This paper examines the debate surrounding the potential convergence of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the United States. It outlines the core differences between the two frameworks — including statement presentation, inventory valuation, asset revaluation, and the degree of industry-specific guidance — and surveys professional and academic opinion on how a switch to IFRS would affect U.S. companies. The paper draws on multiple studies to assess the likely economic, legal, and operational impacts of convergence, ultimately concluding that while results will vary by industry and company size, the overall effect on the U.S. economy is expected to be positive.
The paper demonstrates source synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, it weaves together findings from McLaughlin, Epstein, Jermakowicz, Beuren et al., and Liu to build a cumulative picture of the convergence debate. This technique shows readers how multiple studies collectively inform — and sometimes contradict — each other.
The paper opens with definitions of GAAP and IFRS and the rationale for convergence, then moves into a "Viewpoints" section that surveys professional and academic opinion source by source. A conclusion synthesizes the findings and notes remaining uncertainties. The structure is straightforward and appropriate for an undergraduate accounting survey paper, prioritizing breadth of coverage over deep analysis of any single issue.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) refers to the set of guidelines and the resulting framework used to standardize accounting practices in the United States. The purpose of GAAP is to ensure that third parties who wish to view the financial information of a business entity can understand it in a manner that is free from bias or inconsistencies (Colson, 2005). These principles developed out of tradition that became codified over the years and have governed accounting practices in the United States ever since.
While GAAP is the standard in the United States, other countries have their own sets of standards, which may be similar to or quite different from GAAP (Wells, 2010). Globalization has created the need for a set of international standards that would allow the same degree of consistency and lack of bias that GAAP has provided domestically. In 1989, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) were developed to fulfill this role (West, 2008). Rather than maintain two separate sets of reporting standards, the United States has considered adopting IFRS to replace GAAP. This would allow accountants to comply with only one set of reporting rules, eliminating redundancy. The proposal has generated considerable controversy in the financial community. The following sections summarize the most recent research and professional opinion regarding the transition from GAAP to IFRS.
The controversy surrounding the switch from GAAP to IFRS has produced a wide range of viewpoints from professionals across the business community. The most significant controversies center on the effect this switch would have on operational management. International standards are currently the norm for most nations other than the United States, and a change from GAAP to IFRS would mean not only changes in reporting, but also changes affecting operations from the supply chain to the distribution chain. The full scope of these effects remains a subject of debate.
McLaughlin (2009) summarizes the major changes that accountants and companies would need to adjust to as the standards are adopted. One of the first and most prominent changes is the statement presentation format. The new format includes a statement of financial position that summarizes comprehensive income and cash flows. These items are divided into business, discontinued operations, financing, income taxes, and equity. According to McLaughlin, the business section of each statement is further divided into operating and investing sections, which are in turn subdivided into assets, liabilities, income, and cash flow. This format provides a much more detailed report than GAAP practices required.
Beyond these functional changes, the philosophical basis of the statements differs as well. Managers would have greater discretion under IFRS regarding where to place certain elements of their operations (McLaughlin, 2009). Although the statements are more detailed, there are fewer rules under IFRS than under GAAP. McLaughlin also found that IFRS contains fewer industry-specific guidelines than GAAP, which has broad implications for how financial data is interpreted across different sectors.
Opinions regarding the effect that IFRS would have on businesses vary considerably depending on the industry and the size of the company involved. An examination of available sources reveals that views on the financial impact of IFRS/GAAP convergence are closely tied to the specific effects it would have on a given business.
A prominent example is the disallowance of Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting for inventory under IFRS. This change eliminates the large deferred tax liabilities created by LIFO usage. For instance, United Technologies estimated that the inability to use LIFO accounting would result in a $4 billion tax liability in the first year alone (McLaughlin, 2009), which could significantly affect business operations.
Another key issue is that IFRS allows the revaluation of fixed assets, rather than requiring the historical cost approach used under GAAP. McLaughlin highlights many other operational changes as well, including how the valuation of properties such as rented buildings and equipment would change. In many cases, using a different accounting method produces materially different results. According to McLaughlin's study, companies reporting under IFRS recorded earnings that were 6–8% higher than they would have been under GAAP — translating into greater tax liability for many organizations.
Epstein (2009) explored key issues surrounding IFRS adoption and concluded that the overall economic effects would be positive. He found that reporting quality could be expected to improve, thereby increasing public trust in corporate institutions. He also found that while GAAP contains a larger set of complex formal rules, IFRS provides investors with more reliable and consistent reporting results. Because IFRS does not include industry-specific standards, anyone can interpret the results of a financial statement without specialized industry knowledge. Epstein further found that adoption of IFRS would result in lower costs of capital for many organizations — an effect that, combined with the higher reported earnings identified by McLaughlin, translates into significantly higher tax liability for many companies.
Jermakowicz and Epstein (2008) found that one of the most significant changes would be the increased reliance on preparer and auditor judgment. They also point out that IFRS would result in greater transparency and reduce the ability to conceal financial dealings — an important consideration for maintaining public trust, which has been a central concern for American investors in recent years. This research suggests that adoption of IFRS would increase investor confidence.
The move to IFRS is being fueled by global pressure to adopt a single standard. At present, approximately 100 countries use IFRS and only two remain on U.S. GAAP (Epstein & Jermakowicz, 2008). For U.S. accountants and other financial professionals, this change represents a significant departure from familiar practices. Accountants will need to not only modify the forms they use and their reporting formats, but also adopt a different accounting philosophy. These changes are substantial and have been met with considerable resistance within the accounting community, as accountants stand at the forefront of implementation and face the greatest adjustments.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.