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".
  • Research programme
    in September 2015 Since the previous update the project on definition of a business has advanced from research stage to maintenance and implementation stage Regarding the project on the equity method of accounting at its September meeting some ASAF members expressed concern about the staff s proposals for progressing the project ASAF has discussed the scope of the project in the December meeting After considering the ASAF discussions the staff expect to revise the project plan at the beginning of 2016 In the public session the Director of Research confirmed that for many projects the staff awaited the results of the Agenda Consultation He said that there were projects that might not be continued however if the Board were to make such a decision the staff would present one final wrap up session to conserve the research performed One Board member suggested enhancing the overview by providing information on how different research projects are linked Another Board member proposed not to wait for IPSAS decisions on polluting pricing mechanisms before moving on with the research project The Board was not requested to make any decisions in this session Related Topics Projects Equity method of accounting Related news Summary of the December 2015 ASAF meeting now available 22 Jan 2016 IASB defers the effective date of September 2014 amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 17 Dec 2015 Summary of the October ASAF meeting now available 29 Oct 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 All Related Related

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


  • Present value measurements — Discount rates
    determine whether there were any other financial reporting problems that had not been identified by the staff One Board member said it had to be distinguished between cases where the Standard deliberately allowed diversity in practice and cases where the Standard was clear but the application led to diversity in practice The former would not be an issue in his view Regarding the entity specific perspective in measurement several Board members suggested to define the term time value of money One Board member suggested that the Conceptual Framework state that the time value of money should always be considered Another Board member added that the discount rate should consider all possible factors and not only the time value of money The Senior Technical Manager replied that in general there was no problem with time value of money as a risk free rate would be used She conceded that deriving the risk free rate could be an issue Several Board members confirmed that government bonds might not always be the appropriate reference for the risk free rate One Board member stressed that the timing and the currency of a government bond should match the item that is valued A fellow Board member replied that in some jurisdictions government bonds were very risky even though they matched the currency The government might therefore not always borrow at the lowest rate in those countries Also own credit risk might play a role The Chairman proposed to develop sound principles for present value measurement techniques which would eliminate the inconsistencies in practice The Senior Technical Manager confirmed that it should be explored what the measurement objectives for different present value measurement techniques were However this should be picked up in the project on the Conceptual Framework The Senior Technical Manager noted that the project was mainly about current measurements that are not fair value e g pensions provisions and value in use She pointed to the fact that there were many entities with a book value of equity larger than their market value of equity and nevertheless that did not have accounting impairments The staff had concluded that this was due to the entity specific value in use being higher than the market based fair value Regulators continued to struggle with value in use because as an entity specific measure it was very difficult to challenge The problem would not exist in the U S as value in use was not permitted by U S GAAP However the impairment triggers in the U S were higher One Board member warned not to neglect the fact that the U S was a very different economy than Europe The Chairman asked whether this was a general present value issue or solely an issue with value in use The Vice Chairman added that in some cases market values do not make sense e g for pensions One Board member reminded the meeting that it had been a conscious decision to write off only the non recoverable part

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

  • Revenue from contracts with customers (joint IASB-FASB meeting)
    staff recommended that the IASB proceed with the amendments because the majority of respondents agreed with the IASB proposal and highlighted the fact that principal versus agent considerations were a matter of judgement and the proposed amendments provide a good framework for entities to exercise judgement and apply the requirements In addition the staff proposed to eliminate the credit risk indicator because of the feedback obtained which indicated for example that credit risk was not considered a strong indicator of control The proposed amendments derived from issues discussed by the TRG regarding the guidance in IFRS 15 and the IASB proposed add clarifying amendments in the application guidance in the illustrative examples and to add additional examples Discussion The Boards FASB and IASB approved the staff recommendations and no significant issues were raised during the joint session which was significantly brief The comments raised from the IASB Board members were focused on the following the guidance added in paragraph B35A which related to the assessment of control when an entity provided significant service of integrating goods or services In that regard there was concern as to whether the concept of integrating good or services was a control indicator the staff responded that the integration existed before the entity transferred the good or service to the customer and accordingly was not a control indicator and the use of specific concepts considered new terms such as a right to a service There was some concern about having new terms which were not defined The staff responded that the terms specified good or service and right to a service were not new because they were used in the application examples and they had been used consistently in the guidance The FASB Board members indicated that they were very pleased with the feedback received which was encouraging They pointed out that the area principal vs agent assessment would still involve significant judgement and they did not expect to eliminate that with the proposed guidance Some questions raised to the staff related to the following The comment letters indicated that there was demand to receive more guidance to understand the issues particularly with the ability to distinguish specified good or services and right to a service The staff responded that with the objective of maintaining convergence they would incorporate the factors discussed in the memo FASB Memo in the illustrative examples and or in the Basis for Conclusions and Also the comment letters indicated that the examples did not include references to the control indicators one Board member asked whether this would be acceptable and whether the examples would be updated The staff responded that they tried to emphasise that the most important factor was to apply the principle and that not all the control indicators would be relevant in every decision and that the indicators were helpful to support the analysis rather than being the key factor in the decision one Board Member suggested adding in the examples the indicators and explaining which ones

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

  • IASB meetings (2015)
    The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 18 19 November 2015 The most substantial discussions are likely to be those that relate to insurance contracts Wednesday 13 45 to 17 00 where similarities and differences between the general measurement model and the variable fee approach for insurance contracts as well as three narrow issues arising from the variable fee approach will be considered and goodwill and impairment Wednesday 11 15 to 12 45 where identification and measurement of intangible assets in a business combination will be discussed 18 Nov 2015 19 Nov 2015 IASB meeting 20 22 October 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 20 22 October 2015 This meeting highlighted discussions on leases effective date insurance comment period for ED on IFRS 9 and the new insurance contract and the disclosure initiative cash restrictions 20 Oct 2015 22 Oct 2015 IASB meeting 21 24 September 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 21 24 September 2015 Some of the meeting was jointly held with the FASB The IASB discussed insurance contracts the disclosure initiative revenue research programme conceptual framework IFRS implementation issues business combinations financial instruments with characteristics of equity and discount rates 21 Sep 2015 24 Sep 2015 IASB meeting 20 and 22 23 July 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB will meet at its offices in London on 20 and 22 23 July 2015 The IASB will discuss insurance contracts IFRS taxonomy IFRS implementation issues rate regulated activities dynamic risk management revenue provisions and contingent liabilities fair value measurement financial instruments with characteristics of equity and the agenda consultation 20 Jul 2015 23 Jul 2015 IASB meeting 22 25 June 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 22 to 25 June 2015 Part of the meeting was held jointly with the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB to discuss revenue recognition Additionally the IASB will discuss insurance contracts IFRS implementation issues financial instruments with characteristics of equity the disclosure initiative equity method pollutant pricing mechanisms and revenue 22 Jun 2015 25 Jun 2015 IASB meeting 18 20 May 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 18 20 May 2015 Discussion items included rate regulated activities IFRS implementation issues the approach to the IFRS 2 research project Insurance contracts revenue recognition dynamic risk management financial Instruments with characteristics of equity and the disclosure initiative 18 May 2015 20 May 2015 IASB meeting 27 29 April 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 27 29 April 2015 Discussion items include fair value measurement revenue recognition IFRS Interpretation issues the disclosure initiative and inflation 27 Apr 2015 29 Apr 2015 IASB meeting 17 19 March 2015 The International Accounting Standards Board IASB met at its offices in London on 17 19 March 2015 Part of the meeting was

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

  • IFRS in Focus — IASB proposes to defer effective date of amendment 'Sale of Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture'
    Statements and IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Venutes set out in ED 2015 7 Effective Date of Amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 which was issued in August 2015 for public comment The IASB s ED proposes to defer indefinitely the effective date of the narrow scope amendment Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture Download Related Topics Publication series IFRS in Focus Resources International Accounting Standards Board IASB IASB exposure drafts Projects Equity method of accounting IAS 28 Elimination of gains arising from downstream transactions Standards IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures 2011 IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements Quick links Spanish translation of this publication 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 ED 27 Jan 2016 IFRS industry insights Telecommunications sector Implications of the new leasing standard 21 Jan 2016 All Related Related Discussions Research programme 15 Dec 2015 Effective date of amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 Due process 15 Dec

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/publications/global/ifrs-in-focus/2015/ifrs-10-ias-28-amendment-deferral (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IASB proposes clarifications to IFRS 15
    services To clarify the concept of distinct the IASB is proposing to amend the illustrative examples in IFRS 15 Principal versus agent considerations When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer IFRS 15 requires an entity to determine whether it is the principal in the transaction or the agent on the basis of whether it controls the goods or services before they are transferred to the customer To clarify how to assess control the IASB is proposing to amend and extend the application guidance on this issue amend some of the existing examples and to add two more examples Licensing When an entity grants a licence to a customer that is distinct from other promised goods or services the entity has to determine whether the licence is transferred at a point in time or over time on the basis of whether the contract requires the entity to undertake activities that significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights To clarify when an entity s activities significantly affect the intellectual property the IASB is proposing to amend and extend the application guidance on this issue and some examples Additionally the IASB is proposing to extend the application guidance with respect to the application of the royalties constraint Transition relief The IASB is proposing two additional practical expedients on transition to IFRS 15 An entity may use hindsight in identifying the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations in a contract that has been modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented and in determining the transaction price An entity electing to use the full retrospective method does not have to apply IFRS 15 retrospectively to completed contracts at the beginning of the earliest period presented Other topics In the ED the IASB expressly asks whether constituents agree with the assessment that amendments to IFRS 15 with respect to collectability measuring non cash consideration and a practical expedient with respect to the presentation of sales taxes are not required Alternative view One Board member voted against the publication of the ED This Board member supports all proposed clarifications and the additional transition relief but disagrees with the proposal to require an entity to apply the amendments retrospectively FASB The FASB has decided to propose more extensive amendments to its revenue standard A first proposed Accounting Standards Update ASU on identifying performance obligations and on licensing was published in May 2015 A second proposed ASU relating to clarifications on principal versus agent considerations collectability measuring non cash consideration and practical expedients relating to transition and the presentation of sales taxes is expected later in 2015 The Basis for Conclusions of the IASB s ED notes where differences in outcomes may arise as a consequence of the different decisions reached by both Boards Next steps The IASB expects to complete its redeliberations by the end of 2015 The ED does not include a proposed an effective date but the IASB s objective is to finalise the proposed

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/news/2015/07/ifrs-15-clarifications (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Fair value measurement
    the proposed measurements in the Exposure Draft Agenda Papers 6A and 6B The Board was presented with research activities conducted by the staff to assess how many entities would be potentially affected by the amendments The staff also conducted outreach activities with valuation specialists accounting firms securities regulators ASAF and FASB staff Agenda paper 6A presented a summary of the research performed and agenda paper 6B presented a detailed analysis The Board was not asked to make any decision and would be presented with further research with preparers users and academic reviews at future meetings The staff concluded that the number of entities affected is very limited The outreach highlighted that respondents were concerned that measuring the fair value of a quoted investment by applying P x Q did not result in a relevant measurement because it did not reflect the fair value of the investment as a whole The staff also noted that the valuation specialist commonly measured the fair value of quoted investment by applying a valuation technique such as discounted cash flow Discussion The Board supported the approach the staff had taken to collect more feedback on the impact of measuring the fair value of a block of assets as P x Q e g a block of shares as the market price multiplied by the number of shares There was also agreement that the Board needs to resolve this issue although the discussion did not provide a clear direction as to what the potential solution could be The Board acknowledged the existing conflict between the requirement to measure a group of assets or liabilities based on their unit of account considering that in the case of sales of large block of shares there could be discounts or premiums with the IFRS 13 principle that required entities to maximise the use of observable inputs level 1 without adjustment There was agreement that moving away from the IFRS 13 principle would be too risky without conducting a broader analysis of IFRS 13 for example by the post implementation review As regards the research performed by the staff most Board members indicated that the feedback was in accordance with their expectations It was also mentioned that even though the population potentially affected was not very large in most cases it could be material Also the staff confirmed that their research did not include a detail analysis as to whether entities were making adjustments to the P x Q calculation what those adjustments were or whether entities disclosed supplementary information or gave non GAAP measures to reflect any adjustment they would have made The staff indicated that they would perform further research on a sample basis to understand the situation further Related Topics Projects IFRS 13 Unit of account Related news Summary of the October ASAF meeting now available 29 Oct 2015 IASB issues work plan update changes presentation 05 Aug 2015 IASB issues work plan update 26 Mar 2015 We comment on the proposed amendments for measuring quoted investments

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

  • Goodwill and impairment
    the October 2015 meeting the IASB asked the staff to perform additional work to better understand what information investors wanted to receive about goodwill and impairment and how they currently used the information about goodwill and impairment provided by companies in order to inform the IASB s future discussions Paper 18B summarised the feedback received from various sources and feedback received in the November Capital Markets Advisory Committee CMAC meeting was provided orally to the IASB at the November meeting The IASB was asked whether they required any additional information and whether based on feedback received they thought the staff should consider addressing any disclosures about subsequent performance of the acquired business for example about whether the key targets synergies of the acquisition are met as part of this project IASB discussion Identification and measurement of intangible assets in a business combination There was general agreement amongst the IASB members on the approach proposed by the staff and the need to begin discussions with the FASB as soon as possible One IASB member suggested that if the IASB was to try to make the distinction between identifiable intangible assets that should be subsumed in goodwill and those that should remain independent This could be done on the basis of whether the intangible asset was capable of generating cash flows distinct from the actual reporting entity The IASB member thought that the notion of separability that was introduced in the 2008 amendments to IFRS 3 was a good starting point but that this needed expanding to look at whether the intangible asset was also generating value Another IASB member highlighted from reading paragraphs 37 and 44 in the agenda paper that when deliberating on the 2008 amendments the IASB had considered the concerns raised that some intangible assets were complex and subjective to measure which meant that the information is less useful As the Basis for Conclusions notes the IASB made a conscious decision that separate recognition on the basis of an estimate of fair value rather than subsuming in goodwill provided better information to users of financial statements even if a significant degree of judgement was required to estimate fair value The IASB member noted that they still agreed with that decision and that Approach 3 was definitely out A further IASB member believed that both Approaches 1 and 2 should be given equal weighting at this stage and to avoid making fundamental changes suggested a modified Approach 2 whereby only indefinite life intangibles would be subsumed into goodwill The IASB member further suggested that the loss of information through additional intangible assets being subsumed into goodwill could be mitigated through enhanced qualitative disclosures about goodwill Several IASB members requested more detail on the process the FASB had been through in reaching their current position the FASB s external papers only provide summaries of what was discussed noting that it would be helpful to have this background information prior to having discussions with the FASB In bringing the discussion to

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



  •