Economic substance and legal form: Modern approaches to contradictions’ analysis
https://doi.org/10.26794/2408-9303-2022-9-4-75-86
Abstract
Economic substance and legal form are important factors that determine the nature of the information reflected in the reporting. The specialists apply the principle of “substance over form” in each of the information systems in its own way for financial and tax accounting. This makes it possible to fully satisfy users in terms of the data necessary both for making economic decisions and for conducting fiscal procedures. The objects of the study are the financial and tax areas, as well as their respective approaches to the analysis of contradictions between substance and form. The author presents key aspects that reflect the modern views of the scientific community, as well as describes the controversial issues regarding the application of this principality. The conclusions of many experts allow us to assert that there are still disagreements on this subject. They determine the relevance of studying the concepts that explain the interaction of substance and form in both financial and tax accounting. The results of the work are intended for specialists in the field of accounting, auditing and tax law.
About the Author
A. A . Aksent’ev
Kuban State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrei A. Aksent’ev — master’s student, accountant LLC “Perspektiva”
Krasnodar
References
1. Cohen J., Krishnamoorthy G., Wright A. Form vs. Substance: The implications for auditing practice and research of alternative perspectives on corporate governance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 2008;27(2).
2. Friedman H. H., Kass-Shraibman F. ‘Substance Over Form’: Meaningful Ways to Measure Organizational Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 05.03.2018. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3128595
3. A. D. The tension between textualism and substance-over-form doctrines in tax law. Santa Clara Law Review. 2003;43(3):699–750.
4. Desloge S. Clarity or Confusion? The Common Law Economic Substance Doctrine and Its Statutory Counterpart. Journal of Legislation. 2019;46(2):326–345.
5. Chen Y. Use the Substance-over-Form Convention to Regulate the Related Transaction. International Journal of Business and Management. 2009;4(3):156–158.
6. Istrate C. Substance over form in a Romanian book-tax approach. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iaşi. Ştiinţe economice. 2011;(58):29–39 (In Romanian).
7. Sulistiyo A. B. Mengungkap kompleksitas masalah pada konsep substance over form. Ekuitas: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan. 2014;18(3):293–310. (In Indonesian).
8. Hamour M., Shakil M. H., Akinlaso I. M., Tasnia M. Contemporary issues of form and substance: An Islamic law perspective. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance. 2019;11(1):124–136.
9. J. B. When Substance-over-Form Argument is Available to the Taxpayer. Marquette Law Review. 1964;(48):41–52.
10. Macdonald G. Substance, Form and Equity in Taxation and Accounting. The Modern Law Review. 1991;54(6):830–847.
11. Wilson C. A. “Form” Determines “Substance”: A Call to Reign in Tax Law’s Substance-Over-Form Principle. Creighton Law Review. 2020;53(3):553–574.
12. Lugovskoy D. V., Olomskaya E. V., Molodtsova Yu. N. Priority of economic content over legal form. Mezhdunarodnyj buhgalterskij uchet = International accounting. 2007;5(101):31–37. (In Russ.).
13. Olomskaya E. V. Accounting principles are a unifying factor in the formation of accounting and tax information systems. Vestnik Adygejskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 5: Ekonomika = Bulletin of the Adyghe State University. Series 5: Economy. 2011;(4):139–150. (In Russ.).
14. Generalova N. V. The predominance of essence over form. Finansy i biznes = Finance and business. 2011;(3):170–184. (In Russ.).
15. Lukanina A. V. The theory of layers of facts of economic life as the basis of the principle of the priority of content over form. Vestnik CHelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2014;15(344):62–72. (In Russ.).
16. Lukanina A. V. Analysis of the basic categories of IFRS within the framework of the principle of priority of content over form. Mezhdunarodnyj buhgalterskij uchet = International accounting. 2015;32(374):28–40. (In Russ.).
17. Whitaker C. Bridging the Book-Tax Accounting Gap. The Yale Law Journal. 2005;115(3):680–726.
18. Benston G. J., Hartgraves A. L. Enron: What happened and what we can learn from it. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2002;21(2):105–127.
19. Baker C. R., Hayes R. Reflecting form over substance: The case of Enron Corp. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 2004;15(6–7):767–785.
20. Isenbergh J. Musings on Form and Substance in Taxation (reviewing Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts by Boris I. Bittker). University of Chicago Law Review. 1982;49(3):859–884.
Review
For citations:
Aksent’ev A.A. Economic substance and legal form: Modern approaches to contradictions’ analysis. Accounting. Analysis. Auditing. 2022;9(4):75-86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2408-9303-2022-9-4-75-86
Views:
387
.png)
.png)
Email this article 
