Debates about converging U.S. and international accounting standards sometimes boil down to language issues. Case in point: the word "probable." At Wednesday's Financial Accounting Standards Board meeting, members briefly debated the difference in meaning of probable as it pertains to deferred tax assets (DTA).

Currently, FAS 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, requires that DTA be reduced by a valuation allowance if, based on available evidence, it is more likely than not (more than 50 percent sure) that some or all of the assets will not be realized. The related international standard, IAS 12, says something slightly different: DTA is not recognized unless it is probable that the asset would be realized.

In the spirit of convergence, IASB has asked FASB to change the wording of FAS 109 so the standards jibe from a consistency perspective. Nothing substantive would change. In the spirit of simplicity, however, the FASB staff recommended keeping the FAS 109 wording the same, and the board agreed.

Changing the wording of a 20-year-old rule, and explaining that no real change had been made, would just be "confusing," asserted one FASB staffer. Further, semantics are a big deal to precision-driven standard setters, and with good reason. Probable has a higher threshold in the U.S., under the venerable FAS 5, for example, whereas IASB uses the word to mean more likely than not.

Nit-picky? Indeed, but this isn't the first time the English language has been misconstrued by transatlantic colleagues. Luckily, CFO.com is owned by the London-based Economist Group, and I've learned over the years that a flat doesn't ruin a Sunday drive; a lift isn't something you give a hitchhiker; and that you can swallow your shorts in a UK pub. Solicitors, however, tend to be bothersome on both sides of the Atlantic.

Unfortunately sometimes, we do run into irreconcilable differences of vocabulary with our British colleagues.