Search

Current international financial reporting guidelines presuppose and assume in principle that the economic substance of a transaction takes prevalence over its legal form. It means that without even reviewing each transaction through two prisms, that is, from an economic point of view and a legal point of view simultaneously, the predominance of economic substance in accounting is determined a priori. This is the manifestation of the imperative nature of the principle. The article aims to analyse the introduction, development, and current existence of the principle of the primacy of economic substance over legal form in the legislation of the Republic of Latvia and to identify conditions that could limit or facilitate the interpretation and application of the true meaning of the principle based on the results obtained. The first part of the article provides examples and questions that have become the basis for a general reflection on the essence of the primacy of economic substance over legal form. Its understanding may not be so clear due to the interdisciplinary of principle. Conceptually, the determination of the economic nature is identical to the determination of the true meaning of a transaction, and it is dealt with at different institutional levels, depending on the objectives: for the valuation and presentation of transactions in corporate accounting; for determination of the taxable base in the tax administration, and for settlement of disputes in court. This issue is particularly relevant due to the current economic formation, which is determined by the required epidemiological measures - when the normal physical circulation and movement of goods, the provision of services are restricted, resulting in rapid digitalisation of business by making economic and legal relations difficult, which turns into challenges for accountants and lawyers. The second part offers a historical analysis how the idea of the primacy of economic substance over legal form was introduced in the accounting and tax legislation of the Republic of Latvia and compares historical definitions of the principle. There were deficiencies identified in the Latvian legal framework, which complicated the practical application of the principle. There are conclusions provided on the hypothetical need to review the strengthening of the definition of the concept of the primacy of economic substance at the legislative level in Latvia's current conditions, taking into account the diversity of the objectives of the principle and user interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the role of European economic integration and European norms on the rights of minority groups in Estonian and Latvian ethnic politics in the 1990s. By the end of the 1990s, Estonia and Latvia amended the citizenship and language policies of the early 1990s, while maintaining the principle of the ethnically based state. The main incentive for policy reform came from the prospect of European Union (EU) membership. The international norms on minority rights, developed mostly after the end of the Cold War, have complemented the incentive of EU membership. Estonia was quicker to respond to the incentive of European Union (EU) membership than Latvia. The domestic consensus on market reforms and membership in the West have enabled the Estonian elites to form coalitions necessary to adopt the minority policy changes required for EU membership. In Latvia, a consensus on EU membership is also present. Nevertheless, the prominent role of extremist nationalist in Latvian politics has often weakened government coalitions and slowed down the process of both economic and minority policy reform. The European norms on minority rights have played a greater role in Latvian deliberations on policy reform. Latvian centrists have referred to European norms to justify their compliance with EU membership criteria. In Estonia, the strong domestic consensus on EU membership and lack of debate on the citizenship and language policies has meant that European norms have not played a significant role. Estonian elites complied with EU recommendations when it was clear that compliance was required for membership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]