An Examination of Financial Statements User's Agreement about Current Differences between Iranian Financial Accounting Standards and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs)

Many countries accepted international financial reporting standards. The degree of acceptance differs from complete acceptance to some acceptance of standards, or for some of companies. Convergence of accounting standards is a world-wide issue. Iranian accounting standard is based mainly to IFRSs, with some differences. This study investigates the opinion of three financial statements users (financial managers, auditors, and professional investors) about the current differences of Iranian and international financial accounting standards. We limit the range of study to 16 main differences highlighted in the last paragraph of Iranian accounting standard. However, there are a lot of differences in the details of the two sets of standards that are largely related to the limitation of methods in Iranian accounting standards. For example, the LIFO is not accepted for inventory valuation. Research hypotheses We developed the following hypotheses: H1: Financial managers of listed companies have agreed with the differences of local accounting standards and IFRSs. H1: Certified public accountants (Auditors) have agreed with the differences of local accounting standards and IFRSs. H1: Professional investors have agreed with the differences of local accounting standards and IFRSs. Each of the above mentioned hypotheses tested for 16 main differences of Iranian accounting standards with IFRSs. This study is a survey research. The population consists of 20 top financial managers of listed companies in Tehran Securities and Exchange Commission, 86 Iranian certified public accountants, and 40 professional investors. The investment managers of investing companies, and their representatives, are used as a proxy for professional investors. For testing the hypotheses, we used the Binomial test, in each 16 subjects of survey, as well as in each three groups. The results show that all groups agree with the three treatments prescribed by the national accounting standards, but in 13 others there is at least one disagreeing group that in financial managers group, Iranian certified accountants (Auditors) group, and professional investors group 4,9 and 2 treatments are important, respectively. The result also indicated that financial managers are almost pleased with the current differences. But professional investors have opposed opinions, and almost are disagree with the differences. The Iranian certified accountants have a moderated opinion, but their disagreements are larger than their agreements. Conclusion and The results showed that, in the opinion of the users, due process was not effective. Therefore, it is proposed that the board consider more efficient mechanisms for due process to expand participation of interested groups. [Also, it is recommended that had priority to the IFRS, if the due processes, for an exposure draft, show neutral opinions.]?