Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:46:48.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Disclosure Panacea: A Comparative Perspective on Charity Financial Reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Oonagh B. Breen
Oonagh B. Breen*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
*
e-mail: oonagh.breen@ucd.ie
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the charity financial reporting regimes of three common law jurisdictions: Ireland, the UK and the US. It assesses whether these respective disclosure models improve either nonprofit behaviour or enforcement odds. Three core aspects of the regimes are reviewed: the reliability of the disclosed information, the consistency of such information and its ability to facilitate comparison between charities, and the level of enforcement arising from disclosure. Particular attention is paid to oversight mechanisms, including audits, and their rates of effectiveness in the regulation of charities. The article examines ongoing efforts to reform broader international accounting standards and considers the impact such moves are likely to have at both regional and national level for charity accountability. It concludes that given the markedly different spheres in which for-profits and nonprofits operate, care should be taken in modelling charity disclosure regimes on those developed for for-profit entities.

Resume

Resume

Cet article examine les différents régimes de rapports financiers des organisations caritatives dans trois juridictions de droit coutumier (common law) : l’Irlande, le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis. L’article cherche à établir si ces modèles respectifs de communication de rapports financiers permettent d’améliorer soit le comportement des organisations à but non lucratif, soit la mise en œuvre des règles. Trois aspects clés des différents régimes sont examinés : la fiabilité des informations communiquées, la cohérence de ces informations et leur valeur pour une comparaison des organisations caritatives, et le niveau de mise en œuvre qui découle de la communication des rapports financiers. L’analyse prête une attention particulière aux mécanismes de surveillance, dont les audits, et leur niveau d’efficacité dans la régulation des organisations caritatives. L’article examine les efforts en cours pour réformer plus largement les normes comptables internationales et considère l’impact que ces changements auront probablement au niveau régional et national sur la responsabilité des organisations caritatives. En conclusion, il est avancé que, étant données les différences significatives entre les sphères dans lesquelles les institutions à but lucratif et à but non lucratif opèrent, il convient d’être prudent dans la transposition à des organisations caritatives de régimes de communication de rapports financiers originellement conçus pour des entités à but lucratif.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht das Regelwerk für die Finanzberichterstattung von Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen in drei Ländern, in denen das Common Law gilt: Irland, Großbritannien und die USA. Es wird beurteilt, ob die jeweiligen Offenlegungsmodelle entweder das gemeinnützige Verhalten fördern oder die Chancen zur Durchsetzung erhöhen. Hierbei werden drei Kernaspekte der Regelwerke geprüft: nämlich die Zuverlässigkeit der offengelegten Informationen, die Einheitlichkeit dieser Informationen und damit die Möglichkeit, verschiedene Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen miteinander zu vergleichen, und das sich aus der Offenlegung ergebende Durchsetzungsmaß. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird auf die Aufsichtsmechanismen, einschließlich von Wirtschaftsprüfungen, gelenkt sowie auf ihre Effektivität bei der Regulierung der Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen. Der Beitrag untersucht die anhaltenden Bemühungen für eine Reform umfassenderer internationaler Rechnungslegungsstandards und betrachtet die voraussichtlichen Auswirkungen einer solchen Reform auf die Rechenschaftspflicht der Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen sowohl auf regionaler als auch nationaler Ebene. Abschließend wird festgehalten, dass angesichts der ausgesprochen unterschiedlichen Bereiche, in denen gemeinnützige und gewinnorientierte Organisationen tätig sind, Vorsicht geboten werden sollte, wenn sich die Offenlegungsregelungen für Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen an die für gewinnorientierte Unternehmen formulierten Modelle lehnen.

Resumen

Resumen

El presente artículo examina los regímenes de información financiera de las organizaciones benéficas de tres jurisdicciones del derecho consuetudinario: Irlanda, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos. Evalúa si estos modelos de divulgación respectivos mejoran las posibilidades de aplicación o de comportamiento de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Se revisan tres aspectos fundamentales de los regímenes: a saber, la fiabilidad de la información divulgada; la coherencia de dicha información y su capacidad de facilitar la comparación entre organizaciones benéficas; y el nivel de aplicación que surge de la divulgación. Se presta una atención particular a los mecanismos de supervisión, incluidas las auditorías, y sus tasas de efectividad en la regulación de las organizaciones benéficas. El artículo examina los esfuerzos continuos por reformar las normas contables internacionales más amplias y considera el impacto que es probable que dichos movimientos tengan tanto a nivel regional como nacional en la obligación de rendir cuentas de las organizaciones benéficas. Concluye que dadas las esferas marcadamente diferentes en las que operan las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro y con ánimo de lucro, debe prestarse especial cuidado en no modelar los regímenes de divulgación de las organizaciones benéficas en base a aquellos desarrollados para las entidades con ánimo de lucro.

摘要

摘要

本论文检查了三个普通法司法管辖区的慈善财务报告机制:爱尔兰、英国和美国,评估了各自披露模式是否改进了非营利性行为或执法几率。本论文审核了这一机制的三个核心方面:即,所披露信息的可靠性;此类信息的一致性及其方便在慈善组织之间进行比较的能力;以及披露导致的强制执行等级。本论文特别关注了监管机制,包括审计,及其在慈善监管中的有效性。本论文检查了改革更大范围国际会计标准的持续努力,并考虑了此类动作可能同时对地区和国家层面的慈善可说明性的影响。得出的结论是,由于盈利和非营利运营之间存在明显差别,因此为盈利实体制定建模慈善披露机制时必须小心。

要約

要約

本論文では、アイルランド、イギリス、アメリカの3カ国の慣習法の裁判権における慈善活動の財務報告管理を調査する。各々の公開モデルが非営利団体の行動もしくは実施の可能性を改善するかについて評価する。管理における3つの中核的要素、すなわち公開情報の信頼性、そのような情報の一貫性と慈善活動での比較を容易にする実績、公開における実施のレベルを調査する。中でも監査を含むメカニズム、慈善活動規則における有効な比率に特に注目する。本論文では、より広範囲な国際会計基準を改革するために進行中の取組みを調査して、慈善活動の責任において地方および国家レベルを持つ戦略の影響力を考察する。営利団体および非営利団体の異なる領域から、利益追求のために開発された慈善活動公開における管理モデルを考察する。

ملخص

ملخص

هذه المقالة تفحص أنظمة التقارير المالية للجمعيات الخيرية لثلاثة سلطات قضائية مشتركة: أيرلندا٬ الملكة المتحدة ٬ الولايات المتحدة. إنها تقوم بتقييم إذا كانت كل من هذه النماذج التي تم الكشف عن سرها تحسن أي من السلوك الغير ربحي أو تنفيذ الإحتمالات. تم مراجعة ثلاثة جوانب أساسية للأنظمة: هذا يعني٬ دقة المعلومات التي تم الكشف عن سرها ؛ تطابق هذه المعلومات و قدرتها على تسهيل المقارنة بين الجمعيات الخيرية؛ و مستوى التنفيذ الناشئ عن الكشف عن السر. يولى اهتمام خاص لآليات المراقبة، بما في ذلك عمليات المراجعة، ومعدلات فعاليتها في تنظيم الجمعيات الخيرية. يفحص هذا المقال الجهود الجارية لإصلاح أوسع لمعايير المحاسبة الدولية و يعتبر على الأرجح تأثير مثل هذه الخطوات على مساءلة الجمعيات الخيرية على المستوى الإقليمي والوطني على حد سواء. إنها تستنتج إنه نظرا˝ لأن المنظمات الربحية و الغير ربحية تعمل في مجالات مختلفة بشكل ملحوظ٬ ينبغي أن يؤخذ الحذر في وضع نماذج أنظمة الكشف عن سر الأعمال الخيرية التي أعدت للكيانات التي تسعى للربح.

Keywords

DisclosureAccountabilityFinancial reportingIFRSIrelandUnited KingdomUnited States

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2013, pp. 852 - 880
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Accounting Standards Board (ASB). (2011a). FRED 45: The future of financial reporting in the UK and Republic of Ireland—Financial reporting standard for public benefit entities.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, D. (2011). We aim to make the sector more self-reliant, says charity commission, Third Sector Online, December 7, 2011. Retrieved May 29, 2012 from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Finance/article/1108177/we-aim-sector-self-reliant-says-charity-commission/.Google Scholar
ASB. (2013). FRS 102 The financial reporting standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Retrieved May 23, 2013 from http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Accounting-and-Reporting-Policy/FRS-102-The-Financial-Reporting-Standard-applicabl.aspx.Google Scholar
BBB Wise Giving Alliance. (2003). Standards for charity accountability. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from http://www.give.org/standards/index.asp.Google Scholar
Bird, P., & Morgan-Jones, P. (1981). Financial reporting by charities. London: ICAEW.Google Scholar
Blackwood, A., & Roeger, K. (2010). Here today, gone tomorrow: A look at organizations that may have their tax-exempt status revoked. Urban Institute, Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.urban.org/publications/412135.html.Google Scholar
Blatnik Hearings. (1958). Federal agencies and philanthropies: Hearings before the legal and monetary affairs subcommittee of the house committee on government operations, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 1.Google Scholar
Bradbury, M., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The ‘NZ’ in ‘NZ IFRS’: Public benefit entity amendments. Australian Accounting Review, 18(4), 185–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2008.0023.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brakman Reiser, D. (2005). There ought to be a law: The disclosure focus of recent legislative proposals for nonprofit reform. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 80, 559–612.Google Scholar
Britton, R. (2008). Making disclosure regulation work in the nonprofit sector. University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 437–458.Google Scholar
Brody, E. (2012). Sunshine and shadows on charity governance: Public disclosure as a regulatory tool. Florida Tax Review, 12, 183–232.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2004b). A summary of the consultation responses on the exposure draft of the statement of recommended practice for charity accounts.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2005). Accounting and reporting by charities: Statement of recommended practice.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2010). Charities back on track: Themes and lessons from the charity commission’s compliance work 2009–2010.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2011a). Annual report for 2010–11.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2011b). Charities back on track: Themes and lessons from the charity commission’s investigations and regulatory casework 2010–11.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2012a). CC15b—Charity reporting and accounting: The essentials.Google Scholar
CCEW. (2012b). Register of charities: A review of information collected from charities consultation paper.Google Scholar
Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2004a). RS8—Transparency and accountability.Google Scholar
Charity Finance Directors’ Group. (2003). Inputs matter: Improving the quality of reporting in the charity sector.Google Scholar
Cnaan, R., Jones, K., Dickin, A., & Saloman, M. (2011). Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(4), 381–397. doi: 10.1002/nml.20032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee of Public Accounts, Houses of the Oireachtas. (2012). Report on the Irish red cross. Retrieved July 24, 2012, from http://govacc.per.gov.ie/files/2012/06/Report-on-the-Irish-Red-Cross-FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Comptroller and Auditor General. (1994). Report on value for money examination no. 1, The leader programme. The Department of Agriculture and Forestry.Google Scholar
Comptroller and Auditor General. (2006). Report on value for money examination no. 52, Provision of disability services by nonprofit organisations. The Health Service Executive.Google Scholar
Comptroller and Auditor General. (2010). Annual report.Google Scholar
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2004). Performance reporting: A comparative study of British and Irish charities. The British Accounting Review, 36, 127–154. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2003.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2009). Charity reporting and accounting: Taking stock and future reform. London: Charity Commission.Google Scholar
Cooter, R., & Freedman, B. (1991). The fiduciary relationship: Its economic character and legal consequences. New York University Law Review, 66, 1045–1075.Google Scholar
Dacombe, R. (2011). Can we argue against it? Performance management and state funding of voluntary organizations in the UK. Public Money & Management, 31(3), 159–166. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2011.573224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deloitte. (2005). A-IFRS vs IFRS: Differences between Australian equivalents to international financial reporting standards (A-IFRS) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS).Google Scholar
Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. (2010). Shaping the future of charity reporting in the UK and Ireland. Dublin Castle.Google Scholar
Department of Finance. (2010). Requirements for grants and grants in aid, circular 17/2010.Google Scholar
Dhanani, A. (2009). Accountability of UK charities. Public Money & Management, 29(3), 183–190. doi: 10.1080/09540960902891749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2002). Non governmental organisations—Performance and accountability: Beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (1996). Restoring public trust in nonprofits and governments. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 166–168.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, P. (1998). Financial monitoring of funded organizations: Report of a study by Peter Fairbairn on behalf of city parochial foundation and the trust for London.Google Scholar
FASB, & IASB. (2002). Norwalk agreement. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from http://www.fasb.org/news/memorandum.pdf.Google Scholar
FASB, & IASB. (2012). Joint update note from the IASB and FASB on accounting convergence: Note from IASB on governance enhancements.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (2010). Stealth preemption: The IRS’s nonprofit corporate governance initiative. Virginia Tax Review, 29(3), 545–591.Google Scholar
Fremont-Smith, M. (2004). Pillaging of charitable assets: Embezzlement and fraud. Exempt Organization Tax Review, 46(3), 333.Google Scholar
Gary, S. (1999). Regulating the management of charities: Trust law. Corporate Law and Tax Law, Hawaii Law Review, 21, 593–658.Google Scholar
Gordon, T., Knock, C., & Neely, D. (2009). The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test. Journal of Accountability and Public Policy, 28, 469–484. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. (1984). Uncharitable view of accounting. Accountancy, 95(1092), 84–85.Google Scholar
Hager, M. (2003). Current practices in allocation of fundraising expenditures. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 41. p. 39. doi: 10.1002/pf.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, M. (2005). Nonprofit disclosure: The answer to accountability?. Washington, DC: Urban Institute First Tuesday Panel Discussion.Google Scholar
Hargrove, T. (2012). Many nonprofits incorrectly claim no expense for fund-raising, Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/may/20/many-nonprofits-incorrectly-claim-no-expense-for/.Google Scholar
Herzlinger, R. (1996). Can public trust in nonprofits and governments be restored? Harvard Business Review, 74(2), 97–107.Google ScholarPubMed
Hines, A., & Jones, J. (1992). The impact of SORP 2 on the UK charitable sector: An empirical study. Financial Accountability and Management, 8(1), 49–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1992.tb00140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N. (1990). Charity accounting—An empirical study of the information needs of contributors to UK fund raising charities. Financial Accountability & Management, 6(4), 295–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1990.tb00121.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2009). The evolution of the UK charities statement of recommended practice: A view through the lens of new institutional theory. Queen’s University Management School working paper series, Working Paper No: MS_WPS_ACC_09_1.Google Scholar
Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2010). The evolution of the UK charity statement of recommended practice: The influence of key stakeholders. European Management Journal, 28, 455–466. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2010.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2011). The hand of government in shaping accounting and reporting in the UK charity sector. Public Money & Management, 31(3), 167–174. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2011.573226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Independent Sector. (2005). Panel on the nonprofit sector, interim report presented to the senate finance committee.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (1999a). Public disclosure of material relating to tax-exempt organizations—Final regulations, 64 Federal Register 17279.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (1999b). Closing agreement bishops estate.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2008). Background paper summary of Form 990 redesign process. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/summary_form_990_redesign_process.pdf.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2012a). Data book 2011. Washington, DC: Publication 55B.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service. (2012b). Fiscal year 2011 enforcement and service results. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/fy_2011_enforcement_results_table.pdf.Google Scholar
International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS). (2011). IFRSs as the global standards: Setting a strategy for the foundation’s second decade, Report of the IFRS foundation trustees’ strategy review 2011.Google Scholar
Irish Nonprofits Knowledge Exchange (INKEx). (2012). Irish nonprofits—What do we know? Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.inkex.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Irish-Nonprofits-what-do-we-know.pdf.Google Scholar
Irvine, H., & Ryan, C. (2013). Accounting regulation for charities: International responses to IFRS adoption. Pacific Accounting Review (forthcoming).10.1108/PAR-03-2012-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetty, J., & Beattie, V. (2008). Factors influencing narrative disclosure by large UK charities: Interview evidence. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1308180 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1308180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, E., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, R., Yetman, M., & Yetman, R. (2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81(March), 399–420. doi: 10.2308/accr.2006.81.2.399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, D. (2004). The Sarbanes–Oxley act of 2002: Lessons for nonprofits? Corporate Counsel Reviews, 23, 43.Google Scholar
Lerner, L. (2012). Prepared remarks of Lois Lerner. IRS Director, Exempt Organizations, Georgetown University Law School.Google Scholar
Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. (2008). Economic consequences of financial reporting and disclosure regulation: A review and suggestions for future research (March 2008). Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105398 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1105398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likierman, A. (1993). Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use. Public Money and Management, 13(4), 15–22. doi: 10.1080/09540969309387784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manne, G. (2007). The hydraulic theory of disclosure regulation and other costs of disclosure. Alabama Law Review, 58, 473–511.Google Scholar
Master’s Consolidated Report on the One Hundred Ninth, One Hundred Tenth and One Hundred Eleventh Annual Accounts of the Trustees, In re Estate of Bishop, Equity No. 2048 (Haw. Prob. Ct. Aug. 7, 1998). Retrieved April 23, 2012, from http://starbulletin.com/98/08/07/news/masters2/masters2.html.Google Scholar
McGregor Lowndes, M., & Ryan, C. (2009). Reducing the compliance burden of non-profit organizations: Cutting red tape. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 21–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00607.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. (2008). The use of receipts and payments accounts for financial reporting by smaller charities. Published research report for the Association of Charity Independent Examiners.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. (2010). The use of UK charity accounts data for researching the performance of voluntary organisations. Unpublished paper presented at NCVO/VSSN researching the voluntary sector conference, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (NAO). (2006). The third sector and public policy—Options for committee scrutiny.Google Scholar
National Council of Nonprofit Associations (NCNA) and National Human Services Assembly (NHSA). (2005). Rating the raters: An assessment of organizations and publications that rate/rank charitable nonprofit organizations.Google Scholar
Moore, J., & Williams, G. (1998, December 17). A sampling of common mistakes on Forms 990, The Chronicle of Philanthropy.Google Scholar
New Philanthropy Capital. (2012). Principles of good impact reporting for charities and social enterprises.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. (2012). Auditing and assurance for larger registered charities. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.med.govt.nz/business/business-law/pdf-docs-library/financial-reporting-framework/auditing-assurance-for-larger-registered-charities.pdf/at_download/file.Google Scholar
Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). (2010). Annual report.Google Scholar
Palmer, P., Isaacs, M., & D’Silva, K. (2001). Charity SORP compliance—Findings of a research study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(5), 255–262. doi: 10.1108/02686900110392904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revenue Commissioners. (2012). Charities—Frequently asked questions. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/faqs-charities.html#section18.Google Scholar
Ryan, C., Gutherie, J., & Day, R. (2007). Politics of financial reporting and the consequences for the public sector. Abacus, 43(4), 474–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2007.00243.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shatter, A. & Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. (2011). Keynote speech to the annual conference of the Irish Charity Tax Reform Group, Dublin.Google Scholar
Simpkins, K. (2006). A review of the policy of sector-neutral accounting standard-setting in Australia, a report to the Australian Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from http://www.frc.gov.au/reports/other/Sector_neutral_Standards_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Smart Giving (2012). Finding good charities: Charity watchdogs. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://www.smartgiving.ca/finding-good-charities/charity-watchdogs/.Google Scholar
SORP Committee. (2011a). SORP development—Paper 2, committee meeting.Google Scholar
SORP Committee. (2011b). Briefing on IASB agenda consultation 2011—Paper 2, SORP Committee meeting.Google Scholar
SORP Committee. (2012). Response to revised FRED 46, 47 & 48: The future of financial reporting—Part two: The draft standards. CL98 Retrieved January 11, 2013, from http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/Revised-FRED-46,-47-48-The-Future-of-Financial-Rep/Responses-to-Revised-FRED/CL98-Charities-SORP-Committee.aspx.Google Scholar
Stothart, C. (2012a). Charity Commission to consult on fining late-filing charities, says Sam Younger, Third Sector Online, May 25, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/go/news/article/1133895/charity-commission-consult-fining-late-filing-charities-says-sam-younger/.Google Scholar
Stothart, C. (2012b). Accountants find huge gaps in charity procedures for fraud and financial abuse, Third Sector Online, May 25, 2012. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Finance/article/1133829/Accountants-find-huge-gaps-charity-procedures-fraud-financial-abuse/.Google Scholar
Szper, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. Voluntas, 22, 112–141. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9156-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travaglini, C. (2008). Financial reporting in European NPOs: Is now the time for a common framework? International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 11(1), 67–75.Google Scholar
Trustees’ Response to Master’s Consolidated Report on the One Hundred Ninth, One Hundred Tenth and One Hundred Eleventh Annual Accounts of the Trustees, In re Estate of Bishop, Equity No. 2048 (Haw. Prob. Ct. Sept. 9, 1998). Retrieved April 23, 2012, from http://starbulletin.com/98/09/10/news/trustees.html.Google Scholar
UK National Audit Office. (1994). HM customs and excise: Cost to business of complying with VAT requirements.Google Scholar
UK Strategy Unit. (2002). Report private action, public benefit: A review of charities and the wider not-for-profit sector.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office, (GAO). (2002). Tax exempt organizations: Improvements possible in public, IRS and state oversight of charities.Google Scholar
Urban Institute. (2004). Special issues in nonprofit financial reporting: A guide for financial professionals. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/knowledgebase/detail.php?linkID=540&category=96&xrefID=1705.Google Scholar
Vanderwarren, K. (2002). Financial accountability in charitable organizations: Mandating an audit committee function. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77(2), 963–990.Google Scholar
Wells, J. (2004). Corporate fraud handbook: Prevention and detection (Vol. 1st ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Williams, S., & Palmer, P. (1998). The state of charity accounting—developments, improvements and continuing problems. Financial Accountability and Management, 14(4), 265–279. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00065.Google Scholar
Zeff, S., & Nobes, C. (2010). Commentary: Has Australia (or any other jurisdiction) ‘adopted’ IFRS? Australian Accounting Review, 20(2), 178–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar