本文選題：租賃準(zhǔn)則 + 擔(dān)保余值　； 參考：《財(cái)會(huì)月刊》2017年13期

【摘要】：目前我國租賃準(zhǔn)則中有關(guān)擔(dān)保余值會(huì)計(jì)處理的規(guī)范存在以下局限性:混淆了承租人對(duì)資產(chǎn)余值的擔(dān)保以及為擔(dān)保資產(chǎn)余值需要承擔(dān)的支付義務(wù)兩個(gè)不同的概念;將擔(dān)保余值計(jì)入最低租賃付款額和最低租賃收款額有悖金融負(fù)債和金融資產(chǎn)的定義;租賃付款補(bǔ)償不足。參照最新國際租賃準(zhǔn)則的表述,有必要明確資產(chǎn)余值擔(dān)保和預(yù)期支付的擔(dān)保義務(wù)等概念,以替代擔(dān)保余值和未擔(dān)保余值的概念,并建立新的涉及資產(chǎn)余值擔(dān)保的會(huì)計(jì)處理程序。
[Abstract]:At present, there are the following limitations in the accounting treatment of guarantee residual value in the leasing standards of our country: it confuses two different concepts: the lessee's guarantee to the residual value of assets and the obligation to pay for the residual value of the encumbered asset; The inclusion of the residual value of the guarantee in the minimum lease payment and the minimum lease collection is contrary to the definition of financial liabilities and financial assets; lease payments are not adequately compensated. According to the latest international leasing standards, it is necessary to clarify the concepts of the residual value guarantee of assets and the security obligation expected to be paid in order to replace the concepts of the secured residual value and the unsecured residual value, and to establish a new accounting process involving the guarantee of the residual value of the asset.
【作者單位】： 陜西鐵路發(fā)展基金管理有限公司;
【分類號(hào)】：F832.49;F830.42

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 證券時(shí)報(bào)記者 羅克關(guān)　見習(xí)記者 蔡愷;450萬余值惹是非 渣打理財(cái)巨虧案余波未了[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2012年

2 證券時(shí)報(bào)記者 羅克關(guān)　見習(xí)記者 蔡愷;宋文洲：我不怕再走一次法律程序[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2012年

3 通訊員 鄭艷卿;松陽農(nóng)民抵押余值能“變現(xiàn)”[N];麗水日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1845391