management, board, and audit committee members; reviewing, analyzing, and making account-ing policy choices; and imple-menting decisions in financial reporting systems. These steps were critical for the required compilation of fiscal 2010 IFRS comparative information.

For entities with qualify-ing rate-regulated activities, the AcSB decided at its March 20–21, 2012, meeting to extend the deferral of the mandatory IFRS changeover date by one more year, from 2012 to 2013. Such entities can now defer their changeover to IFRS to January 1, 2013.

For investment companies and segregated accounts of life insurance enterprises, the ACSB agreed to extend the option to defer their changeover to January 1, 2014, because of the timing of the related IASB project.

In 2012, the restructured CICA Handbook includes the Preface to the CICA Handbook and five parts:

1. International Financial Reporting Standards

2. Accounting Standards for Pri-vate Enterprises

3. Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations

4. Accounting Standards for Pension Plans

5. Pre-changeover accounting standards containing a com-plete set of the archived CICA Handbook—Accounting

CANADA’S TIMELINE FOR CHANGE

The AcSB adopted IFRS as Canadian GAAP for most publicly accountable enterprises (PAEs) for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. The only exception was accounting for pension plans. When PAEs adopted IFRS, the standards applicable to pension plans were based on the new account-ing standards for pension plans issued by the AcSB rather than IAS 26, Accounting and Report-ing by Retirement Benefit Plans. The new section on pension plans is now in Part IV of the CICA Handbook.

Most PAEs had to disclose their plans, by the end of fiscal 2008, for convergence and what anticipated effects will arise with the change to IFRS, on its financial statements. The PAEs were also required to disclose a more detailed convergence plan, including quantification of anticipated effects, by end of fiscal 2009, effectively marking the beginning of transition date to IFRS. Financial statements are to be prepared under current and local GAAP.

reporting issuers and registrants when preparing filings in com-pliance with IFRS for Canadian securities regulators.

THE CANADIAN ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD’S IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

As of January 1, 2011, most of Canada’s 4,500 pub-licly accountable enterprises were required to prepare their financial statements according to IFRS. The AcSB developed separate strategies for each of the three major categories of report-ing entities in Canada: publicly accountable enterprises, private enterprises, and not-for-profit organizations. In its 2011–2014 strategic plan, AcSB stated that “Each category will continue to have its own set of financial reporting standards that best suits the needs of the users of financial statements of entities in that category, having due regard to the benefits and cost of the standards.” For publicly account-able entities, the AcSB will sup-port the application in Canada of IFRS issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

For profit-oriented private entities, they have two choices: Canadian GAAP for Private Enterprises or the IFRS. The AcSB will maintain the new set of standards for this sector and work with the Private Enterprise Advisory Committee to improve the original version of the accounting standards for private enterprises to address evolving financial reporting needs.

For not-for-profit organiza-tions, the AcSB will maintain a separate set of standards for transactions and circumstances unique to this sector. Not-for-profit entities will also have the option of adopting the IFRS.

JCAF21796.indd Sec1:32JCAF21796.indd Sec1:32 8/14/12 10:45:31 PM8/14/12 10:45:31 PM



ciation and any accumulated impairment losses, which Cana-dian GAAP does not allow. This revaluation or fair value method is also a choice when accounting for investment property under IFRS.

In the case of intangible assets, Section 3064 of the origi-nal Canadian GAAP requires that indefinite assets be mea-sured using a cost model and generally will not allow the use of a revaluation model. IAS 38, however, allows the use of both the cost model and the revalu-ation model. Under IFRS, the revalued amount is the intangible assets at fair value at the date of the revaluation, less any subse-quent accumulated amortization and or any subsequent accumu-lated impairment losses (BDO Canada, 2011).

A major difference between the two sets of standards is the lack of a pre-changeover Cana-dian equivalent for IFRS 1, First-Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. IFRS 1 provides special one-time options for enterprises convert-ing to IFRS from their national GAAP. Because of this, oil and gas companies and rate-regulated companies in Canada are signifi-cantly affected by the change to IFRS.

WHY CONVERGE WITH IFRS AND NOT U.S. GAAP

According to CICA, Canada decided to converge with IFRS instead of their previously planned convergence with U.S. GAAP in order to allow Cana-dian companies more oppor-tunities in the global markets, eliminate the need for multiple reconciliations, and reduce the cost of capital. Since Canada currently comprises less than 4% of the global capital markets,

Under the original Canadian GAAP, a one-step approach is allowed, only there is an intangi-ble asset with an indefinite life.

Another difference is evi-dent when looking at the topic of impairment losses. Under Canadian GAAP, an impairment loss is determined as the excess of the carrying amount over the fair value while IFRS defines an impairment loss as the excess of the carrying amount over the recoverable amount. A related difference arises due to Canadian GAAP’s requirement that impair-ment testing be performed on an asset group or at a reporting unit level. Under IFRS this test is performed at an individual asset level or at the lowest cash-generating unit. The last differ-ence is centered on the reversal of impairment losses. Canadian GAAP prohibits any reversal of these losses, while IFRS requires a reversal when there has been a change in estimates used to deter-mine the recoverable amount.

Another notable area of difference between IFRS and Canadian GAAP involves the requirements for the revaluation of property, plant and equipment; investment property; and intan-gible assets. For property, plant and equipment, Canadian GAAP uses the historical cost method and does not usually allow for any revaluation, while IAS 16 of IFRS requires an entity to make a policy choice in relation to each class of asset and allows the use of the historical cost method of the revaluation or fair value method.

The historical cost methods under each standard are similar. However, the revaluation method under IFRS requires that an item of property, plant and equipment be carried at the fair value at the date of revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depre-

For government business enterprises (GBEs), the PSAB required them to adopt IFRS for fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2011. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada also required all federally regulated entities (FREs) to implement IFRS for their fiscal year commencing in 2011.

Private-sector not-for-profit organizations could choose to adopt IFRS or Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations for fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2012.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRE-CHANGEOVER CANADIAN GAAP AND IFRS

There are many similarities between the pre-changeover GAAP and IFRS. For example, the two sets of standards are based on similar conceptual frameworks. Some standards are substantially the same. These included inventories, segmented reporting and accounting changes.

There are also many differ-ences between the two, the CICA feels that the three that have the most significance deal with asset impairment, securitization, and revaluations. These differences illustrate some of the barriers that lie between the convergence of Canadian GAAP to IFRS.

According to BDO’s Cana-dian GAAP—IFRS Comparison Series Issue 2, when dealing with asset impairment there are four main areas where require-ment differences occur between Canadian GAAP and IFRS.1 The first difference is that Canadian GAAP generally uses a two-step testing approach while IFRS only uses a one-step approach.




Overall, there were only a few studies related to the effects of the transition for Canadian public companies to IFRS. This is likely due to the recent nature of the transition. There have been speculations that the benefits have outweighed the drawbacks of convergence. It is certain the transition has opened up oppor-tunities for public companies to gain access to the global market and improved investor’s ability to compare financial statements and make more informed deci-sions. However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty related to the impacts of convergence to IFRS.

WHAT THE UNITED STATES CAN LEARN FROM THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

A survey of nine Canadian public companies and their audited financial statements (Blanchette, Racicot, & Girard, 2011) compared financial ratios computed under IFRS and pre-changeover Canadian GAAP. This survey revealed that most of the financial ratios under IFRS present a significantly higher volatility than those computed under pre-changeover Canadian GAAP. There was no statisti-cally significant difference in the means and medians of ratios; however, the maximum values of several ratios were higher and the minimum values were lower under IFRS. There was signifi-cant difference in the distribu-tion of values around medians for such ratios as current and quick ratios, debt, alternative-debt and equity ratios, interest coverage, fixed charge and cash flow coverage, return on assets, comprehensive return on assets, and price–earnings-related ratios. Results of regression analysis confirm the increased volatility

Canadian public companies with calendar year-ends have filed several quarter reports in accor-dance with IFRS. Companies with non–calendar year-ends had to convert by January 1, 2012.

In April 2011, Pricewater-houseCoopers conducted an extensive survey of 266 Canadian public companies in order to judge the readiness and biggest challenges of convergence to these companies. Results of this survey concluded that not only have Canadian public companies had to transition to IFRS, they will now have to stay current with changes to IFRS standards. In 2007, IASB and FASB began their convergence project, with the goal of improving financial reporting. Many of these changes will occur in 2013 and 2014. One of the biggest challenges reported by Canadian companies is keep-ing up-to-date with these chang-ing standards of IFRS. Accord-ing to this survey, the greatest impacts to the accounting meth-ods of these companies were in the categories of lease account-ing (operating leases), financial instruments, and revenue recogni-tion, in order of importance.

Because the AcSB under-went a thorough review process prior to the transition, they were able to study and learn from the convergence process of other countries. It also gave them time to consult and incorporate the concerns of Canadian stakehold-ers into the convergence process. They then decided on a 5-year transition period for public companies that would happen in phases. The deliberately long 5-year process for convergence coupled with the extension of options to defer the changeover for entities with rate-regulated activities and investment com-panies proved to provide a smoother transition.

their decision to convert to IFRS will provide better access to international capital, funding, and investment opportunities. Using IFRS will be more cost effective for Canadian companies by eliminating the need to main-tain a separate and isolated set of Canadian accounting standards.

In addition to the need to compete in the global market, Canada still needs to stay com-petitive in the U.S. market. Sur-prisingly, the U.S. position on the adoption of IFRS was never a factor in the AcSB’s decision to adopt IFRS for Canada. Prior to their decision, the AcSB con-sulted with Canadian accountants regarding the planned strategy and found that the majority of Cana-dian public companies were not in favor of adopting U.S. GAAP. Converting to U.S. GAAP would have required more resources and effort since U.S. GAAP is much more detailed and extensive. Fur-thermore, Canadian companies were more interested in gaining access to global markets.

In 2007, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission made it easier for Canadian companies by eliminating the requirement for companies using IFRS to convert their financial statements into U.S. GAAP. This allows Canadian companies already using IFRS to save money by not having to reconcile to U.S. GAAP and still allows them to compete in U.S. markets. In case companies would still choose to convert to U.S. GAAP, Canada allows public companies with a significant market in the United States to convert their financial statements to U.S. GAAP.

WHAT CANADA HAS LEARNED

Over 5 years in the mak-ing, the changeover to IFRS in Canada is in full swing.




devote sufficient resources to educate the investor community.

An important component for U.S. companies to take from the lessons learned by Canadian companies deals with the greatest risks encountered during the con-version process. U.S. companies should be careful to take special consideration and allocate more resources to these areas of risk. According to the CICA, Cana-dian companies reported that their most significant risk issues during convergence included ineffective project plans, limited or lack of audit committees, senior management involvement and support, limited resources with accounting knowledge, underestimating the impact on people and technology, delays, and significant rework because external auditors are not fully engaged in the convergence.

NOTE

1. Twenty-one part series of publications that provides detailed information on the key differences between IFRS and Cana-dian GAAP.

REFERENCES

BDO Canada. (2011). IFRS—Canadian GAAP differences series. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.bdo.ca/library/publications/ifrs/IFRS-CanadianGAAP.cfm

Blanchette M., Racicot, F. E., & Girard, J. Y. (2011). The effects of IFRS on financial ratios: Early evidence in Canada. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from http://www.cga-canada.org/en-ca/ResearchReports/ca_rep_2011-03_IFRS_early_adopters.pdf

Overwhelmingly, Canadian companies reported that start-ing the transition early in the process was the most important factor in a successful adoption of IFRS. There is inevitable stress and risk of error when a new financial reporting process is put in place under a time of pres-sure. To realize the full benefits of IFRS, organizations need to plan early and ensure that IFRS is considered when undertaking other projects or changes related to systems, debt covenants, contracts, forecasts, and per-formance measures before the changeover date. As part of this plan, companies should perform a diagnostic analysis to identify key GAAP differences, analyze the potential impact of adopting IFRS, and identify the resources needed.

Canadian companies have also reported the importance of educating investors on the changes occurring from the transition to IFRS. According to the Canadian Investor Relations Institute (CIRI), 50% of respond-ing investor relations profes-sionals reported “the investment community is not prepared for the use of IFRS” and only 8% believed “investors are well edu-cated” on IFRS and how to inter-pret financial statements going forward. Tom Enright, CEO of CIRI, stated that “what really jumps out is the important edu-cation role that investor relations professionals play in this transi-tion.” U.S. companies should

of IFRS leverage and profit-ability ratios. The exact source of this increased volatility is unknown. Also revealed was that IFRS does not materially change the cash flow statement when compared to pre-changeover Canadian GAAP; however, there may be some differences in pre-sentation specifically for interest and dividends. The results of this study have been corroborated by other studies done on the conver-gence in Finland. These changes to financial ratios after the con-vergence to IFRS are important for the United States to note, since financial ratios are com-monly used by investors, bank-ers, and governments to assess companies.

The AcSB decided on a 5-year transition period for pub-lic companies that would happen in phases. This slow and delib-erate process led to a smoother transition for Canadian compa-nies to IFRS. The United States may want to incorporate a simi-lar slow and deliberate process for U.S. convergence.

An interesting feature of the Canadian conversion, and notable for the United States, is the policy to allow private enter-prises and not-for-profit orga-nizations to adopt either IFRS or the newly revised Canadian GAAP for each of the two sec-tors. In addition, public compa-nies with a significant market in the United States are allowed to convert their financial statements to U.S. GAAP.




Kaitlyn Pfeffer graduated from Western Michigan University in 2011 with a BA in accounting. Currently she is a master of science in accountancy student at Western Michigan University. She has completed two tax internships with Deloitte Tax LLP, along with 3 years of accounting experience working at Pfeffer, Hanniford & Palka. Anne Jacobs is an MBA student at Western Michigan University (WMU). She will join the Dow Chemical Company in September in their finance department at their Texas operations site. Prior to joining WMU’s graduate program, Ms. Jacobs graduated with a BA in accounting from WMU and held internships at the Rehmann Group as well as with the Dow Chemical Company. Cari DeLong, MS, serves as the natural areas manager at Western Michigan University. Cari received her bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan University (WMU) Lee Honors College and received her master of science in accoun-tancy in August 2012 from WMU Haworth College of Business. Roger Y. W. Tang, PhD, is a professor of accounting and Upjohn Chair of Business Administration at Western Michigan University. He is also serv-ing as a visiting research professor at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. He has written many papers and books in the areas of transfer pricing, mergers and acquisitions, and accounting systems in developing countries.


convergence to ifrs: the canadian experience

Documents