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 implementation issues
    determined under IFRS 9 would be included in the net investment to which impairment is allocated and this net investment would be in accordance with IAS 28 40 43 Relating to the IASB s suggested interpretation of those interests be included in the net investment of an associate or joint venture the staff feel that any issues relating to investments to be accounted for using the equity method should be addressed as part of the equity accounting project The IASB is being asked whether it agrees with the staff analysis a that the scope exception in paragraph 2 1 a of IFRS 9 does not apply to long term interests and b of the accounting for long term interests in an associate or joint venture The views of the IASB will be reported back to the IFRS Interpretations Committee IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements Current non current classification of liabilities Background The IASB proposed in the Classification of Liabilities ED clarifications to IAS 1 relating to the classification of liabilities as either current or non current In these proposals Classification would be based on rights in existence at the end of the reporting date a liability would be current unless the entity has the right to defer settlement for at least twelve months after reporting date If the right to defer settlement for a period greater than twelve months is subject to a condition the entity must determine whether it is in compliance with that condition as at the reporting date when considering classification of the liability Respondents to the IASB s public consultation on these proposals questioned how an entity would assess compliance with a condition in circumstances when compliance with a condition is not or cannot be tested until after the reporting period see Agenda Paper 12B Staff analysis The staff presented analysis relating to a number of queries raised by respondents for the IASB s consideration Testing conditions at a specified date Example a Comment letter respondents considered the right to defer settlement and more specifically whether a right actually exists at the end of the reporting period if a condition of the right is subject to testing after the reporting period and how compliance with such a condition is to be assessed as at reporting date The staff are of the opinion that any condition would be in place to protect the lender s interest and therefore should be in place continuously Compliance with this condition should be assessed as at the reporting date The IASB will be asked whether they agree with the staff s analysis and assessment that a right tested after the end of the reporting period is a right at the reporting date and that assessment of any conditions will be as at the reporting date In BC4 of the ED the IASB concluded that an entity s compliance with a condition as at reporting date should affect the liability s classification The staff agree with a number of respondent s

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/iasb/2016/february/implementation-issues (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • IASB meetings (2016)
    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 Deloitte meeting notes International Accounting Standards Board 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 IFRS Interpretations Committee IFRS Foundation Trustees Advisory bodies Info IASB meetings 2016 Below you will find links to Deloitte observer notes for meetings of the International Accounting Standards Board IASB during 2016 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Related Meetings IASB meeting 16 17 February 2016 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB will meet at its offices in London on 16 17 February 2016 Topics to be discussed include insurance contracts goodwill and impairment IFRS implementation issues and financial instruments with characteristics of equity 16 Feb 2016 17 Feb 2016 IASB meeting 19 20 January 2016 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB will meet at its offices in London on 19 20 January 2016 Topics to be discussed include insurance contracts discount rates fair value measurement and revenue from contracts with customers 19 Jan 2016 20 Jan 2016 Quick links About meeting notes International Accounting Standards Board IASB Upcoming meetings February 2016 IASB meeting February 2016 IFRS Advisory Council meeting March 2016 IASB meeting education session March 2016 IASB meeting March 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 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

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

  • Research project on discount rates (education session)
    individual Standards are different and explain some of the differences in discount rates However two issues have been identified IAS 19 lacks a measurement objective and the rule based guidance seems incompatible with any objectives The IAS 37 measurement objective is unclear leading to different interpretations including whether to include own credit risk in measurement Not discounting deferred tax impairs comparability and can have a material effect A measurement based on past or future cash flows that does not reflect the time value of money is not comparable to a measurement that does Yet IFRS does not currently require the time value of money to be reflected in the measurement of deferred taxes Purpose of the meeting The discussion is part of the development of a possible research paper on discount rates The Board has been discussing the research undertaken by the staff in a series of similar sessions and providing feedback on whether they think it documents issues associated with discount rates in an appropriate way As such the Board is not being requested to make any technical decisions at this point Board discussion Before touching on the technical issues of the agenda paper the Director of Research confirmed that a first screening of responses to the 2015 Agenda Consultation revealed that discount rates were still a very high priority for constituents Regarding general issues one Board member proposed to clarify that the financial reporting problem of IAS 36 was not only related to value in use but also to fair value less cost to sell even if the latter was mostly covered by IFRS 13 Regarding the question of how risk should be reflected one Board member said that adjustments to the cash flows or the rates might be overly simplistic He proposed deeper analysis and research in this area He would be interested in how preparers adjusted for risk under the current guidance Methodology for reflecting tax in measurement can be misunderstood and unclear leading to material effects and additional implementation costs The Senior Technical Manager presented an example that was handed out during the meeting The example showed that the sum of pre tax cash flows and tax cash flows discounted by the post tax rate delivered the same result as post tax cash flows discounted by the post tax rate Several Board members disagreed with the example and a lively discussion ensued Many of the issues raised by the Board members related to the actual numbers of the example As a consequence the Executive Technical Director proposed to address issues regarding the example outside of the Board meeting Some Board members disagreed with that approach As a compromise the Board agreed that the example should be revised and brought back at a later Board meeting One Board member said that the example should distinguish between different kinds of measurement e g value in use bond like instruments etc As regards pre tax vs post tax one Board member stated that preparers should take the rate

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

  • Fair value measurement
    believe that it does not reflect an exit price On the second topic the staff concluded that the valuation profession considers that a listed share price would be adjusted to reflect situations in which the shares individually did not reflect the market price that participants would pay On the third issue the staff proposed to discuss three options Continue with the measurement proposals in the ED Prioritise the principle of the unit of account this option would clarify that an entity should respect the unit of account of the item that is being measured at fair value over the existence of Level 1 inputs when those Level 1 inputs do not correspond to the item i e unit of account being measured at fair value Continue work on this area if this is identified as being a critical area in the Post implementation Review PIR of IFRS 13 The staff recommended the third option because they believed that the issue was not widespread and the PIR process could provide further information and evidence to conclude on the topic Discussion The Board agreed with the staff recommendation and approved unanimously option 3 The reasons provided for the support were consistent with the rationale provided by the staff and were related to i the issue discussed in the ED was not widespread in accordance with the evidence obtained by the staff ii the PIR would take place during 2016 and would bring the opportunity to discuss the issues related to IFRS 13 more broadly for example blockage issues iii the PIR would provide comments from a wider range of users and iv a short term amendment would not help solve the concerns received throughout the discussion of the ED Some Board members indicated during the discussion that their first preference would be option 2 because entities would use a market price and then an entity could support their valuation with supplemental disclosures to explain whether or not the market price did not reflect an actual exit price for that particular investment nevertheless those IASB members said that they would support option 3 given the overall support for the staff proposal by the majority of the Board In relation to the comments provided by the staff included in agenda paper 6A and 6B related to feedback from the ED and literature review the following issues were mentioned by the Board There were concerns that the feedback included a number of comments that the problems were related to volatility in the market which were not actually related to the main issue discussed in the ED which was the unit of account it was pointed out that there seemed to be confusion with general issues around fair value measurements instead of problems with the use of P x Q There was discussion as to whether the proper market to measure an exit price for this type of transactions would be an M A market instead of a stock exchange several Board members pointed out this

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

  • Revenue from contracts with customers
    retrospectively and did not provide specific transition requirements for first time adopters because the amendments were intended to clarify the Board s intentions rather than change the Standard The staff also recommended that there was no need for re exposure because the changes were not fundamental In relation to the effective date the staff indicated that there was general agreement from the comment letters received with aligning the effective date of the amendments with the IFRS 15 effective date The staff recommended maintaining the proposal because the amendments would be published in March 2016 which would give entities sufficient time to consider these amendments Discussion The Board approved the staff recommendations One Board member indicated that he would dissent because the amendments would not provide transition relief for completed contracts the ED required full retrospective application whereas IFRS 15 provided transition relief for completed contracts providing a modified retrospective approach The Board member indicated that the transition provisions proposed in ED conflicted with the principle in the Standard There was substantive debate about this concern in which the staff and other Board members indicated that i the amendments were clarifications only and accordingly no significant impact was expected ii in situations in which the amendments have a significant impact it would be more appropriate to have full prospective application to allow users to understand the impact of the amendments iii the general principle should be to require full retrospective application and there should be high hurdle to move from this principle and iv no comments were raised from the feedback obtained in the ED regarding concerns about the transition requirements Related Topics Projects Clarifications to IFRS 15 Issues emerging from TRG discussions Related news IASB updates work plan 21 Dec 2015 TRG discusses implementation of new revenue standard 11 Nov

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

  • Revenue from contracts with customers
    indicated that the amendments introduced by the FASB were not considered necessary and accordingly the staff proposed not to include in IFRS 15 the amendments introduced by the FASB on this matter Shipping and handling activities The ED did not propose including the accounting policy choice proposed by the FASB to account for shipping and handling activities that occur after the customer has obtained control of a good as fulfilment activities The IASB decided not to propose this amendment because it would create an exception to the revenue recognition model and potentially reduce comparability The majority of respondents to the IASB agreed and consequently the staff proposed not to amend the Standard in relation to shipping and handling activities Other matters The FASB included a question in its proposals about whether the requirement to account for a series of distinct goods or services as a single performance obligation should be changed to an optional practical expedient The IASB decided not to include a similar question on the ED The FASB had concluded that an amendment was not required The agenda paper also indicated that the TGR discussed the accounting for a series of distinct goods or services and those discussions provided educational material for stakeholders Accordingly the staff did not recommend amending the existing guidance on this topic Discussion There was general support for the staff recommendations and the Board approved the staff proposal with the exception of the first issue identifying performance obligations For that issue the Board decided to converge with the wording exposed by the FASB The Board did not vote regarding the illustrative examples because the staff will analyse whether those examples might need to be changed to reflect the new wording The Board decided to move to the FASB wording because Board members thought that their wording was clearer There was significant discussion before this decision was reached because some Board members pointed out that the majority of the comment letters agreed with the staff recommendation for not amending paragraph 29 of IFRS 15 The staff acknowledged that they were unable to conclude whether there could be unintended consequences or different outcomes if the IASB did not adopt the amendments introduced by the FASB Some Board members thought that the illustrative examples would help in the application of the standard However some Board members expressed caution noting that there are already a significant number of illustrative examples and it would be impossible to cover every situation one Board member commented that the standard should work with or without the clarifications introduced by the FASB There were no significant issues raised on the other topics in the paper Feedback on ED Clarifications to IFRS 15 and re deliberations Agenda paper 7C The staff discussed the feedback obtained in relation to question 3 Licencing and their recommendations Question 3 in the ED asked whether respondents agree the IASB approach to amending the application guidance and illustrative examples on determining the nature of the entity s promise in granting a licence of intellectual property and the Application Guidance on the scope and applicability of the sales based and usage based royalties exception The agenda paper indicated that most respondents agreed with the ED proposals Many respondents expressed concern that the IASB and the FASB proposed different amendments on this topic however most respondents indicated a preference for the IASB approach Accordingly the staff recommended that the IASB confirm the proposals set out in the ED The staff did not recommend adding the alternative approach proposed by the FASB for determining the nature of the entity s promise in granting a licence of intellectual property nor additional application guidance addressing i the effect of particular contractual restrictions in a licence and ii when the guidance on determining the nature of the entity s promise in granting a licence applied The staff also recommended that the IASB conclude that the issues discussed in the November 2015 TRG meeting about licence renewals and identifying attributes of a single licence versus identifying additional licences were outside the scope of the ED The paper explored in detail the feedback in the comment letters received on a general comments on the ED regarding licencing b determining the nature of the licence c sales based or usage based royalty d topics for which the IASB did not propose any clarification e other matters raised by respondents and f issues raised after the publication of the ED Discussion Some Board members stated that it would not be appropriate to change the wording of the standard given that many companies had probably already started analysing their licencing contracts and changing the standard could cause those companies to re perform the analysis In relation to the use of the word predominantly it was pointed out that the Board had discussed an issue with similar wording and it was concluded that it would mean more than 75 If the staff had a different understanding in the context of the revenue standard then it should be clarified The staff responded that the FASB was using similar wording and they were not making any clarification It was also emphasised that there would always be a need for judgement in applying the standard including how to apply this concept The Board approved the staff recommendations Practical expedients on transition feedback on ED Clarifications IFRS 15 and re deliberations Agenda Paper 7D The agenda paper discussed the feedback received on the proposed practical expedients on transition set out in the ED The ED proposed two practical expedients i to permit an entity electing to use the full retrospective method not to apply IFRS 15 retrospectively to completed contracts as defined in paragraph C2 at the beginning of the earliest period presented and ii to permit an entity to use hindsight in i identifying the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations in a contract that has been modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented and ii determining the transaction price There was broad

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

  • IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting — 12 January 2016
    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 Info Site map Jurisdictions Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania News 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Projects Major projects Narrow scope amendments Research projects Post implementation reviews Agenda consultations Completed projects Items not added to the agenda IFRIC Resources IFRS Foundation and the IASB Use and adoption of IFRS Global organisations Regional organisations Topics in financial reporting Research and education Sustainability and integrated reporting Standards International Financial Reporting Standards International Accounting Standards IFRIC Interpretations SIC Interpretations Other pronouncements Meeting notes Important IASB Dates IASB IFRS Foundation Trustees IFRS Interpretations Committee 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 12 January 2016 IFRS Advisory Council Accounting Standards Advisory Forum ASAF 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/meeting-notes/ifrs-ic/2016/january/sitemap (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IFRS 11 — Remeasurement of previously held interests
    held retained interests in the assets and liabilities of a joint operation should be remeasured in several transactions for which there was a lack of guidance and or diversity of views in accounting for previously held retained interests This session was focused on a transaction in which an entity obtained control or joint control of a joint operation that did not meet the definition of a business The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 2 b of IFRS 3 provided guidance on the typical accounting for an asset acquisition in which the asset or group of assets did not meet the definition of a business The staff did not identify diversity in practice on this transaction The purpose of this session was to discuss the comment letters received The agenda paper indicated that the majority of respondents supported the staff analysis and accordingly the staff proposed to finalise the agenda decision Discussion The Interpretations Committee agreed with issuing an agenda decision with wording changes to reflect some concerns discussed during the session Those concerns related to paragraph 2b of IFRS 3 Committee members thought that it did not provide enough guidance which was also suggested in one the comment letters and accordingly the agenda decision should provide more background information No other significant comments were made Related Topics Standards IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements Related news We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 30 Nov 2015 European Union formally adopts amendments to IFRS 11 25 Nov 2015 IPSASB publishes five IPSAS based on the IASB s package of five 31 Jan 2015 We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 20 Jan 2015 IASB publishes editorial corrections 19 Sep 2014 EFRAG issues two final endorsement advices and effects study

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/ifrs-ic/2016/january/ifrs-11 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •