Challenges Accounting Forests Latvian Case Study

7/31/2019 Challenges Accounting Forests Latvian Case Study

1/8

51 ICAS 2010

Int roduct ion

When investing or putting capital in the forestproperties, it is recorded in the balance sheetassets. It should be understood what from theforest property is recorded at the long-terminvestments, i.e. in the fixed assets position,and what is recorded at the current assets, i.e.in the inventories position.

Iesalnieks (2005) states that the fixed assetsare means of production which make the

process of production possible, but they are notincluded in the output. According to Rurane(2007), fixed assets are: the objects of long-term use (longer than 1 year); the propertywhich is owned by the company and is planned

to be used for goods production and is not

intended for sale, for example, land, buildings,machinery, and motor vehicles. Fixed assetsare recorded at their costs (purchase price).The main feature of fixed assets is that they arelastingly involved in the production processand they gradually wear out. Therefore theyare written off against profits over their antici-

pated life by charging depreciation expense.The value of the land and consequently thevalue of the forest are not subject to deprecia-tion because their value increase is regular,

persistent and significant, as a result they maybe revalued at their fair value.

Whereas the current assets are the resourcesavailable at the company, and they are directlyinvolved in the production process in order to

Ann. For. Res. 53(1): 51-58, 2010

www.e-afr.org

Challe nge s in accou n tin g th e fo rests - a Latvian casestudy

E. Grege-Staltmane

Abstract . Forest has a long production cycle. Therefore forest bookkeep-ing has specific characteristics. However accounting for forest activities has

received little attention from accounting researchers. The release ofInternational Accounting Standard 41 "Agriculture" (IAS 41) established asingle accounting system for forest assets. The paper analyzes applicationof IAS 41 which regulates forest accounting. Practice of internationalforestry companies is examined, and current forest accounting situation inLatvia is investigated. The main factors affecting valuation of a forest in itsfair value are discussed and major problems in forest accounting are illumi-nated. The research indicates that land value and standing timber valueshould be recorded separately and standing timber should be estimated atits fair value. Despite the attempt of the International Accounting StandardBoard to improve the accounting with IAS 41 for biological assets, muchenhancement in forest accounting is still needed.Keywords: biological assets, forest accounting, forest fair value.

Author. Evija Grege-Staltmane ([email protected]), Forest Faculty,Latvia University of Agriculture, 11 Akademijas Str., Jelgava, LV-3001.


2/8

Ann. For. Res. 53(1), 2010 Research papers

52

ensure the continuity of production, from thestandpoint of accounting theory, current assetsare assets that can be converted into cash dur-ing one business cycle, usually within one year(Rurane 2007).

Iesalnieks (2005) recommends that forestland should be recorded as fixed assets but for-est stand - as current assets. If the entire foreststand is recorded at the current assets (invento-ries), they have low liquidity and they can not

be quickly converted into cash and the lengthof production cycle significantly exceeds oneyear, which is contrary to the nature of the cur-rent assets. Therefore such classificationwould not be correct from the point of view ofaccounting. Whereas Bright (2001) indicates

that the harvested wood which will be used orsold within one year or the growing timberwhich is waiting for processing in a sawmillwithin one year can be recorded at the invento-ries. Also Penttinen et al. (2004) says thatvalue of the whole growing stock has beendivided into fixed assets and inventory in the

balance sheet and inventory value of the standis based on an allowable cut calculations.

Latvian researcher Dubrovskis (2007) has

studied the balance methods of forest manage-ment planning in order to follow up the finan-cial flow of forest resources utilization.Though Dubrovskis does not examine forestrecording in the balance sheet in greater detail,he emphasizes that reflecting the fair forestvalue in balance sheet accounts is a topicalissue.

In order to establish a single accounting sys-tem, in December 2000 the International

Accounting Standards Board developed andapproved the 41st International AccountingStandard Agriculture (IAS 41) which deter-mines the accounting treatment and disclo-sures related to agricultural activity. For thefirst time the IAS 41 had to be applied for thefinancial statements started after 1 January2003. International Accounting Standards arevoluntary applicable guidelines issued by anindependent international organization; theirapplication provides harmonization of finan-cial reporting for different companies aroundthe world.

In order to contribute to a better functioningof the European Community internal market

and increase the competitiveness of theEuropean companies in the internationally reg-ulated markets, the regulation (EC) No.1606/2002 of the European Parliament andCouncil (of 19 July 2002) was adopted on the

application of international accounting stan-dards. In accordance with this regulation, foreach financial year starting on or after 1January 2005, all publicly traded Communitycompanies prepare their consolidated accountsin conformity with the international account-ing standards which have been adopted inaccordance with this regulation, but financialstatements - in accordance with the laws of a

particular member state. Since the Latvianaccounting standard Agriculture is in the

project stage already for several years, theforestry companies that are registered in Latvia

primarily should observe the laws of theRepublic of Latvia (in accordance with theAdministrative Procedure Act of theRepublic of Latvia). As to IAS 41, it can beapplied as far as its rules are consistent withthe Latvian legislation.

IAS 41 can be considered an important stan-dart, because it represents the starting point of

a consistent transition from the purchase costprinciple towards a fair value accounting(Lefter et al. 2007). However IAS 41 has beencriticized for being too academic and for intro-ducing inappropriate measurement methodsfor biological assets (Herbohn & Herbohn2006).

Still a lot of questions have not beenanswered concerning forest accounting; there-fore, the aim of this paper was to analyze IAS

41 and domestic laws and documents whichregulate forest accounting as well as account-ing practice of international forestry compa-nies to illuminate the main advantages and dis-advantages, taking Latvia as a case.

Mater ials and m ethods

The research is based on the informationobtained from the Ministry of Finance of theRepublic of Latvia, the State Land Service,JSC Latvijas Valsts Mei (Latvian StateForests) and other public institutions andorganizations, as well as from their public


3/8

53

Grege-Staltmane Challenges in accounting the forests - a Latvian case ...

reviews. The development and present version,including the latest changes, of theInternational Accounting Standard 41Agriculture (IAS 41), the application of IAS41 in international forest owning companies,and the situation in Latvian forest accountingare analyzed. The monographic descriptivemethod and the methods of analysis and syn-thesis are used to study the problem elements.Within the framework of the abstract logicmethod, inductive and deductive methods areused. The theoretical period of the researchcovers the beginning of the year 2000 tillnowadays.

Results

International Accounting Standard 41 Agri-

culture

IAS 41 indicates the method of accounting,financial statements presentation and disclo-sures related to agricultural activity - the man-agement by an entity of the biological transfor-mation of living animals or plants (biological

assets) for sale, into agricultural produce. Inaccordance with this standard conception, agri-culture is also forestry, and in forestry trees ina plantation forest are considered as biologicalassets, but logs - as agricultural produce.Further, IAS 41 is viewed in relation toforestry.

The IAS 41 is applied to agricultural pro-duce which is the harvested product of the enti-tys biological assets, only at the point of har-

vest. Thereafter, IAS 2 Inventories or anoth-er applicable Standard is applied. Regardingforestry, this standard does not deal with the

processing of agricultural produce after har-vesting, for example, processing of logs intosawnwood. Wherewith only the logs, whichare harvested, are possible to record at the cur-rent assets under position Inventories.

This standard requires that the biologicalassets (trees in a forest) shall be measured oninitial recognition and at each balance sheet

date at its faire value less estimated point-of-sale costs. Point-of-sale costs include commis-sions to brokers and dealers, levies by regula-tory agencies and commodity exchanges, andtransfer taxes and duties, but exclude transport

and other costs necessary to get assets to amarket. So, if the forestry company harvestslogs, the transportation costs to the saw-mill(the market) should be excluded.Determination of the fair value of standingtimber facilitates the grouping by significantcharacteristics such as age or quality. An enti-ty selects the features corresponding to the fea-tures used in the market as a basis for pricing,for example, sorting logs by species andassortment (pulpwood, firewood, sawlogs,veneer logs, etc.).

The Standard displays three methods of val-uation: (i) comparable sales; (ii) expectationapproach; (iii) cost-based approach. It recom-mends to value biological assets at a current

market price or on transaction-based valuationmethod, if the following conditions exist: theitems traded within the market are homoge-nous; willing buyers and sellers can normally

be found at any time; prices are available to thepublic. If market-determined prices for the bio-logical assets in their present condition maynot be available in the market, the entity usesthe present value of expected net cash flowsfrom the assets in determining the fair value.

As markets for standing timber are limited incomparison with the total volume of standingforest in the world and it is practically impos-sible to find two same forest properties, thenthe expected cash flow method should beapplied for assessment of standing timber. Theobjective of a calculation of the present valueof expected net cash flows is to determine thefair value of the biological assets in its presentlocation and condition. An entity considers this

in determining an appropriate discount rate tobe used and in estimating the expected net cashflow. The IAS 41 sets the guidelines for prepa-ration of the expected net cash flows: (i) whenassessing the biological assets at their presentcondition, any increases in the value fromadditional biological transformation and futureactivities of the entity, such as those related toenhancing the future biological transformation,harvesting and selling, should be excluded; (ii)the cash flow should be discounted at a current

market-determined pre-tax rate; (iii) an entitycan not include any cash flows for financingthe assets, taxation, or re-establishing biologi-cal assets after harvest, for example, regenera-tion costs in the forest after harvest; (iv) an


4/8


54

entity is encouraged to provide a quantifieddescription of biological assets distinguishing

between mature and immature biologicalassets, which facilitates the preparation of

future cash flows. At certain situations, theStandard allows the use of cost-based method,when costs may approximate the fair value, forexample, the impact of the biological transfor-mation on price is not essential, particularlywhen the tree crops are young.

The Standard clearly states that it does notapply to the land related to agricultural activi-ty, which is set by the IAS 16 Propertyrequiring land to be measured either at its costs

less any accumulated impairment losses, or ata revalued amount. Biological assets that arephysically attached to land (e.g. trees in a for-est) are measured at their fair value separatelyfrom the land. This clearly shows the positionthat standing timber and forest land should bevaluated and recorded separately.

The IAS 41 also foresees that for the treesplanted in the forest and which are physicallyattached to land can not be a separate market,

but there may exist a market for the combinedassets, that is, for the trees in the forest, rawland, and land improvements, as a package.The company may use information regardingthe combined assets to determine fair value forstanding timber, for example, to distinguish thevalue of land from the total forest property thusobtaining the true value of the standing timberwhich were planted in the forest. It should be

pointed out that this method will not reflect thefair value of the standing timber because of the

above-mentioned problem to find two identicalproperties, that is, with the same timber stock,infrastructure, location, etc.

The fair value of a biological asset (trees in aforest) can change due to both physicalchanges and price changes in the market.Forestry is exposed to climatic, disease andother natural risks. If such event occurs, it must

be disclosed in financial statements, for exam-ple, an outbreak of a virulent disease, insect

damage, storm, etc.IAS 41 also provides possibility for an enti-

ty to measure its biological assets at their costless any accumulated depreciation and any

accumulated impairment losses at the end ofthe period, if the fair value can not be reliablymeasured. The author considers that this meas-ure is not suitable for forest resources which

have a long life cycle. As the standard alsocovers the plants, shrubs, fruit trees and vines,depreciation calculation for these biologicalassets could be justified by the fact that they

produce their products just for a certain timethereafter they must be replaced with new bio-logical assets, for example, with the new fruittrees.

A gain or loss arising on initial recognitionof the standing timber at its fair value less esti-

mated point of sale costs shall be included inprofit or loss for the period in which it arises.Here should be added that changes in forestassets value make the balance sheet larger

because the property which was acquired sev-eral years ago today exceeds its purchase price,mainly because of the biological growth oftrees. In other words, as standing timber shall

be measured at its fair value, main benefitscould be observed - the improvement of the

balance sheet, and reflecting the real value offorest assets.

Since approvement of the IAS 41, there havebeen made a number of changes to improve itsquality. In February 2007, the InternationalAccounting Standards Board (IASB) meetingapproved recommendations to amend theassessment of biological assets at their currentcondition taking into account the increases invalue from additional biological transforma-tion, but just in March 2008 it was officialy

done. In June 2007, the IASB Board proposedto replace the pre-tax discount rate by therate applicable by the market participantleaving it to the entity to determine which dis-count rate to be used and decided to change theterminology used in IAS 41 by replacinglogs by felled trees as agricultural produceof trees in a plantation forest. In March2008, the IASB remove the term point of salecosts with the notion costs to sell. Despite

the improvements made by the IASB, theStandard still needs to be enhanced as there aremany shortcomings.


5/8

55


Accounting practice of international forestry

companies

In 2009, international auditor firmPricewaterhouseCoopers published a study

based on an analysis of the published financialstatements (mainly of the year 2007 or later) ofcompanies applying IAS 41 in the reporting oftheir forest assets. The study covers 19 interna-tional companies. The main objective of thestudy was to determine what methods andassumptions the forest owning companies useto determine the fair value of their standingtimber. The most common method of deter-mining the fair value is discounted cash flowmethod, but some companies use market valuemethods and multiple methods. This studyshows that market value method is applied for

plantations with a short rotation period, typi-cally 5-20 years. Whereas historical costmethod is used to determine the value of newly

planted trees. Four companies from thosewhich were analyzed applied the standingvalue method where present volume of stand-ing timber was estimated and then the currentmarket price was adjusted.

The interpretation of the classification ofcompanies forests is also different; usuallytimber is classified according to species andage, but one company classified its stand asmature if the trees were older than five yearsfor hardwood and older than eight years forsoftwood. As IAS 41 does not include guid-ance on this issue, such sort of interpretationscan be accepted. The most important assump-tions used in the discounted cash flow method

include harvesting plans, timber prices,forestry costs, growth rates, and the discountrate. Here are found large variations in deter-mination of timber prices and discount rates.Timber prices are estimated using current oraverage market prices for logs, inflation is con-sidered in some cases, but not in all, and some-times predictions of independent forestryexperts are used. The trend is that companiesfrom the Nordic region use adjusted currentlog price assumptions. This is mostlyexplained by the fact that the growth cycles ofthe trees are longer there. In this study, onlynine companies disclosed their discount rates,which varied within 5.5-17.5%. All companies

from the Nordic region indicated the discountrate of 7.5% as a pre-tax rate and 5.5-6.25% asan after-tax rate. In many countries thelandowner is required by law to reforest thearea after clear felling despite the fact that the

standard requires not to include reforestingcosts in the cash flow calculations. However,companies from the Nordic region are knownfor including replanting costs in their calcula-tions.

The Standard should be improved, becausethere still many questions remain, for example,what kind of timber prices would be advisableto use, from which age the trees could be con-sidered as a mature plantation. It also requiresa lot of information disclosures, which takes

much effort. Burnside (2005) notes that theIAS 41 states that in standing timber valuationother values associated with forestry activities,such as hunting licenses and lease options,which increases the value of forest, must beexcluded. Also the fair value concept makesunrealized gains or losses from forest assets inincome and comparability between companiescould not be gained because of the judgmentsnecessary to estimate fair value of timber

assets (Herbohn & Herbohn 2006, Penttinen etal. 2004). Summarizing the various literarysources, the advantages and disadvantagesobserved in the IAS 41 are presented in Table1. It is seen that there are many disadvantagesin the IAS 41 that regulates forest accounting.Besides, the Standard does not envisage thefuture possibility to appraise the standing tim-

ber by a whole tree, but not just according tothe log price, as the worlds demand for wood

biomass with processed tree branches androots, which increases the present value of thetree a number of times, is growing.

Forest accounting in the Republic of Latvia

In accordance with international accountingstandards, also the laws of the Republic ofLatvia which refer to the biological assetrecords are updated. On 19 October 2006, theAnnual Accounts Law of the Republic ofLatvia was complemented by a new section202 which states that investment properties,

biological assets and long-term investmentsheld for sales companies shall indicate sepa-


6/8


56

rately from other asset items, including in thebalance sheet assets new relevantly nameditems.

In conformity with the explanations men-tioned in the accounting handbook, if the com-

panys management has decided to sell the bio-logical asset, for example, standing timber,within a year, then it should be moved from thelong-term investments position biologicalassets to current assets position long-terminvestments held for sale (Rutkovska,Blumberga 2005). For example, if the forestrycompany which does not deal with the stand-ing timber harvesting but sells it on stump, atthe beginning of the year takes out the cutting

rights which are planned to be sold within ayear, then these vendible assets should be sep-arated from the total biological assets andrecorded at current assets. If the companysmain business is not forestry, the forest proper-ties owned by the company should be recordedat long term-investment position InvestmentProperties; but if the companys main busi-ness is forestry, its forests are considered as

biological assets because they are used in pro-duction.

Currently, the laws of the Republic of Latviaallow choosing where to record the biologicalassets: (i) at fixed assets, including them in thefixed assets category Land, buildings andstructures, and long-term plantings at their

purchase costs, without taking into accounttheir revaluation at their fair value; (ii) if the

biological assets are measured at their fairvalue, from which sales costs have beendeducted, they should be excluded from the

fixed assets category and be recorded atBiological assets in the balance sheet assets.It should be noted that the IAS 41 considers as

priority the measurement of biological assets attheir fair value. The Standard separates out thestanding timber at Biological assets, but atthe same time the value of the land is deter-mined leaving it at Land, buildings and struc-tures, and long-term plantings.

The Annual Accounts Law states that

investment properties, biological assets orlong-term investments held for sale shall notbe subject to depreciation, which the companyshall value on the basis of the fair value.Changes in the value of such assets shall beincluded in the profit or loss account, butdetermining the taxable income does not takeinto account the results of the revaluation ofassets.

The law On Corporate Income Tax of theRepublic of Latvia was adjusted on 20 October

2006, introducing a new terminology such asbiological assets, investment properties,etc. It states that in the taxation period whenthe biological assets are expropriated, the tax-

payer determines the taxable income from the

Advantages Disadvantages

standing timber can be evaluated closer to its

real value

additional costs may occur when paying for

valuation services

shows the enormous value of the forest calculations are based on assumptions

reveals the valuation methodol ogy a lot of extra work

improves the balance sheet, because forest

assets are recorded at their fair value and not at

their purchase value

it is complicated to compare assets of two forest

companies because different assumptions and

calculation methods ar e used

harmonization of financial reports it is impossible to estimate an exact value of the

growing forest

more transparency some requirements should be more clearly set out

more comparability the slightest error in the calculations may

significantly affect the result

Table 1 Advantages and disatvanges of the IAS 41


7/8

57


assets expropriation as difference from expro-priation income and initial accounting value.For example, if from the forest property (10hectares large), which was purchased for 5000EUR, 1 hectare is harvested and 200 m3 areobtained, and later sold for 10 EUR/m3, then2000 EUR are earned. How to calculate theinitial accounting value for the 200 m3 is notspecified in any standard and remains theresponsibility of an account. The accountantshould confirm the used methodology with thecompanys management and reflect it in theannual report.

It would be preferable to determine thestanding timber price in the total sales price at

purchase, for example, the land is valued at

1000 EUR, but the standing timber - at 4000EUR. Wherewith, in the future, when harvest-ing part of the standing timber, it could be cal-culated proportionally from its initial account-ing value. Latvian forestry accounting practicein some companies shows that the forest landand standing timber value is calculated in pro-

portion to the forest land and standing timbercadastral value, which can be obtained as paidinformation from the State Land Service of the

Republic of Latvia (SLS).The standing timber cadastral value can be

calculated by subtracting the land cadastralvalue from the total property cadastral value.For example, if the property is acquired for5000 EUR and its forest land value accordingto the SLS data is 500 EUR (71% of the totalvalue of 700 EUR), but standing timber valueis 200 EUR (29% of the total value of 700EUR), then proportionally the acquired forest

land value is calculated to be 3550 EUR andstanding timber value - 1450 EUR. Whereasthe JSC Latvijas Valsts Mezi, which man-ages 1.15 million hectares of state-ownedforests and 3000 hectares of their own forest,according to its annual report (2008), when

purchasing forest land, records it in its cadas-tral value but the rest of the purchase amount isconsidered as a standing timber value. Theseexamples demonstrate that there is no unifiedforest accounting methodology in Latvia.Forestry accounting is complicated because itis not possible to harvest all standing timber inthe purchased forest property at once, but bystages in different years. Therefore it is neces-sary to develop guidelines or at least recom-

mendable methodology at the state level fordetermining the income gained from timbersales.

It is not specified currently who should eval-uate standing timber and forest land in Latvia.Therefore a forestry company can choose tovaluate its forests either by delegating this toan employee with appropriate knowledge or anaccountant, or involve professional propertyappraisers. The fair value of biological assetsshould be appraised once a year, but as itinvolves high costs, the world forestry compa-nies do not appraise their forests every year butafter a certain number of years, e.g. 3-5, justi-fying it with the long cycle of forestry.

There is a problem to find qualified forest

appraisers in Latvia. Only few companies pro-vide certified appraisal services for agricultur-al and woodland. Many of these appraiserseven do not have education related to forestry.

No unified valuation methodology for forestproperties as well as no unified requirementsfor forest appraisers, have been created.Therefore the quality of work performance islow. This is the reason why a specific forestvaluation standard which would determine in

detail both forest valuation and accountancy isneeded in Latvia.

Discussion and conclusion

Wood and its products have a worldwideimportance; however, forest accounting andvaluation guidelines are still lacking. The IAS41 is an attempt to improve the situation and

harmonize financial reports but as it can beobserved from the practice of internationalforestry companies, a lot of improvement isstill needed.

After analyzing the available informationabout forest accountancy it can be concludedthat the forest should be accounted at long-term investments, but standing timber and for-est land should be recorded separately.Harvested logs should be recorded at currentassets position Inventories, but standing tim-

ber which is not planned to sell during a yearshould be recorded at current assets positionLong-term investments held for sale.According to IAS 41, the standing timbershould be estimated at its fair value, but at the


8/8


58

same time, estimation of the fair value revealsmany deficiencies. Forestry companies aroundthe world interpret the IAS 41 differently. Themost common method of determining the fairvalue, according to IAS 41, is discounted cashflow method for the forest companies. Despitethe introduction of several improvements, theIAS 41 still has many gaps such as what kindof timber prices would be advisable to use inthe calculations; from which age the treescould be considered as a mature plantation;what to do with the additional forest usageoptions which increase its value, etc. TheInternational Accounting Standards Boardshould continue improving the Standard. Asvaluation of forest properties is much demand-

ed, a completely independent, internationaland specific valuation of forest propertiesshould be developed.

The changes in Latvian accounting lawsrelating to biological assets were introducedstarting from the end of 2005, and the IAS 41has currently only permissive nature. The lawsof the Republic of Latvia allow the biologicalassets to be left at their purchase value withoutrevaluating them. There is no common

methodology how determining the incomewhich is gained from timber sales for forestrycompanies in Latvia. Also the evaluation ofstanding timber is complex problem becausethere are the lack of qualified forest appraisersin Latvia. It reveals the need for fixed forestvaluation standards or at least guidlines.

Acknowledgments

The research was carried out within the framesof PhD studies at the Latvia University ofAgriculture (LLU) and ESF project Supportfor doctoral studies program of LLU, contract

No. 04.4-08/EF2.D3.19/. I am grateful for thehelpful comments of accounting companyEilas Rancanes konsultaciju birojs Ltd.

References

Anonymous, 2009. Forest, Paper & Packaging ForestIndustry: Application Review of SGS 41, Agriculture:

The Fair Value of Standing Timber. Price WaterhouseCoopers, United Kingdom, 26 p.

Bright, G., 2001. Forestry Budgets and Accounts. CABIPublishing, London, 380 p.

Burnside A., 2005. IAS 41 and the forest industry - Astudy of the forest products companies' perception of

the IAS 41 today. Bachelor Thesis, Department ofBusiness Administration, Gteborg University,Gteborg, 56 p.

Dubrovskis, D., 2007. Bilancspejigas meiericibasmetodes teoretiskais pamatojums un ievieanas moduli[Theoretical and practical foundation and models ofvalue balance method in forest management]. PhD the-sis, Forest faculty, Latvian University of Agriculture,Jelgava, 121 p.

Gada parskatu likums [The "Annual Accounts Law" of theRepublic of Latvia] Web at: http://www.fm.gov.lv/gra-matvediba/normativie_akti/gada_parskata_likums.doc,

Accessed: 18.09.2009.Herbohn, K., Herbohn, J., 2006. International Accounting

Standard (IAS) 41: What Are the Implications forReporting Forest Assets? Small-Scale Forestry,Springer Netherlands 5(2): 175-189.

Iesalnieks, J., 2002. Mea Ekonomikas pamati (Foresteconomic fundamentals). ET CETERA, Riga, 89 p.

International Accounting Standards Board agenda proj-ects. Web: http://www.SGSplus.com/agenda/annu-alimprovements2006.htm#improve. Accessed:01.10.2009.

JSC "Latvijas Valsts Mei", 2008. Annual report 2008.

(unpublished material).Lefter, V., Roman, A.G., 2007. IAS 41 Agriculture: Fair

Value Accounting. Theoretical and Applied Economics,5(510): 15-22.

Penttinen, M., Latukka, A., Merilainen, H., Solminen, O.,2004. IAS Fair Value and Forest Evaluation on FarmForestry. In Pajuoja H and Karppinen H (eds.), BiennialMeeting of the Scandinavian Society of ForestEconomics, 12th - 15th May, Vantaa, Finland.Scandinavian Forest Economics No. 40, Vantaa, pp. 67-80. Web: http://www.metla.fi/tapahtumat/2004/ssfe/

proceedings-SSFE-2004-Jarvenpaa.pdf. Accessed:

21.06.2010.Par uznemuma ienakuma nodokli [The law "On Corporate

Income Tax" of the Republic of Latvia] Web:http://www.vid.gov.lv/dokumenti/tiesibu_akti/likumi/par%20uznemumu%20ienakuma%20nodokli.doc,Accessed: 18.09.2009.

Rurane, M., 2007. Uznemuma finanses [Companyfinances]. Jumava, Riga, 266 p.

Rutkovska, I., Blumberga, A., 2005. Biologiskie aktivi(Biological assets). In Rutkovska I., Blumberga A.,Gramatvedibas Rokasgramata (Accounting handbook).Rdl & Partner, Riga 21 p.

Starptautiskais gramatvedibas standarts "Lauksaimnie-ciba" [IAS 41 Agriculture]. Web: http://www.fm.gov.lv/gramatvediba/sgs/41.doc, Accessed: 18.09.2009.

Documents

Challenges Accounting Forests Latvian Case Study