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".
  • Deloitte comment letter on the IFRS Foundation Due Process Handbook
    2012 In the comment letter we agree with much of the content of the proposed Due Process Handbook However we disagree with incorporating into the Due Process Handbook amendments that have not been incorporated into the IFRS Foundation s Constitution or the IASB s Conceptual Framework as those are fundamental documents that may only be amended after a formal due process related to the documents themselves We also disagree with reducing the time period for re exposure of proposed IFRSs or Interpretations as shortening re exposure periods threatens the quality of IFRSs Finally we are concerned that the Due Process Handbook is not entirely clear in relation to the roles the responsibilities and the competences of the Trustees Due Process Oversight Committee and the IASB staff Download Related Topics Publication series Deloitte comment letters IASB IFRIC IFRSF Resources IFRS Foundation Trustees IFRS Interpretations Committee International Accounting Standards Board IASB Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC IASB due process IFRS Foundation Related news Pre meeting summaries for the February IASB meeting 09 Feb 2016 2016 IFRS Red Book coming in March 09 Feb 2016 Reactions to the proposed amendments intended to address concerns about the different effective dates of IFRS 9 and the forthcoming new insurance contracts standard 08 Feb 2016 We comment on the IASB s proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 FEE briefing paper on the endorsement of IFRS 9 08 Feb 2016 February 2016 IASB meeting agenda posted 05 Feb 2016 All Related Related Publications Deloitte comment letter on proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 IFRS in Focus IASB issues amendments to IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows requiring disclosure of changes in liabilities arising from financing activities 01 Feb 2016 Deloitte comment letter on the IASB s annual improvements to IFRSs 2014 2016 cycle

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/global/comment-letters/2012/deloitte-comment-letter-on-the-ifrs-foundation-due-process-handbook (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • IFRS Taxonomy (education session)
    removed To address this a fatal flaw review of the final IFRS Taxonomy Update would be performed at pre ballot stage of the final standard amendments by members of the IFRS Taxonomy Consultative Group and other interested parties This review would also be beneficial for the technical documents as the taxonomy gave a different perspective The staff emphasised that the taxonomy document would still be separate from the technical document but suggested that on an ED basis the invitation to comment should also include taxonomy related questions One Board member asked whether this would delay expedited EDs The Senior Technical Manager replied that a fatal flaw review at pre ballot stage would give the taxonomy team enough time to review The Vice Chairman expressed concern that a concurrent review with an ED might mean additional work as the final standard amendments could be significantly different to the ED He therefore suggested publishing the taxonomy at the same time as the final standard amendment The Chairman supported this view One Board member said that different groups would review the technical and the taxonomy document He said that therefore he did not see a huge benefit in simultaneous exposure The Executive Technical Director replied that a simultaneous exposure could inspire collaboration between those teams which would be beneficial in the staff s view The Chairman said that a simultaneous disclosure might be beneficial to reduce the number of exposures but he also said that preparers were not interested in taxonomy One Board member disagreed and said that if different teams looked at the exposures there would be no complaints about too many exposures He warned that a simultaneous exposure could be interpreted as the taxonomy being part of the standard This was supported by another Board member He also said that in the IAS 7 trial where the ED and the taxonomy update were issued simultaneously only around 10 answered taxonomy related questions For him this sent a clear message from constituents that they did not want to answer taxonomy related questions at an ED stage The taxonomy update was like a translation that should be done when the standard amendment was final This view was supported by several Board members One Board member however disagreed and said that feedback on taxonomy should be stimulated by simultaneous exposure He said it could not be estimated what damage the absence of feedback caused A fellow Board member added another benefit of the taxonomy During the deliberation of a standard Board members might say the same things but mean different things Translating the draft standard into taxonomy could reveal those differences but only before the final publication A Board member suggested increasing the interaction within the IASB between technical staff and taxonomy staff He proposed to continue the trial to expose both documents at the same time and defer the decision regarding the due process The Senior Technical Manager concluded that the majority agreed with a concurrent fatal flaw review of a final standard

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/iasb/2015/july/ifrs-taxonomy (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Due Process Oversight Committee Chairman’s report
    for the forthcoming IFRS on Regulatory Deferral Accounts was expected to be approved at the DPOC meeting on 28 January 2014 In addition Mr Evans noted that the IFRS Foundation s advisory groups supporting XBRL were being restructured and made more appropriate for the integration of XBRL and the technical work of the IASB He noted also that the DPOC was involved in reviewing the activities of the IFRS Foundation s Education Initiative He highlighted the risk that anything issued under the Education Initiative would be accompanied by the risk that they would be seen as mandatory or interpretive in nature The DPOC was aware of this risk and would monitor it closely The DPOC was also reviewing the continued existence of some of the long standing project consultative groups in particular that they had not out lived their usefulness The staff had noted that consultative groups were often very active at the beginning of a project but remained useful as a sounding board in its later stages DPOC members had attended sessions of five of the IASB s consultative groups including Advisory Council ASAF Capital Markets and Effects Analysis Referring particular to the Effects Analysis Consultative Group he noted that the DPOC has cautioned that the IASB s legitimate efforts to be sensitive to the user needs of prudential regulators should not inadvertently expand the scope of effects analysis beyond the constitutional limits of its standard setting responsibilities and should be consistent with the objectives of financial reporting as set out in the Conceptual Framework Mr Hoogervorst added to these remarks by noting the DPOC s concerns around the establishment of the Revenue standard implementation group noting that the group would not issue any guidance and that nothing the group did or said could be construed as authoritative Mr Evans noted that the only item of correspondence addressed in the last reporting period was with BusinessEurope and had been concluded satisfactorily Mr Kono queried why the DPOC had cautioned the IASB about the work of the Effects Analysis Consultative Group Mr Evans noted that there had been some expansive language used at the time the group was established that had caused the DPOC to express caution Mr Ian Mackintosh IASB Vice Chair noted that the DPOC s engagement involvement had been thorough but helpful and said that the relationship between the DPOC and the IASB and staff was positive and constructive There were no further questions for Mr Evans Mr Kono closed the meeting Related Topics Resources Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC Projects Revenue recognition Rate regulated activities Interim standard Quick links Agenda Paper MB4 DPOC Activities IASB website Related news Due Process Oversight Committee holds January 2016 meeting 05 Feb 2016 Summary of the December 2015 ASAF meeting now available 22 Jan 2016 IFRS Foundation Trustees hold October 2015 meeting 26 Oct 2015 Due Process Oversight Committee holds October 2015 meeting 26 Oct 2015 FASB proposes clarifications to its new revenue standard 30 Sep 2015 FASB votes to

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/ifrsf/2014/january/dpoc (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Due Process Oversight Committee (DPOC) report
    Topics Communications Toggle navigation Search site Navigation IFRS Foundation Trustees meeting 17 October 2013 Chairman s summary of Trustees business sessions IASB Chairman and Senior Technical Directors reports Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC report Info Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC report Date recorded 17 Oct 2013 Scott Evans reported that the Due Process Oversight Committee had reviewed progress on the current projects and had noted no due process concerns The DPOC was generally supportive of the IFRSF s post issuance review programme but noted that the IASB s concern to be responsive to prudential supervisors concerns should not expand the scope of the Board s activity nor override the focus on capital markets He noted a concern raised by BusinessEurope about the characterisation of its comments in a staff summary He DPOC had discussed the issue and received a report from the senior technical staff on the issue Staff training had been enhanced on comment letter analysis in particular so that mischaracterisations should be less likely in future A response to BusinessEurope had been approved by the DPOC Conclusion The meeting concluded after thanks to the German hosts and the IFRS Foundation staff The IFRS Foundation will meet next in Milan Italy on 28 29 January 2014 Related Topics Resources Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC Related news Due Process Oversight Committee holds January 2016 meeting 05 Feb 2016 IFRS Foundation Trustees hold October 2015 meeting 26 Oct 2015 Due Process Oversight Committee holds October 2015 meeting 26 Oct 2015 IFRS Foundation Trustees hold June 2015 meeting 08 Jul 2015 Due Process Oversight Committee holds June 2015 meeting 08 Jul 2015 IFRS Foundation Trustees hold April 2015 meeting 01 May 2015 All Related Related Publications Deloitte comment letter on the IFRS Foundation Due Process Handbook 05 Sep 2012 All Related Related

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/ifrsf/2013/october-2013/dpoc (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Update on Trustee activities
    of Paul Beswick in a speech on 2 June 2013 Mr Prada noted the release of the first batch of country profiles on the IFRSF s website He also noted the on going review of the EU IAS Regulation being conducted by Philippe Maystadt The IFRSF would be meeting with Mr Maystadt later in June While noting that the Maystadt review was wide ranging he recalled the G20 finance ministers reiterated commitment to global accounting standards in April 2013 A Council member questioned whether the major audit networks funding issue and perceptions of conflict of interest would be addressed directly Mr Prada said that yes they would be but this issue was part of a longer term conversation He recalled that in 2000 IOSCO had insisted on involving the major networks and that their contributions were seen as necessary and legitimate Another Council member suggested finding an international organisation e g the UN under whose auspices the IFRSF could sit The Trustees have considered this Bob Glauber Vice Chair noted three retirements from the IASB and their replacements John Smith replaced by Mary Tokar Paul Pacter replaced by Gary Kabureck and Prabhakar Kalavacherla who retires on 31 December 2013 to be replaced by Sue Lloyd He noted the first Trustee to be appointed from the Middle East Dr Abdulrahman Al Humaid and the early retirement of Noriaki Shimazaki The appointment of a replacement for Mr Shimazaki is in progress Aki Fujinuma a Vice Chair and also from Japan s term expires in December 2013 The prospect of having no Trustees from Japan was very worrying for Trustees especially with a new government in Japan which might be more receptive to wider use of IFRS With the agreement of the IFRS Monitoring Board Aki has agreed to extend his term to September 2014 Other Trustee vacancies were arising in Brazil and Australia but the Trustees had already compiled an impressive list of potential candidates David Loweth reviewed the activities of the Due Process Oversight Committee on behalf of Scott Evans who was unable to attend the meeting The DPOC had conducted a comprehensive due process review of the insurance project in advance of the release of the ED It had undertaken a full life cycle review of IFRS 9 hedging document taking the DPOC back to the 2008 Reducing Complexity in Financial Instruments DP The DPOC had reviewed the post implementation review of IFRS 8 In the case of proposed IFRS 11 Education material the DPOC was made aware by the IASB staff that the proposed material had over stepped the line between helpful material and authoritative material and concurred with the staff s proposed remedies The DPOC would undertake a full life cycle review of the due process leading up to the forthcoming IFRS on revenue Related Topics Resources Adoption of IFRS by country Due Process Oversight Committee DPOC IASB Board membership IFRS Foundation IFRS Foundation Trustees International Accounting Standards Board IASB Related news Pre meeting summaries for the February

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/ifrs-ac/ifrs-ac-june-2013/update-on-trustee-activities (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2016
    charge par votre version de navigateur ou vous avez peut être sélectionné le mode de compatibilité Veuillez désactiver le mode de compatibilité télécharger Internet Explorer 9 ou une version plus récente ou essayer d utiliser un autre navigateur tel que Google Chrome ou Mozilla Firefox IAS Plus IAS plus Canada Français International English International Deutsch Canada English Canada Français États Unis English Royaume Uni English Bienvenue Mon compte Quitter IAS Plus Canada Français International English International Deutsch Canada English Canada Français États Unis English Royaume Uni English Toggle navigation Search site Toggle navigation Accueil À propos de CIF Nouvelles Publications Normes Projets Ressources Toggle navigation Search site Info 2016 Communiquez avec nous Reconnaissance À propos de CIF Juridique Confidentialité Le contenu du présent site Web est la propriété exclusive de Deloitte Global Services Limited ou d un cabinet membre de Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited ou de l une de leurs entités liées 2015 Pour toute information juridique y compris sur les droits d auteur reportez vous à l avis juridique Deloitte désigne une ou plusieurs entités parmi Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited société fermée à responsabilité limitée par garanties du Royaume Uni DTTL ainsi que son réseau de cabinets membres et

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/fr-ca/publications/other/comment-letters/comment-letters/2016?set_language=fr-ca (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Deloitte comment letter on proposed amendments to IFRS 4
    s IFRS Global Office agrees 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 Deloitte s IFRS Global Office 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 Deloitte s IFRS Global Office does 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 Deloitte s IFRS Global Office 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 Download the full comment letter below Download Related Topics Publication series Deloitte comment letters IASB IFRIC IFRSF Resources International Accounting Standards Board IASB Projects Insurance contracts overview Standards IAS 39 Financial Instruments Recognition and Measurement IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts IFRS 9 Financial Instruments Related news Comment letter feedback on the IASB s proposal related to the different effective dates of IFRS 9 and the forthcoming insurance contracts standard Feb 08

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/global/comment-letters/2016/ed-2015-11?set_language=en-us (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Newsletters
    publications Non English publications Third party publications IFRS e learning Info Newsletters From this page you can access global IFRS related newsletters from Deloitte You can also find translations and tailored editions of many of the publications in various languages on our translations page Overview of our global IFRS related newsletters IFRS in Focus We publish IFRS in Focus newsletters at the time of release of new and revised Standards and Interpretations Exposure Drafts and discussion documents including summaries of the documents and consideration of the principal amendments proposals A closer look A closer look provides detailed analysis of particular aspects of key projects and other developments of the International Accounting Standards Board IASB focusing on topics of wide interest IFRS project insights A quick overview of the key projects of the IASB with a summary of the current status key decisions and proposals key considerations for entities given the status of the project and the next steps in the project IFRS industry insights These concise and informative publications provide insights into the potential impacts of recent pronouncements in particular industries focusing on the key practical implications to be considered IFRS on point We publish IFRS on point highlighting the month s critical financial reporting developments IFRS on Point is published at the end of the month and provides a great way to catch up on the main IFRS related news stories of the month Quick links About publications Global publications Translations of global publications Discontinued publication series Latest publications IFRS in Focus IASB issues amendments to IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows requiring disclosure of changes in liabilities arising from financing activities 01 Feb 2016 IFRS industry insights Telecommunications sector Implications of the new leasing standard 21 Jan 2016 IFRS in Focus IASB issues amendments to IAS 12 to

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