Is true and fair of over-riding importance?: A comment on Alexander's benchmark

Accounting and Business Research

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 307-312

  Nobes, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745036834     PISSN: 00014788     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2000.9728948     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Alexander, D. (1999). 'A benchmark for the adequacy of published financial statements'. Accounting and Business Research, 29 (3): 239-253.
2. FASB (1999). The IASC-US Comparison Project, Financial Accounting Standards Board.
3. FEE (1999). Comparison of the EC Accounting Directives and IASs, FEE.
4. Griffiths, I. (1986). Creative Accounting: How to Make Your Profits What You Want Them to be, Sidgwick and Jackson.
5. Hopwood, A. (1990). 'Ambiguity, knowledge and territorial claims: Some observations on the doctrine of substance over form: a review essay'. British Accounting Review, March: 79-87.
6. McGregor, W. J. (1992). 'True and fair - an accounting anachronism'. Australian Accountant, February: 68-71.
7. Nobes, C. W. (1993). 'The true and fair view requirement: impact on and of the fourth directive'. Accountant and Business Research, Winter: 35-48.
8. Shah, A. (1996). 'Creative compliance in financial reporting'. Accounting Organizations and Society, 21 (1): 23-39.
9. Tweedie, D. and Whittington, G. (1990). 'Financial reporting: current problems and their implications for systematic reform'. Accounting and Business Research, Winter: 87-102.
10. Van Hulle, K. (1997). 'The true and fair over-ride in European Accounting directives'. European Accounting Review, 6 (4): 711-720.