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".
  • Switzerland
    Forgot password Welcome My account 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 Global publications Member firm publications Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Germany Hong Kong Hungary India Ireland Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland IFRS Surveys Switzerland Taiwan United Kingdom United States Non English publications Third party publications IFRS e learning Info Switzerland Deloitte Switzerland produces publications about accounting in Switzerland in the English language IFRS surveys You find more information and news about financial reporting in Switzerland on our jurisdiction page for the Switzerland Quick links About publications Our Switzerland jurisdiction page Latest publications IFRS Survey 2014 Financial reporting by listed companies Spotlight on Swiss trends 10 Oct 2014 IFRS Survey 2013 Focus on financial reporting by Swiss listed companies 01 Oct 2013 Contact us About Legal Privacy FAQs Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited or

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


  • Taiwan
    Login Login Name Password Login Register Forgot password Welcome My account 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 Global publications Member firm publications Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Germany Hong Kong Hungary India Ireland Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland Taiwan IFRS in Focus newsletters Taiwan Other Taiwanese publications United Kingdom United States Non English publications Third party publications IFRS e learning Info Taiwan Deloitte Taiwan produces the following publications in the Chinese language IFRS in Focus Other Taiwanese publications You can out more information and news about financial reporting in Taiwan on our jurisdiction page for Taiwan Quick links About publications Our Taiwan jurisdiction page Latest publications IFRS in Focus IASB publishes amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 2011 dealing with the sale or contribution of assets between an investor and its joint venture or associate 23 Oct 2014 IFRS in Focus IASB issues Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2012 2014 Cycle 23 Oct 2014 IFRS in Focus IASB issues amendments to IAS 27 to allow the use of the equity method in separate financial statements 23 Oct 2014 IFRS in Focus IASB finalises IFRS 9 which changes the classification and measurement of financial assets and introduces an expected loss impairment model 18 Aug 2014 IFRS in Focus IASB issues new standard on revenue recognition 27 Jul 2014 Contact us About Legal Privacy FAQs Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited or one of their related entities

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

  • United Kingdom
    United States English Login or Register Deloitte User Login Login Name Password Login Register Forgot password Welcome My account 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 Global publications Member firm publications Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Germany Hong Kong Hungary India Ireland Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland Taiwan United Kingdom A closer look UK Accounting roundup UK Comment letters United Kingdom Need to know Point of view UK Other UK publications United States Non English publications Third party publications IFRS e learning Info United Kingdom Deloitte United Kingdom produces the following publications Accounting roundup previously iGAAP newsletter Need to know previously iGAAP alert A closer look Point of view Comment letters selected only Other UK publications You can out more information and news about financial reporting in the United Kingdom on our jurisdiction page for United Kingdom Quick links About publications RSS feed of all UK publications Our United Kingdom jurisdiction page Latest publications What the new Enhanced Disclosure Task Force report means for banks 08 Dec 2015 Annual report insights 2015 The reporting landscape 07 Oct 2015 EPRA Annual Report Survey 2014 15 11 Sep 2015 IR how does it fit into the UK corporate reporting landscape 05 Jun 2015 A Directors Guide to Integrated Reporting 03 Mar 2015 Contact us About Legal Privacy FAQs Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited or one of their related entities See Legal for additional copyright and other legal

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

  • United States
    My account 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 Global publications Member firm publications Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Germany Hong Kong Hungary India Ireland Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland Taiwan United Kingdom United States Accounting Journal Entries Accounting Roundup EITF Snapshot Financial Reporting Alerts GIOS newsletter Heads Up IFRS Insights Industry Spotlight Roadmap series SEC comment letter series TRG Snapshot Non English publications Third party publications IFRS e learning Info United States Deloitte United States produces a number of publication series related to International Financial Reporting Standards US GAAP and other financial reporting topics Accounting Journal Entries Accounting Roundup EITF Snapshot Financial Reporting Alerts Heads Up IFRS Insights Industry Spotlight Roadmap series SEC comment letter series Other US publications You can out more information and news about financial reporting in the United States on our jurisdiction page for the United States Quick links About publications RSS feed of all US publications Our United States jurisdiction page Latest publications Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on cash flow classification 04 Feb 2016 Oil Gas Accounting Financial Reporting and Tax Update January 2016 03 Feb 2016 Accounting Roundup January 2016 02 Feb 2016 New revenue standard SEC staff remarks about transition resource group activities 02 Feb 2016 Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on presentation of net periodic benefit cost and disclosures related to defined benefit plans 28 Jan 2016 Contact us About Legal Privacy FAQs Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte

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

  • Heads Up
    Update ASU No 2016 01 Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities which amends the guidance in U S GAAP on the classification and measurement of financial instruments Although the ASU retains many current requirements it significantly revises an entity s accounting related to 1 the classification and measurement of investments in equity securities and 2 the presentation of certain fair value changes for financial liabilities measured at fair value The ASU also amends certain disclosure requirements associated with the fair value of financial instruments Heads Up Highlights of the 2015 AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments 15 Dec 2015 This issue extracts key insights from this year s three day AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments The conference features speeches by and question and answer sessions with members of the SEC PCAOB FASB IASB and other professional groups on current accounting reporting and auditing practice issues Heads Up A summary of the November 12 13 meeting of the PCAOB s Standing Advisory Group 10 Dec 2015 This Heads Up summarizes the November 12 13 2015 meeting of the PCAOB s Standing Advisory Group SAG At the meeting the PCAOB gave an update on recent developments including an overview of its current and future standard setting activities In addition SAG members participated in separate breakout sessions on audit quality indicators AQIs and emerging issues that could affect audits auditors or the PCAOB The PCAOB staff also discussed the status of the Board s project on using the work of specialists and the SAG responded to a series of questions posed by PCAOB staff Heads Up FASB proposes amendments to the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements 08 Dec 2015 This Heads Up summarizes the key provisions of the FASB s proposed Accounting Standards Update ASU Disclosure Framework Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement Among other changes the proposed ASU would introduce a potentially significant new requirement for public business entities to provide information about unrealized gains and losses arising during the reporting period separately for the three levels of fair value measurements Heads Up FASB proposes amendments to clarify the definition of a business 04 Dec 2015 This Heads Up discusses the FASB s recently released proposed Accounting Standards Update ASU Clarifying the Definition of a Business which would provide a framework that an entity can use to determine whether a set of activities and assets constitutes a business The FASB issued the proposed ASU in response to stakeholder feedback indicating that the definition of a business in FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805 Business Combinations is too broad and that too many transactions are qualifying as business combinations even though many of these transactions may more closely resemble asset acquisitions Because the current definition has been interpreted broadly it can be inefficient and costly to analyze transactions and entities may not be able to use reasonable judgment The proposed amendments would make application of the guidance more consistent and cost

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/tag-types/member-firms/united-states/heads-up-1 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EITF Snapshot — June 2015
    hedging relationship if 1 the derivative instrument is terminated or 2 there has been any change in the critical terms of the hedging relationship as documented at inception The issue discussed by the Task Force is whether a derivative novation results in the dedesignation of the hedging relationship because the novation is either 1 a termination or 2 a change in a critical term of the derivative contract A derivative novation occurs when one party Company A in the contract assigns its rights and obligations to a new party Company B subject to the approval of the existing party Company C After the novation Company C and Company B are the legal counterparties since Company A no longer has any rights or obligations under the contract Derivative novations occur for various reasons including business mergers with the surviving entity novated as the new counterparty novations between legal entities of the same parent company and regulatory requirements that result in novations to central derivative clearing counterparties The Task Force discussed five alternatives related to whether derivative novations designated in a hedging relationship result in dedesignation of that relationship The derivative in a hedging relationship must be dedesignated because of a change in one of the parties in the related derivative contract The derivative in a hedging relationship must be dedesignated because of a change in one of the parties in the related derivative contract unless the novation is with a central clearing counterparty as a result of laws or regulations The derivative in the hedging relationship must be dedesignated because of a change in one of the parties in the related derivative contract unless the novation meets one of these exceptions For contracts entered into before mandatory clearing requirements the parties in the contract voluntarily novate the contract to a central clearing counterparty For contracts entered into after mandatory clearing requirements the parties agree in advance and the hedging documentation indicates that the contract will be novated to a central clearing counterparty with standard market terms and conventions A counterparty that is prohibited by the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 from engaging in derivative transactions novates a derivative to a consolidated affiliate that is not insured by the FDIC The derivative in the hedging relationship does not have to be dedesignated because of a change in one of the parties in the related derivative contract The derivative in the hedging relationship does not have to be dedesignated because of a change in one of the parties in the related derivative contract provided that the creditworthiness of the new counterparty is the same as or better than that of the previous counterparty Summary At this meeting the EITF decided that a novation of a counterparty in a derivative contract does not in itself result in the dedesignation of the derivative from the hedge accounting relationship the fourth alternative above The Task Force members deliberated whether the novation of a counterparty was in itself a change in critical terms Instead the Task Force members decided that a change in a counterparty s creditworthiness was the critical term to consider and that an entity would assess this term when evaluating hedge effectiveness in each reporting period under current U S GAAP Task Force members noted that if the counterparty s creditworthiness was significantly different the derivative hedge may not meet the highly effective hedge threshold for hedge accounting Effective Date and Transition The consensus for exposure would be applied prospectively to derivative contracts that are novated after the guidance s effective date However the proposed ASU will ask stakeholders whether the Board should provide relief by allowing entities to apply a retrospective transition method to contracts that were 1 dedesignated from a hedging relationship to which the shortcut method was originally applied and then 2 designated in a hedging relationship to which the long haul hedge effectiveness method was subsequently applied The Task Force will discuss the effective date at a future meeting Next Steps FASB ratification is expected at the Board s July 9 2015 meeting after which a proposed ASU will be issued for public comment Issue 15 E Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments Status Consensus for exposure Affects Entities that invest in or issue debt instruments containing contingent put or call options Background Debt instruments that contain embedded features including contingent put and call options are evaluated to determine whether the embedded features must be bifurcated and accounted for as derivative instruments with changes in fair value recorded through income The guidance on bifurcating these features is unclear because it may be interpreted as meaning that a contingent put or call option is considered clearly and closely related 8 to the host contract if exercise of the put or call is only indexed to interest rates or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor But the guidance also contains a four step decision sequence related to determining whether a put or call option that accelerates the repayment of the debt contract s principal is clearly and closely related to the debt instrument The four step decision sequence does not require that the exercise of the contingent put or call option be indexed only to an interest rate or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor The Task Force discussed whether 1 the above assessment should be limited to the four step decision sequence or 2 an entity should apply the four step decision sequence and evaluate whether the exercise 9 of the contingent put or call option is indexed to only an interest rate or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor Summary The Task Force decided that an entity would only apply the four step sequence when assessing whether a contingent put or call option embedded in a debt instrument must be bifurcated as an embedded derivative and recorded at fair value through earnings Thus a potential embedded derivative would not fail to be clearly

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/us/eitf-snapshot/2015/june (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EITF Snapshot — September 2015
    liabilities within the scope of the proposed amendments Effective Date and Transition The Task Force decided that the effective date of the guidance should be aligned with the effective date of ASC 606 For public business entities the guidance would be effective for annual periods including interim periods therein beginning after December 15 2017 For all other entities the guidance would be effective for annual periods beginning after December 15 2018 and interim periods thereafter Early adoption would be permitted for all entities Note that unlike ASC 606 this guidance would not limit early adoption Entities would be required to adopt the guidance by using one of the following transition methods in ASC 606 1 a modified retrospective transition approach with a cumulative catch up adjustment to opening retained earnings in the period of adoption or 2 a full retrospective method Next Steps The EITF is expected to redeliberate the scope of the guidance at its November 12 2015 meeting Issue 15 F Statement of Cash Flows Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments Status Tentative decisions Affects Entities that prepare a statement of cash flows Background ASC 230 provides some guidance on cash payments and receipts that are classified as either financing or investing activities Cash flows associated with cash payments and receipts that do not qualify as financing or investing activities are classified in operating activities However ASC 230 does not have consistent principles for evaluating the classification of cash payments and receipts in the statement of cash flows which has led to diversity in practice and in certain circumstances financial statement restatements The Task Force deliberated six issues at its June 2015 meeting reaching tentative decisions on four of them For more information see Deloitte s June 2015 EITF Snapshot At this meeting the Task Force redeliberated one issue from the June meeting and discussed three new issues as summarized below Proceeds from the settlement of corporate owned life insurance COLI policies redeliberated Under a COLI policy an employer purchases a life insurance policy to among other things compensate the employer in the event of a loss of key company personnel There is currently diversity in practice related to how an employer classifies the premiums paid and proceeds received under a COLI policy Some stakeholders believe that COLI policies are used to provide employee benefits or are similar to other insurance policies i e term life insurance and that the cash flows associated with the COLI policy should be classified in operating activities Others believe that COLI policies are investment mechanisms with certain tax advantages and that entities use them for investing purposes and should therefore classify cash flows associated with the policies as investing activities Distributions received from equity method investees An entity that accounts for an investment under the equity method may receive cash dividends representing a return on or return of its investment Generally cash dividends representing a return on investment are classified in operating activities while cash dividends representing a return of

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/us/eitf-snapshot/2015/september (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EITF Snapshot — November 2015
    in a critical term of the derivative contract A derivative novation occurs when one party Company A in the derivative contract assigns its rights and obligations to a new party Company B subject to the approval of the existing derivative counterparty Company C After the novation Company C and Company B are the legal counterparties since Company A no longer has any rights or obligations under the contract Derivative novations occur for various reasons including business mergers with the surviving entity novated as the new counterparty novations between legal entities of the same parent company and regulatory requirements that result in novations to central derivative clearing counterparties Summary At this meeting the EITF reaffirmed its consensus for exposure that a novation of a counterparty in a derivative contract does not in itself result in the dedesignation of the derivative from the hedge accounting relationship The Task Force decided that a change in a counterparty s creditworthiness is the critical term to consider and that an entity would assess this term when evaluating hedge effectiveness in each reporting period under current U S GAAP Task Force members noted that if the counterparty s creditworthiness is significantly different the derivative hedge may not meet the highly effective hedge threshold for hedge accounting Effective Date and Transition For public business entities the guidance related to the final consensus will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15 2016 including interim periods within those fiscal years For all other entities it will be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15 2017 and interim periods beginning after December 15 2018 Early adoption is permitted A reporting entity will apply the guidance prospectively unless the entity elects to apply it retrospectively Next Steps FASB ratification is expected at the Board s December 2 2015 meeting after which a final ASU will be issued Issue 15 E Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments Status Final consensus Affects Entities that invest in or issue debt instruments containing contingent put or call options Background Debt instruments that contain embedded features including contingent put and call options are evaluated to determine whether the embedded features that are derivatives are not clearly and closely related to the host and therefore may be bifurcated and accounted for as derivative instruments with changes in fair value recorded through income The guidance on when contingent put and call options embedded in debt instruments must be bifurcated is unclear The guidance contains a four step decision sequence 2 related to determining whether a put or call option that accelerates the repayment of the debt contract s principal is clearly and closely related to the debt instrument Some believe that the result of the four step process is determinative Others believe that in addition to the four step process a contingent put or call option is not considered clearly and closely related 3 to the host contract unless exercise of the put or call is also only indexed to interest rates or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor The four step decision sequence does not require that the exercise of the contingent put or call option be indexed only to an interest rate or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor As a result it is unclear whether 1 the assessment of embedded features should be limited to the four step decision sequence or 2 an entity should apply the four step decision sequence and evaluate whether the exercise 4 of the contingent put or call option is indexed to only an interest rate or credit risk and not some extraneous event or factor Summary The Task Force reaffirmed its consensus for exposure that an entity would only apply the four step sequence when assessing whether a contingent put or call option embedded in a debt instrument may be bifurcated as an embedded derivative and recorded at fair value through earnings Thus a potential embedded derivative would not fail to be clearly and closely related solely because the exercise of the contingent put or call option is indexed to an extraneous event or factor Further the Task Force reaffirmed its decision that an entity may elect the fair value option for debt instruments with embedded puts and calls that as a result of this guidance would no longer need to be separate and may account for the contingent put or call as a derivative contract Effective Date and Transition For public business entities the guidance related to the final consensus will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15 2016 including interim periods within those fiscal years For all other entities it will be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15 2017 and interim periods beginning after December 15 2018 Early adoption is permitted A reporting entity will apply the final consensus by using a modified retrospective transition approach Under this approach a reporting entity would be required to use the four step sequence to determine whether an embedded derivative is clearly and closely related to the debt host by taking into account the facts and circumstances that existed on the date it issued or acquired the instrument Next Steps FASB ratification is expected at the Board s December 2 2015 meeting after which a final ASU will be issued Issue 15 F Statement of Cash Flows Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments Status Consensus for exposure on certain subissues Affects Entities that prepare a statement of cash flows Background ASC 230 provides some guidance on cash payments and receipts that are classified as either financing or investing activities Cash flows associated with cash payments and receipts that do not qualify as financing or investment activities are classified in operating activities 5 However ASC 230 does not have consistent principles for evaluating the classification of cash payments and receipts in the statement of cash flows which has led to diversity in practice and in certain circumstances financial statement restatements The Task

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/us/eitf-snapshot/2015/nov (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •