For those here who are not accountants, the following is provided as a very brief background to this discussion.
Financial accounting refers to the set of rules that govern how financial statements (not tax returns) are presented.
In the United States, financial accounting standards are set primarily by a private, non-profit board called the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The FASB issues standards that companies use in presenting their financial statements, although governmental entities such as the Securities and Exchange Commission also have authority.
The international accounting standard about which Farmer Giles is confused is almost surely part of the set of standards promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The IASB is "an independent group of 15 experts with an appropriate mix of recent practical experience of standard-setting, or of the user, accounting, academic or preparer communities."
http://www.iasb.org/The+organisation/Me ... e+IASB.htm
See also:
http://www.iasb.org/The+organisation/IASCF+and+IASB.htm
Neither the FASB (in the USA) nor the IASB (internationally) is authoritative in determining definitions for terms used in U.S. federal income tax law. Everyone who earns a bachelor's level degree in accounting from an accredited college or university in the United States should know the difference between financial accounting standards (such as "generally accepted accounting principles", or "GAAP") and tax accounting. The phrase "book-tax differences" is a standard part of the daily jargon of Certified Public Accountants in the United States.
Now, there is much overlap between financial accounting and tax accounting. Indeed, there are probably more similarities than there are differences between the two. But Farmer Giles has little or no clue about the similarities and the differences. Farmer Giles obviously not only does not understand the financial accounting literature he is reading, he also does not understand that the financial accounting literature would be something rarely (if ever) cited when presenting an argument about the meaning of a term in U.S. federal income tax law. In other words, Farmer's attempt to cite an international accounting standard for "income" as a means to reaching the false conclusion that his compensation is not taxable (which is almost certainly one of the places where Giles is trying to go with this) is analogous to the habit of other tax protesters who erroneously cite Adam Smith for the U.S. constitutional definition of "direct tax". Giles has neither the training nor the experience to be attempting to use international accounting standards in this discussion of tax law.
Giles suffers from another deficiency:
Word Salad Posting Syndrome (or "WSPS") (yes, I just coined that term). Like David Merrill Not Really So Very Much Van Pelt, Giles has not mastered the use of the technical jargon. And, like David, Giles appears to be unaware of his deficiency.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet