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 IFRIC draft Interpretation 2015/1 — Uncertainty over income tax treatments
    over income tax treatments Published on 19 Jan 2016 We have responded to the IFRS Interpretations Committee s request for comments on IFRIC draft Interpretation 2015 1 Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments issued in October 2015 We recommend that the scope of the draft Interpretation be extended to cover interest and penalties at least insofar as they arise directly from uncertain tax treatments already within its scope Our letter provides detailed responses to the questions in the invitation to comment Download the full comment letter below Download Related Topics Publication series Deloitte comment letters IASB IFRIC IFRSF Resources IFRS Interpretations Committee Projects IAS 12 Accounting for uncertainties in income taxes Standards IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements IAS 12 Income Taxes IAS 37 Provisions Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets Related news We comment on two IFRIC draft Interpretations 19 Jan 2016 We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 19 Jan 2016 IASB finalises amendments regarding the recognition of deferred tax assets for unrealised losses 19 Jan 2016 January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting notes posted 12 Jan 2016 Pre meeting summaries for the January IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 08 Jan 2016 Three reappointments made to the IFRS Interpretations Committee 05 Jan 2016 All Related Related Publications Deloitte comment letter on proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 Deloitte comment letter on the IASB s annual improvements to IFRSs 2014 2016 cycle ED 27 Jan 2016 IFRS in Focus IASB issues amendments to IAS 12 to clarify the recognition of deferred tax assets for unrealised losses related to debt instruments measured at fair value 20 Jan 2016 EFRAG endorsement status report 19 January 2016 20 Jan 2016 All Related Related Discussions IFRS implementation issues 17 Feb 2016 IAS 12 Recognition of deferred taxes

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/global/comment-letters/2016/di-2015-1 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Deloitte comment letter on tentative agenda decision on IAS 20 — Recoverable cash payments
    have commented on the IFRS Interpretations Committee s publication in the November IFRIC Update of the tentative decision not to take onto the Committee s agenda a request for clarification of whether a cash payment made by government to fund a research project that is repayable only if the entity decides to commercialise the project s output should be characterised as a financial liability or a government grant We agree with the IFRS Interpretations Committee s decision not to add this item onto its agenda However we believe that the statement in the tentative agenda decision that many members of the Interpretations Committee thought that the arrangement also met the definition of a forgivable loan implies that some members disagreed We recommend that the tentative agenda decision include only statements upon which the Committee as a whole can reach consensus Download the full comment letter below Download Related Topics Publication series Deloitte comment letters IASB IFRIC IFRSF Resources IFRS Interpretations Committee Projects IFRS Interpretations Committee agenda discussions Standards IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance Related news We comment on two IFRIC draft Interpretations 19 Jan 2016 We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 19 Jan 2016 January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting notes posted 12 Jan 2016 Pre meeting summaries for the January IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 08 Jan 2016 Three reappointments made to the IFRS Interpretations Committee 05 Jan 2016 Agenda for the January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 04 Jan 2016 All Related Related Publications Deloitte comment letter on proposed amendments to IFRS 4 08 Feb 2016 Deloitte comment letter on the IASB s annual improvements to IFRSs 2014 2016 cycle ED 27 Jan 2016 Deloitte comment letter on IFRIC draft Interpretation 2015 2 Foreign currency

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/global/comment-letters/2016/nov-ifric-upd-ias-20 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IFRS implementation issues
    features He noted that this was an area where there was currently a distinct difference between IFRS and U S GAAP because U S GAAP included a specific exception permitting such a transaction to be accounted for as if it was equity settled in its entirety notwithstanding the cash settled portion of it He added that this was an area where there had been significant diversity in practice under IFRS which had resulted in the proposed amendment to introduce an equivalent exception into IFRS 2 He further noted that one of the items that had come out of the Interpretations Committee s discussions was that an additional disclosure should be added to this amendment He explained that the effect of the exception is that such transactions would be accounted for using equity settled accounting through to the settlement of the obligation and then at the point when the cash is paid to the tax authority the additional amount that is being paid as cash would be recognised which could be higher than the equity settled value as this is based on the grant date fair value whereas had cash settled accounting been used the entity would have been revaluing to the current value of the share each reporting period and so under the amendment there is a true up event when the cash is paid which is only dealt with at that time Accordingly the Interpretations Committee recommended that an additional disclosure be required during the vesting period to alert readers of the financial statements to the fact that there is going to be an additional payment coming through which otherwise would not be disclosed or recorded in the financial statements An IASB member expressed concern that under the proposed amendment there were a number of circumstances where the fact that true up adjustments were not being performed along the way resulted in a sudden adjustment at the time of settlement for example if an entity initially had equity of CU15 as its obligation but this actually turned out to be cash of CU30 because the true up has been taken away through the exception suddenly what was recorded as CU15 of equity becomes CU30 of cash She noted that users of financial statements had expressed concerns as to how useful this information was and noted that the proposed additional disclosure requirement would be helpful She also noted that in some situations an entity could end up paying cash to the employee if the amount of shares set aside turned out to be more than what the entity needed to use to settle with the tax authority which was something that the IASB had not thought about when proposing the amendments The Director of Implementation Activities noted that this issue had been highlighted in the comment letters received and that the staff had developed examples to bring to the IASB showing how the numbers worked both in terms of a simple cash payment to the tax authority and in a

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

  • Administrative session
    respect to the items in the agenda paper A Committee member inquired as to the status of the draft Interpretations on IAS 12 and IAS 21 The Director of Implementation Activities responded noting that both draft Interpretations had been taken to the IASB for discussion the IASB had not raised any issues with them and that they were currently in the drafting phase and pre ballot drafts which would be circulated in due course IAS 32 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS PRESENTATION Classification of liability for prepaid cards issued by a Bank in the Bank s financial statements The purpose of this agenda paper was to brief the Committee members on the status of the work being performed by the IASB staff to address the question of the classification of the liability for prepaid cards issued by a bank in the bank s financial statements and the subsequent accounting for the unspent balance The Director of Implementation Activities introduced the agenda paper and asked the Committee members whether they had any questions or comments with respect to the items in the agenda paper There were no significant comments ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Review of the IFRS Interpretations Committee s activity during January May 2015 This agenda paper provided an overview of the Interpretations Committee s activities over recent years highlighting the numbers and types of activities undertaken and showing how those activities had been evolving The Director of Implementation Activities introduced the agenda paper and asked the Committee members whether they had any questions or comments with respect to the report There were no comments Related Topics Resources IFRS Interpretations Committee Related news We comment on two IFRIC draft Interpretations 19 Jan 2016 We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 19 Jan 2016 January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee

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

  • Administrative session — Work in progress
    sale and discontinued operations IFRS 13 Fair value hierarchy IFRS 10 Single asset single lessee lease vehicles and the assessment of control under IFRS 10 IAS 24 Definition of close members of the family of a person IFRS 11 Becoming a joint operator through acquisition of an additional interest in an existing joint operation IAS 23 Borrowing costs on completed qualifying assets Administrative session Work in progress Info Administrative session Work in progress Date recorded 12 May 2015 The purpose of this agenda paper was to update the IFRS Interpretations Committee on the current status of issues that are in progress but that were not to be discussed by the Committee in the May 2015 meeting The Technical Director introduced the agenda paper and asked the Committee members whether they had any questions or comments with respect to the items in the agenda paper There were no questions or comments Related Topics Resources IFRS Interpretations Committee Related news We comment on two IFRIC draft Interpretations 19 Jan 2016 We comment on a number of tentative agenda decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee 19 Jan 2016 January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting notes posted 12 Jan 2016 Pre meeting summaries for the January IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 08 Jan 2016 Three reappointments made to the IFRS Interpretations Committee 05 Jan 2016 Agenda for the January 2016 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting 04 Jan 2016 All Related Related Publications Deloitte comment letter on IFRIC draft Interpretation 2015 2 Foreign currency transactions and advance consideration 19 Jan 2016 Deloitte comment letter on IFRIC draft Interpretation 2015 1 Uncertainty over income tax treatments 19 Jan 2016 Deloitte comment letter on tentative agenda decision on IFRS 9 and IAS 39 Derecognition of financial assets 19 Jan 2016 Deloitte comment letter on tentative agenda decision on IAS

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

  • Effective date of amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 — Due process
    date of amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 Due process Date recorded 15 Dec 2015 In August 2015 the IASB issued exposure draft ED 2015 7 Effective Date of Amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 For an overview of the proposals see our IFRS in Focus newsletter In this session the staff sought permission to publish the final amendment resulting from the exposure draft which defers the effective date of the September 2014 amendment for an indefinite period Subject to approval by the IASB the staff expect to have the amendment ready to be issued in December 2015 ensuring that it is published before the effective date of the September 2014 amendment which is 1 January 2016 Staff also asked if any of the IASB members planned to dissent from the publication of the amendment In the Board meeting the IASB gave a unanimous permission to publish the final amendment There was no indication of dissent amongst Board members Related Topics Projects IAS 28 Elimination of gains arising from downstream transactions Related news IASB defers the effective date of September 2014 amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 17 Dec 2015 IASB updates work plan 23 Nov 2015 Constituents split over proposed deferral of effective date of September 2014 amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 09 Oct 2015 We comment on the proposed deferral of the effective date of amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 06 Oct 2015 EFRAG supports deferral of IFRS 10 IAS 28 amendments recommends postponing the endorsement process 09 Sep 2015 IASB proposes deferring the effective date of September 2014 amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 10 Aug 2015 All Related Related Publications IFRS in Focus IASB defers effective date of amendment Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/iasb/2015/december/ifrs-10-ias-28 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IFRS implementation issues
    of the reporting period and to clarify this wording amendments to IAS 1 were proposed by the IASB These included a replacing discretion with right in paragraph 73 to align it with paragraph 69 d b making it explicit in these paragraphs that only rights in place at the reporting date affect the classification of a liability and c deleting unconditional from paragraph 69 d therefore an unconditional right is replaced by a right The key messages from comment letters and outreach include the majority of respondents agree with proposal a above most respondents agree with proposal b above but some suggested that right should refer solely to substantive rights and mixed responses were received relating to proposal c above Board discussion The IASB discussion focussed on the need to ensure that what was trying to be achieved through the amendments was clearly understood and that further testing of the proposals would be beneficial Question 2 Linking settlement with the outflow of resources The IASB had previously proposed to clarify the link between the settlement of a liability and the outflow of resources from the entity by adding by the transfer to the counterparty of cash equity instruments other assets or services to paragraph 69 The majority of respondents supported this proposal Four related topics were also dealt with a when timing of settlement is uncertain A minority of respondents sought clarity for situations when the timing of settlement was uncertain The staff think that IAS 37 provides sufficient guidance in such situations b rollover and refinancing Many respondents agree that the term transfer clarifies that rollover of debt does not constitute settlement whereas refinancing would do c nature of the counterparty The staff in response to a comment received recommend that the IASB consider using the wording the counterparty or any entity authorised by the counterparty instead of transfer to the counterparty d the inclusion of equity in the proposed wording A number of respondents thought this inclusion could lead to confusion The staff intend to prepare further analysis for presentation to the IASB Board discussion Similarly to question 1 the IASB discussion focussed on the need to be clear as to what was trying to be achieved and what the overall outcome of the amendments is it is important to determine whether information presented should focus on the maturity of the liability or the liquidity thereof Question 3 Transition arrangements The proposal to retrospectively apply any amendments was agreed to by the majority of respondents They thought that consistency of information was vital despite analysis that indicates that the proposed amendments exhibit the characteristics of a change in estimate which would require prospective application Many responses received highlight that the proposals are likely to affect existing practice Therefore the staff recommends that any decisions made should be tested against the transactions referred to in comment letters prior to finalisation and publication of the amendments Board discussion There were no comments raised by the IASB The staff proposed to

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

  • Definition of a business
    single asset or group of similar assets the acquired set of activities and assets would not constitute a business Some Committee members had noted that the existence of a process distinguishes a business from an asset and questioned whether the substantially all threshold would therefore be needed The staff recommended that the threshold be retained They conceded that the proposed guidance on substantive processes would lead to the same conclusion because a process would have a more than insignificant value and therefore the value of the acquired set of activities and assets would not be concentrated in one asset However the substantially all threshold would be easier to apply and would be less subjective Furthermore the staff proposed to clarify whether and how to apply the proposed threshold when a building is acquired with an in place operating lease When applying the FASB codification the acquirer recognises an intangible asset for in place leases separately whereas IFRS requires the acquirer to include the lease in the measurement of the leased property Staff identified two options Option 1 Estimate the fair value of the building and the fair value of the lease separately for the purpose of this assessment Option 2 Clarify that the building and the in place operating lease shall be considered a single asset for the evaluation of the threshold Staff expressed a preference for Option 2 as Option 1 would create additional costs for the preparer Furthermore Option 2 would be consistent with the U S requirements in all common cases Are there circumstances under which the acquisition of an outsourcing agreement would represent acquisition of a substantive process The IASB had previously decided that to be considered a business a transaction must include at a minimum an input and a substantive process that together contribute to the ability to create outputs Some Committee members were concerned that there would be no guidance on whether and how inputs and processes that have been outsourced should be considered in the assessment of whether an acquired set of assets constitutes a business The staff are in the view that the proposed guidance on substantive process does not distinguish between inputs and processes of the seller and processes that have been outsourced by the seller Consequently this means that the acquirer would need to consider whether the outsourced workforce performs a substantive process and whether the entity controls the substantive process The staff intend to clarify this in the proposed amendment What is the impact of the proposed changes on vertical integration The IASB had previously proposed to narrow the definition of an output to exclude returns in the form of lower costs or other economic benefits directly to investors or other owners members or participants because many asset acquisitions may provide lower costs One IFRS Interpretations Committee member asked whether the focus on goods and services provided to customers would have an impact on a vertical integration i e the acquisition of a supplier Since the supplier does not

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



  •