Talk:Matching principle

Rewrite needed

This needs rewriting from the start. Matching should probably be merged into one article with the accruals principle. Revenue recognition should be the main article, discussing the (diminishing?) role of prudence as well. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article may need a rewrite, but I am totally against merging Matching Concept and Revenue Recognition. Both are altogether different from one another. Matching Concept involves the matching of the income and the relevant expenditure of a particular accounting period to ascertain the net profit or loss for that period. On the other hand Revenue Recognition involves the recording of income in the books of accounts according to the accrual concept. Hence these two articles cannot be merged. They are not at all similar.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I only just noticed your response. Matching and revenue recognition are both outworkings of the accruals concept (see e.g. AccountingCoach, Chron.com and AccountingTools 1 and 2.) However, I accept that there is no consensus to merge these pages. How about merging matching with Accrual? – Fayenatic London 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If we keep on merging all accounting related concepts, the whole of accountancy will all but consumed in just three basic concepts i.e. Accrual, Prudance and Going Concern. There will be nothing else left. So it is prudent enough to keep all principles separate.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NB: Is it just me, or are there "multiple issues" with a LOT of the Accountancy articles? - Mike D.38.106.170.210 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

i need the basic accounting principles by which may be one can learn accountancy by himself without the help of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.134.242 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 July 2012

According to GAAP this is a separate concept and does not need to be merged with any other article. The depreciation example in particular is put forward quite well.Muhdmoosa (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also strongly against merging Matching principle and Revenue Recognition. Revenue recognition policy's goal is mainly identification the timing and quantity of products/services actually transferred. Matching principle's goal is to assure that neither revenue or expenditure get separated in (the timing of) recognition when they should be the Yin and Yang of each other. Accrual is entirely different animal. It's a medium to realize Substance over form concept (which essentially means ignore the timing of cash) and few other principles. Prudence has very little relation to Matching principle even though the result of their applications may have the same appearance. Prudence usually means that when you have a choice how to record a transaction, choose the less rosy way. In revenue recognition, you may have a choice due to the uncertainty of transaction, Prudence principle then can apply; in application of Matching principle, choice is usually not given. The exclusion of Prudence principle discussion has very little impact on the comprehension of Matching principle. As an accounting practitioner, the fact people want to merge important building block of accounting together somewhat sadden me.--Youngexplorer (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I initially started to write an argument against merging but in doing so saw the logic in merging them. Whilst they are separate principles they are intrinsically tied to each other and any consideration of one requires consideration of the others. The Basis of Accounting (i.e. accrual or cash) is all about the Recognition of Revenue and of Expenditure. And the Recognition of Revenue and the Recognition of Expenditure are linked (though perhaps modified is a better term) by the Matching Principle. However the merged article must make clear the different principles discussed.