Princípios contabilísticos geralmente aceites em Moçambique -abordagem fiscal e contabilística

Abstract

The present work aims to bring together elements that enable a comparative analysis between the fiscal and accounting approach of generally accepted accounting principles. The main reason that led me to develop work on this topic is due to the need to understand the importance of accounting autonomy over taxation in order to safeguard the presentation of financial statements that provide a true and fair picture of the financial situation of companies . The work was based on a comparative analysis of key issues related to the recognition of patrimonial facts established by the Tax Administration in the light of accounting. According to the study carried out, the results show that (i) for the principle of specialization of exercise, the tax authorities allow the use of the criterion of closing the work, while IAS 11 does not allow such criterion as it does not reflect the result during the period of validity of the constructions; (ii) for the principle of substance on the way both the tax authorities and the accounting are congruent in stating that in the case of a financial lease, the part of the rent destined to financial amortization should not be recognized as a cost and if there is an excess when carried out the leaseback (giving rise to a finance lease) this should not be recognized as income in the financial statements, instead it should be deferred and allocated to profit or loss on a systematic basis; (iii) for the principle of consistency, both the tax authorities and accounting are congruent in stating that the valuation criteria must be consistent over the years in the event of any change, in the case of the tax authorities, the reason for the change must be submitted to the tax administration and, in the case of accounting, it must be disclosed in the meantime, the tax authorities establish rates to support the valuation of assets, such as depreciation and procedures, in a way, puts this accounting principle into question because the use of tax rates to recognize assets during successive financial years implies the non-presentation of DF's that present the true and appropriate image of the company's situation; (iv) for the historical cost principle, there is an inherent controversy between accounting and the tax authorities in the use of the principle itself, since accounting admits the use of fair value, which in itself rejects the historical cost; (v) for the principle of prudence, there are divergences between the tax authorities and accounting because it imposes rates for the creation of provisions whose rate is 1.5% with a limit of 3% per year, while accounting determines that to determine the amount to be provisioned either apply a percentage based on the experience of previous years or through an analysis of the seniority of the exits and, through this, apply a fee; (vi) for the continuity and materiality criteria, we do not carry out any analysis or because they are irrelevant to the tax authorities (continuity) since this is only interested in ensuring compliance with tax duties by taxpayers or of reduced importance (materiality) as the corrections are carried out irrespective of their amounts.