archive-com.com » COM » I » IASPLUS.COM

Total: 1447

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • IFRS specialists
    Logout IAS Plus Global English Global English Global Deutsch Canada English Canada Français United Kingdom English United States English Toggle navigation Search site Toggle navigation Home News Publications Meetings Standards Projects Jurisdictions Resources My IAS Plus Topics Communications Toggle navigation Search site Navigation IFRS specialists Info IFRS specialists Phil Barden Partner in the UK IFRS Centre of Excellence London United Kingdom Shariq Barmaky Deloitte Southeast Asia Regional Professional Practice Director Singapore Jens Berger Leader of Deloitte Germany s IFRS Centre of Excellence Frankfurt Germany Graeme Berry Partner Accounting Auditing Technical Deloitte Southern Africa Johannesburg South Africa Thomas Carlier Head of Deloitte s Brussels IFRS Centre of Excellence Brussels Belgium Elizabeth Chrispin Leader of Deloitte United Kingdom s IFRS Centre of Excellence London United Kingdom Anna Crawford Leader of Deloitte Australia s IFRS Centre of Excellence Sydney Australia Cleber Custodio Leader of the Madrid IFRS Centre of Excellence Madrid Spain Trevor Derwin IFRS expert in the South African IFRS Centre of Excellence Johannesburg South Africa Martin Faarborg Lead Client Service Partner Copenhagen Denmark Next 10 items 1 2 3 4 Contact us About Legal Privacy FAQs Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/people/ifrs-specialists (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Februar
    der vorherrschenden Geschäftstätigkeit der richtige Ansatz ist sorgt der Vorschlag des IASB die vorherrschenden Geschäftstätigkeit auf Ebene der Berichtseinheit zu bestimmen für Verwirrung Die meisten Stellungnehmenden scheinen der Meinung zu sein dass der IASB die Konzernebene als Ebene der Berichtseinheit ansieht Andere sind allerdings der Meinung dass Ebene der Berichtseinheit eine leere Phrase ist die auch Ebenen unterhalb der Konzernebene beschreiben kann Die Frage wie Mischkonzerne zu behandeln sind ist in beiden Fällen wichtig Deshalb argumentieren Stellungnehmende die annehmen dass der IASB eine Bestimmung auf Konzernebene vorsieht oft dass eine Bestimmung unterhalb der Ebene der Berichtseinheit notwendig sei während Stellungnehmende die von einer Bestimmung auf tieferer Ebene ausgehen sich oft hinsichtlich der Auswirkungen auf den Konzern im Unklaren sind Die beiden folgenden Möglichkeiten scheinen sich herauszuschälen Die Beurteilung erfolgt auf Konzernebene und die Ergebnisse werden nach unten durchgereicht dies würde dazu führen dass reinen Versicherungsunternehmen die Tochterunternehmen von Mischkonzernen sind die Aufschuboption nicht zur Verfügung steht während ähnliche Unternehmen die keine Tochterunternehmen von Mischkonzernen sind die Option sehr wohl nutzen könnten Die Beurteilung erfolgt auf einer tieferen Ebene als die Konzernebene was dann die Frage aufwirft wie diese Beurteilung nach oben weitergereicht wird es könnte bedeuten dass Konzerne IFRS 9 und IAS 39 Zahlen zu konsolidieren hätten oder es könnte bedeuten dass in Frage kommende Tochterunternehmen zwei Sätze von Rechnungslegungsinformationen vorzuhalten hätten IAS 39 Zahlen für die Berichterstattung gegenüber ihren Adressaten und IFRS 9 Zahlen für die Berichterstattung innerhalb des Konzerns Es wird nach Stand der Informationen von der IASB Sitzung im Oktober 2015 derzeit davon ausgegangen dass der IASB die erneuten Erörterungen des Entwurfs im zweiten Quartal 2016 aufnehmen wird Endgültige Änderungen werden im dritten Quartal 2016 erwartet Wir nehmen Stellung zu den vorgeschlagenen Änderungen an IFRS 4 in Bezug auf IFRS 9 08 02 2016 Das IFRS Global Office von Deloitte hat gegenüber dem IASB Stellung zu dessen Entwurf ED 2015 11 Anwendung von IFRS 9 Finanzinstrumente gemeinsam mit IFRS 4 Versicherungsverträge Vorgeschlagene Änderungen an IFRS 4 genommen den dieser am 9 Dezember 2015 herausgegeben hat In unserer Stellungnahme zum Entwurf halten wir folgende Punkte fest Im Entwurf werden valide Gründe für das Einführen einer temporären Lösung von Sachverhalten identifiziert die aus dem Übergang auf zwei große miteinander in Verbindung stehende Standards zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten resultieren Es sollte die Option bestehen die Anwendung von IFRS 9 aufzuschieben und ein Kriterium der vorherrschenden Geschäftstätigkeit auf Grundlage des Buchwerts von Schulden ist eine sachgerechte Möglichkeit zu bestimmen ob diese Option angewendet werden kann Allerdings hegen wir Bedenken in Bezug auf die Methode für die Überprüfung dieses Kriteriums und wir sind auch der Ansicht dass dieses nicht nur auf Ebene der Berichtseinheit überprüft werden sollte Der vorgeschlagene Zeitpunkt für das Auslaufen des Aufschubansatzes ist sachgerecht Wir drängen den IASB sein erneuten Erörterungen des neuen Versicherungsstandards unter Berücksichtigung der Rückmeldungen aus den Stellungnahmen und Einbindungsaktivitäten rasch abzuschließen damit der Zeitpunkt des neuen Standards in den Aufschubzeitraum fällt Darüber hinaus sind wir der Meinung dass ein klar definiertes Versicherungsunternehmen von der Anwendung des

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/de/news/2016/februar?set_language=de (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2016-2
    survey results Reactions to the proposed amendments intended to address concerns about the different effective dates of IFRS 9 and the forthcoming new insurance contracts standard Feb 08 2016 On December 9 2015 the IASB published ED 2015 11 Applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts Proposed amendments to IFRS 4 The comment deadline for this ED has now ended ED 2015 11 proposed two options for entities that issue insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS 4 an option that would permit entities to reclassify from profit or loss to other comprehensive income some of the income or expenses arising from designated financial assets this is the so called overlay approach an optional temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 for entities whose predominant activity is issuing contracts within the scope of IFRS 4 this is the so called deferral approach The comment letters on the ED made available on the IASB s Web site seem to focus on two questions Is one of the two approaches preferable Can one or the other be dropped altogether How can predominance best be determined for the deferral approach What is the appropriate level for assessing predominance On the first question the vast majority of respondents state that both approaches are needed They claim that both the overlay approach and the temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 are needed as these address different issues depending on the type of business activities and group structures On the ends of the spectrum are the insurance industry on the one side and user organizations on the other side The insurance industry is asking for a deferral of IFRS 9 until the insurance standard is completed they mostly cite cost reasons Some user groups are asking for the overlay approach only some very few even argue that it is best to do nothing these respondents mainly cite lack of comparability if multiple options exist One level down it is especially the deferral approach that triggers suggestions for refinement While most respondents agree that assessing predominance is the right approach the IASB s proposal to assess predominance at the reporting entity level causes confusion Most respondents seem to believe that the IASB sees the group level as the reporting entity level Others believe that reporting entity level is an empty phrase that could also mean lower levels than the group level The question of how to treat conglomerates is important in both cases Therefore respondents assuming that the IASB intends testing at the group level often argue that a testing below the reporting entity level is needed respondents assuming an assessment at a lower level often wonder of the implications for the group The two possibilities that seem to emerge are Assessment is at the group level and results are cascaded down this would leave pure insurance companies that are subsidiaries of conglomerates without the option of deferral while companies that are not subsidiaries of conglomerates would have the option Assessment is at a lower

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-ca/news/part-i-ifrs/copy_of_02?set_language=en-ca (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2016-2
    administrateurs de l IFRS Foundation qui a eu lieu à Londres a été publié Voici quelques unes des activités qui étaient à l ordre du jour de la réunion Réunion de direction Les administrateurs ont discuté de plusieurs sujets stratégiques importants l examen de la structure et de l efficacité de l IFRS Foundation le plan stratégique 2016 la collaboration avec les normalisateurs nationaux et les organismes régionaux d autres questions les rapports des comités Rapport du président de l IASB Le président de l IASB a fait le point sur certaines activités techniques de l IASB Rapport du Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC Les administrateurs ont reçu un rapport sur la réunion du DPOC de janvier 2016 Événement dans le cadre du programme Investors in financial reporting L IFRS Foundation conjointement avec le CFA Institute a organisé un événement dans le cadre du programme Investors in Financial Reporting Consulter le compte rendu de la réunion des administrateurs de l IFRS Foundation sur le site Web de l IASB en anglais Le FASB ajoute quatre projets à son programme de recherche 08 févr 2016 Le 3 février 2016 à la lumière des résultats de sondages menés auprès de divers groupes consultatifs le Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB a décidé d ajouter quatre sujets relatifs à la présentation de l information financière dans son document de travail qu il prévoit publier au cours du premier semestre de 2016 Les sujets qui seront ajoutés sont les suivants Régimes de retraite et autres régimes d avantages postérieurs à l emploi Immobilisations incorporelles Établissement de la différence entre les passifs et les capitaux propres Présentation de l information financière À l exception des immobilisations incorporelles qui ne sont pas à l heure actuelle abordées dans les projets de recherche de l IASB ces sujets

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/fr-ca/nouvelles/part-i-ifrs/02-fr-ca?set_language=fr-ca (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • February
    exposure draft in the second quarter of 2016 Final amendments are expected in the third quarter of 2016 We comment on the IASB s proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 We have responded to the IASB s Exposure Draft Applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts Proposed amendments to IFRS 4 that was IASB published in December 2015 As stated in the comment letter we agree The exposure draft has identified valid reasons to introduce a temporary solution to issues arising from transitioning to two major and interrelated new standards at different times An option to defer IFRS 9 should be available for insurance activities and that a predominance criterion based on the carrying amount of liabilities is appropriate means to determine when that option should be available However we have concerns over the methodology for measuring that criterion and also disagree that it should be assessed only at the reporting entity level The proposed expiry date for the deferral approach is appropriate but recommend that the IASB conclude its deliberations on the new insurance contracts standard taking into account the inputs received from comment letters and outreach activities so that the effective date of the new standard is within this timescale In addition we do not believe that a clearly defined insurance business should be excluded from the deferral approach only because it is part of a larger group and recommend the predominance test be permitted at the reporting entity level or each level below the parent entity waterfall approach Further we provided some suggestions on how the predominance test could be modified to ensure that the temporary deferral can be applied by an appropriate population of entities Please click to access the full comment letter FRC publishes report into engagement quality control reviews 08 Feb 2016 The Financial Reporting Council FRC has today published the results of its thematic review in respect of firms engagement quality control reviews EQCR Specifically the thematic review considers the work performed by the engagement quality control reviewer EQCR in the audit of financial statements The FRC comments that the report is intended to promote a better understanding of the role of the EQCR and how this can support and enhance confidence in audit The FRC s AQR team visited nine audit firms to review their audit methodology guidance and training provided to partners and staff in respect of the engagement quality control review EQC review process Meetings were also held with a selection of EQCRs to understand how they perform this role and the challenges they face The review follows other thematic reviews conducted in January 2016 January 2014 and December 2013 Thematic reviews analyse further aspects of auditing which are not considered in detail during the FRC s routine audit inspections of individual firms Thematic reviews seek to identify both good practice and areas of common weakness among audit firms Overall the FRC indicates that all firms have established EQC review procedures for financial statement audits

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/news/2016/02?set_language=en-gb (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • February
    the IASB s ED 2015 11 Applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments With IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts has now passed Comments were due by February 8 ED 2015 11 proposed two options for entities that issue insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS 4 Entities would be permitted to re clas sify from profit or loss to other com pre hen sive income some of the income or expenses arising from des ig nated financial assets i e the overlay approach Entities whose pre dom i nant activity is issuing contracts within the scope of IFRS 4 would be able to employ an optional temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 i e the deferral approach The comment letters on the ED seem to focus on two questions Is one of the two ap proaches prefer able and can either one be dropped al to gether How can pre dom i nance best be de ter mined under the deferral approach and what is the ap pro pri ate level for assessing pre dom i nance Regarding the first question most re spon dents believe that both the overlay approach and the deferral approach are needed because they address different issues depending on the type of business ac tiv i ties and group struc tures For instance entities in the insurance industry are requesting that IFRS 9 be deferred until the insurance standard is completed primarily citing cost reasons However some user groups are asking for the overlay approach only and some are even arguing that it would be best to do nothing believing that com pa ra bil ity would be hindered if multiple options exist Some respondents had suggestions for refining the deferral approach While most re spon dents agree that assessing pre dom i nance is the right approach some believe that the IASB s proposal for assessing pre dom i nance at the reporting entity level is confusing Most re spon dents seem to believe that the IASB sees the group level as the reporting entity level However others believe that the reporting entity level could also constitute lower levels than the group level Implications of the two possible assessments may include As sess ment is at the group level Pure insurance companies that are sub sidiaries of con glom er ates would not have the option of deferral while companies that are not sub sidiaries of con glom er ates would have the option As sess ment is at a lower level than the group level In this assessment there is the question of roll up That is either 1 groups would need to con sol i date IFRS 9 and IAS 39 numbers or 2 qual i fy ing sub sidiaries would need to keep two sets of books an IAS 39 one for reporting to their users and an IFRS 9 one for reporting within the group The IASB plans to begin rede lib er a ting the ED in the second quarter of 2016

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/news/2016/02?set_language=en-us (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • January
    frequent involuntary imposition of such combinations by law or other authority Please click to access the press release and ED 60 on the IPSASB website Comments are requested by 30 June 2016 IFRS Foundation seeks new SMEIG members 28 Jan 2016 The IFRS Foundation Trustees are currently seeking nominations for membership of the SME Implementation Group SMEIG which supports the international adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards for Small and Medium sized Entities IFRS for SMEs and monitors its implementation The Trustees are seeking up to 14 new members of the SMEIG who will be appointed from 1 July 2016 and would serve three year terms Nominations for membership of the SMEIG close on 28 February 2016 Please click for the IASB press release link to IASB website EBA launches an impact assessment of IFRS 9 on banks 28 Jan 2016 The European Banking Authority EBA is launching an impact assessment of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments on a sample of approximately 50 institutions across the European Union The assessment is aimed at estimating the impact of IFRS 9 on regulatory own funds In addition it will support the EBA in assessing the interaction between IFRS 9 and other prudential requirements Please click for more information in the press release on the EBA website We comment on the IASB s annual improvements to IFRSs 2014 2016 cycle ED 27 Jan 2016 We have responded to the IASB s Exposure Draft Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2014 2016 Cycle that was IASB published in November 2015 and makes proposes amendments to three IFRSs We believe the annual improvement project is efficient and effective method of handling isolated issues with IFRSs and support the amendments proposed in the exposure draft In addition we provided recommendations for drafting changes and amendments to transitional provisions Please click to access the full comment letter Summary of the December 2015 ASAF meeting now available 22 Jan 2016 The staff of the International Accounting Standards Board IASB have made available a summary of the discussions of the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum ASAF meeting held in London on 7 8 December 2015 The topics covered during the meeting were the following numbers in brackets are ref er ences to the cor re spond ing para graphs of the summary AASB KASB joint research project on IFRS implementation 1 4 ASAF members discussed the results of researched conducted on accounting judgments on using IFRS Disclosure initiative draft materiality practice statement 5 8 ASAF members provided their views on Exposure Draft IFRS Practice Statement Application of Materiality to Financial Statements ASAF members had mixed comments on whether to issue mandatory or non mandatory guidance on materiality Conceptual framework recognition criteria 9 20 ASAF members discussed a paper Recognition Criteria in the Conceptual Framework prepared by the Accounting Standards Board of Japan and debated the proposal of whether to keep the probability criterion in the recognition criteria Post employment benefits research project 21 27 ASAF members were provided with an update by

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/news/2016/01 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • February
    in the second quarter of 2016 Final amendments are expected in the third quarter of 2016 We comment on the IASB s proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 We have responded to the IASB s Exposure Draft Applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts Proposed amendments to IFRS 4 that was IASB published in December 2015 As stated in the comment letter we agree The exposure draft has identified valid reasons to introduce a temporary solution to issues arising from transitioning to two major and interrelated new standards at different times An option to defer IFRS 9 should be available for insurance activities and that a predominance criterion based on the carrying amount of liabilities is appropriate means to determine when that option should be available However we have concerns over the methodology for measuring that criterion and also disagree that it should be assessed only at the reporting entity level The proposed expiry date for the deferral approach is appropriate but recommend that the IASB conclude its deliberations on the new insurance contracts standard taking into account the inputs received from comment letters and outreach activities so that the effective date of the new standard is within this timescale In addition we do not believe that a clearly defined insurance business should be excluded from the deferral approach only because it is part of a larger group and recommend the predominance test be permitted at the reporting entity level or each level below the parent entity waterfall approach Further we provided some suggestions on how the predominance test could be modified to ensure that the temporary deferral can be applied by an appropriate population of entities Please click to access the full comment letter FASB adds four projects to research agenda 08 Feb 2016 As result of a survey of different advisory groups the FASB decided to add four new financial reporting issues in its upcoming agenda discussion paper expected in the first half of 2016 The issues to be added are Pensions and other postretirement employee benefit plans Intangible assets Distinguishing liabilities from equity and Financial performance reporting With the exception of intangible assets which the IASB currently does not address in a research project the issues to be added correspond to a large part with the issues respondents to the IASB s agenda consultation which had asked repondents to rank the IASB s research projects as high medium or low priorities ranked as high importance A full analysis of the 118 responses on the IASB website is not available yet however especially pensions and other postretirement employee benefit plans and distinguishing liabilities from equity rank high among the research projects currently on the IASB s agenda Please click for the following information on the FASB website tentative Board decisions of 3 February 2016 From the Chairman s Desk explaining the results of the survey more closely FEE briefing paper on the endorsement of IFRS 9 08 Feb 2016 The Federation of European

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/news/2016/02 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •