{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019857029388403495, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009531374106433678, 'mean_word_length': 5.0576923076923075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
True and Fair View Revisited – A Reply to Alexander and Nobes

Abstract This paper is a response to the critical comments of Alexander (2006) and Nobes (2006) on our article on revenue recognition, which was published last year in this journal (Wüstemann and Kierzek, 2005). While Alexander primarily objects to our statement that there is a ‘requirement of legal certainty in the European Union’, Nobes challenges our interpretation of the true and fair view principle and its role in the endorsement and application of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the EU. We rebut Alexander's objections by providing references, which evidence that the principle of legal certainty represents a fundamental concept of Community law. We refute Nobes' counterarguments by inferring from the objective of the IAS Regulation and the purpose of the endorsement mechanism that a common meaning of the true and fair view principle must exist in the EU, that IFRS should only become applicable in the EU if they are not contrary to this ‘European’ true and fair view principle and that the true and fair view principle should also be considered in the application of IFRS in the EU, particularly in the choice of accounting policies for unregulated issues.