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
    adopted the Amendment they could choose to cease applying it and noted that this needed to be clearly communicated Ten of the fourteen IASB members voted in favour of deferring the effective date of the September 2014 Amendment to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 indefinitely with early application continuing to be permitted and allowing entities that had already applied the Amendment to continue to do so The IASB agreed to issue the narrow scope exposure draft with a comment period of 60 days IFRS 5 Non Current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations Next steps for a series of IFRS 5 related issues This session was devoted to discussing the next steps regarding a series of issues relating to IFRS 5 that had been discussed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee but not resolved In the agenda paper the IASB staff had recommended to the IASB that the issues should be divided into those to be considered in the short term and those to be considered in the medium to longer term and for the latter a reference should be made to these issues in the Request for Views in the forthcoming agenda consultation for a potential broad scope project on IFRS 5 Non current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations For the items identified to be considered in the short term the staff recommended that Issues 5 and 9 should be considered for possible tentative agenda decision items and Issue 11 should be addressed through an annual improvement process Issue 5 To what extent an impairment loss can be allocated to non current assets within a disposal group Issue 9 How to present intragroup transactions between continuing and discontinued operations Issue 11 Applicability of the disclosure requirements in IFRS 12 to a subsidiary classified as held for sale Overall approach An IASB member noted that she agreed with the staff recommendation to divide the unresolved IFRS 5 related issues between those to be considered in the short term and those to be considered in the medium to longer term as long as the issues were discreet and cautioned that the IASB needed to ensure that in doing so it considered whether issues were interrelated with anything else Another IASB member also supported the short term medium to longer term approach but expressed concerns about the IASB placing too much reliance on the results of the agenda consultation noting that not everything could be a high priority project and the IASB ran the risk that it came out as a low priority project but the issues would still exist He questioned what would happen if it was considered to be a low priority project The Director of Implementation Activities responded noting that the issues would have to remain there as they were not issues the Interpretations Committee could pick up unless the IASB asked the Interpretations Committee to undertake a broader project outside of the nature of the narrow scope projects the Interpretations Committee usually undertook Several IASB members noted that they did not believe the IFRS 5 issues warranted a specific question in the agenda consultation but suggested that the IASB should just highlight that it was there so people could offer a comment if they wanted to They also noted that a number of the issues were fundamental questions and highlighted the fact that this was a converged project with the FASB and even though the IFRS and US GAAP standards are not completely converged stressed the importance of talking to the FASB in trying to resolve the issues One of the IASB members also noted that it was important to convey in the agenda consultation that this project would be a big use of the IASB s time so people could factor that into account when providing a response All IASB members agreed that the unresolved IFRS 5 related issues should be divided up between those to be considered in the short term and those to be considered in the medium to longer term and that for the medium to longer term issues a specific question should not be asked about these issues in the agenda consultation but it would be useful to refer to these issues so that people would be mindful of these issues when they were responding to the general questions Issues to be considered in the short term An IASB member questioned whether the three short term issues could be bundled into a single annual improvement expressing his preference for bundling issues relating to the same Standard into a single document and noting that from a process perspective it would be more efficient than asking people to look at the same Standard three times He also added that annual improvements gave better clarity and force to a Standard than agenda decisions Another IASB member pointed out that in paragraph 21 of the agenda paper it was noted that with respect to Issues 5 and 9 the Interpretations Committee almost tentatively concluded that sufficient guidance existed and questioned how these issues would be bundled into an annual improvement noting that for an annual improvement the IASB had to admit that there was not sufficient guidance in the Standard and a clarification was necessary to change the Standard Another IASB member suggested this could be done through the Basis for Conclusions by only proposing an amendment with respect to Issue 11 and explaining in the Basis for Conclusions why the IASB did not believe it needed to propose an amendment in respect of Issues 5 and 9 because the Standard was sufficiently clear This approach would avoid making unnecessary changes to the Standard A further IASB member questioned how visible the issues would be in a Basis for Conclusions to annual improvements and whether they would get the visibility the IASB would like them to have Eleven of the fourteen IASB members agreed that Issues 5 and 9 should be considered by the Interpretations Committee for possible tentative agenda decision items Issue 11 was

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


  • IASB-Sitzung — 20. und 22. - 23. Juli 2015
    23 Juli 2015 in seinen Räumen in London getagt Der IASB erörterte die Themen Versicherungsverträge IFRS Taxonomie IFRS Umsetzungsfragen preisregulierte Geschäftsvorfälle dynamisches Risikomanagement Erlöserfassung Rückstellungen und Eventualschulden Bemessung des beizulegenden Zeitwerts Finanzinstrumente mit Merkmalen von Eigenkapital und die Agendakonsultation Tagesordnung für die Sitzung Montag 20 Juli 2015 IASB Sitzung 14 45h 16 45h Versicherungsverträge Mittwoch 22 Juli 2015 IASB Sitzung 9 00h 15 15h IFRS Taxonomie Unterrichtseinheit IFRS Umsetzungsfragen Preisregulierte Geschäftsvorfälle Dynamisches Risikomanagement Erlöserfassung Donnerstag 23 Juli 2015 IASB Sitzung 10 30h 15 15h Rückstellungen und Eventualschulden Unterrichtseinheit Bemessung des beizulegenden Zeitwerts Finanzinstrumente mit Merkmalen von Eigenkapital Agendakonsultation Die Agendapapiere für die Sitzung sind auf der Internetseite des IASB erhältlich Zugehörige Themen Sitzungsreihe 2015 IASB Ressourcen IASB Zugehörige Nachrichten Rotes Buch 2016 erscheint im März 09 02 2016 DRSC Stellungnahme zu den vorgeschlagenen Änderungen an IFRS 4 in Bezug auf IFRS 9 09 02 2016 Reaktionen auf die vorgeschlagenen Änderungen mit denen Bedenken in Bezug auf die unterschiedliche Zeitpunkte des Inkrafttretens von IFRS 9 und dem neuen Standard zu Versicherungen adressiert werden sollen 08 02 2016 Wir nehmen Stellung zu den vorgeschlagenen Änderungen an IFRS 4 in Bezug auf IFRS 9 08 02 2016 FEE Papier zu Fragen zur Übernahme von IFRS 9 08 02 2016 Neuer IFRS Leasingstandard für mehr Transparenz 08 02 2016 Alle zugehörigen Zugehörige Publikationen Stellungnahme von Deloitte zu den vorgeschlagenen Änderungen an IFRS 4 in Bezug auf IFRS 9 08 02 2016 Neuer IFRS Leasingstandard für mehr Transparenz 08 02 2016 IFRS in Focus Newsletter zu den Änderungen an IAS 7 01 02 2016 Stand der Übernahme der IFRS in Europa 01 02 2016 Alle zugehörigen Zugehörige Diskussionen Strategie in Bezug auf die Einbindung von Anlegern 25 02 2014 IASB Aktivitäten 24 02 2014 Forschungsprojekt Unternehmens zusammenschlüsse unter gemeinsamer Beherrschung aktueller Stand 18 09 2013

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/de/meeting-notes/iasb/2015/july?set_language=de (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IASB meeting — 20 and 22-23 July 2015
    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 2015 IASB meeting 20 and 22 23 July 2015 IFRS Foundation Trustees IFRS Interpretations Committee 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

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

  • Insurance contracts
    volatility in profit or loss are shadow accounting which is a way of adjusting insurance liabilities to reduce accounting mismatches that can arise when unrealised gains and losses on assets held by the entity are recognised in the financial statements but corresponding changes in the measurement of the insurance contract liabilities are not IFRS 4 paragraph 30 use of current market interest rates in the measurement of insurance liabilities IFRS 4 paragraph 24 and the ability to change accounting policies for insurance contracts when financial statements are made more relevant and no less reliable or more reliable and no less relevant than before the change IFRS 4 paragraph 22 Potential amendments to IFRS 4 are shadow adjustments for shareholders interests in underlying assets shadow accounting for assets backing non participating insurance contracts and apply IFRS 9 with an adjustment which offsets the effect of IFRS 9 on profit or loss Staff recommendation The Staff recommends that IFRS 4 be amended to permit an entity to exclude from profit or loss and recognise in other comprehensive income the difference between the amounts that would be recognised in profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 and the amounts recognised in profit or loss in accordance with IAS 39 provided that the entity issues contracts accounted for under IFRS 4 applies IFRS 9 in conjunction with IFRS 4 and classifies financial assets as fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 when those assets were previously classified at amortised cost or as available for sale in accordance with IAS 39 IASB discussion One Board member asked whether the recommendation would apply to a conglomerate as a whole the legal entity or to the insurance business The Staff noted that there is already a limited scope in the recommendation only applying to financial assets as fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 when those assets were previously classified at amortised cost or as available for sale in accordance with IAS 39 and stated the Staff will consider whether any further restriction is required and bring this back to the September meeting Several Board members commented that the scope of the amendment is very important and that this should not apply to Banks that are subsidiaries of an insurance company Several Board members expressed support for option c of the potential amendments to IFRS 4 Reasons for this support included it is a transparent solution it deals with most of the issues raised by constituents it would be relatively easy to implement and was both a pragmatic and principles based solution One Board member expressed concern that if options a and b continued to be considered this may extend the re deliberation process and may lead to unexpected consequences One Board member noted that one disadvantage of option c was that it would require insurers to run systems for IFRS 9 and IAS 39 in parallel Two Board members expressed a preference for not amending IFRS 4

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

  • Rate-regulated activities
    objectives In some cases there could be a mismatch between the timing of billing to the customer and the activities performed by the entity She said that in May the Board decided to work on an accounting model to reflect the relationship between the regulator and the entity She referred to the numerical example included in appendix 1 to be discussed by the Board The staff did not propose any specific accounting treatment rather the staff suggested options for different accounting treatment adjusting revenue or costs adjusting both or no adjustments at all to reflect the mismatch She also said that the staff discussed the example with the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum ASAF she noted mixed views regarding the alternative solutions although there was more support for deferring revenue recognition rather than advancing revenue recognition She then opened the discussion to the Board There were mixed views expressed by the Board Some Board members indicated that the main decision should be whether it was necessary or not to make adjustments Some Board members expressed preferences for adjusting revenue because it would be more reasonable to explain deferral of revenue There was no agreement for deferring recognition of cost In terms of presentation there was more support for presenting the adjustment separately from revenue or cost because it would be necessary to show that this adjustment reflects a situation derived from a regulatory relationship There was also general support for the additional line item being presented on the face of the income statement with supplemental disclosure in the notes There were a few Board members who disagreed with the concept of adjusting revenue One Board member said that a regulated entity should not have any special treatment compared to other entities He said that banks for example were regulated and their equity would be different if there were no regulations however there were no accounting requirements for banks to adjust for the effects of their regulation Another Board member responded that regulated entities were different because they made decisions about investments billing etc based on regulations and also indicated that the regulatory framework forced entities to transfer revenue from one period to another Some Board members pointed out that it would be necessary to have an appropriate framework to evaluate which accounting treatment would be appropriate For example applying the Conceptual Framework to determine whether there were additional assets or liabilities created One Board member indicated that it would also be important to determine who the primary users of the regulated entities financial statements were He said that since those companies are capital intensive it would be reasonably to believe that loan providers and equity holders were the main primary users In relation to the specific issue of revenue one Board member indicated that it would be important to determine first whether this relationship had any bearing on the financial performance of the entity He asked whether the regulatory framework forced an entity to transfer goods or services which went beyond

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

  • Dynamic risk management
    meeting to examine how the information needs of constituents concerning DRM activities could be addressed through disclosures The objective of the agenda paper was to set up a process to identify those information needs They had examined in the paper what useful information concerned whose information needs were the focus why the information was needed and what sources for the information could be The Senior Technical Manager asked the IASB for their input on the process and whether they would like comparability between entities that undertook DRM activities and those that did not One Board member opened the discussion by saying that the IASB would have to decide whether the focus should be narrow and on hedge accounting or whether it should be broader and on disclosures She believed that the constituents had asked for the former Although she preferred the latter focus she expressed concern that it was unclear whether the Board had a mandate for that Another Board member agreed that the focus should be on disclosures as this was the only way in his view to make the interest rate risk of an entity more transparent He said that the scope and the objective of the project should be defined however this would be a very big project and he thought it was not be the right time to undertake this project as IFRS 9 had just been finalised The Technical Director understood those concerns and said that the project needed to find the appropriate entry point Possible entry points could be DRM activities or interest rate risk exposure in general But even if the latter were the entry point this would not mean that the entire risk management should be disclosed A Board member replied that this task would be difficult as DRM activities required different disclosures than micro hedging or proxy hedging The Chairman said that using general interest rate risk exposure as an entry point would be too broad as every company was exposed to interest rate risks One Board member warned that the IASB should not align the disclosures to the very extensive information required by regulators A fellow Board member said that the limit between financial statement risk disclosures and business risk disclosures should be considered The Technical Director acknowledged an overlap between those two kinds of risks but said that the focus was on interest rate risk disclosures as IFRS 9 addressed other risks appropriately One Board member said that the problem with the portfolio risk approach PRA was that the Board had tried to solve too many problems in one go He suggested extracting the problems and dealing with each of them separately He also said that the revaluation approach suggested by the DP might not be the right solution He also said that behaviouralisation with regard to core deposits was actually a form of proxy hedge accounting and therefore not a good solution either Several Board members agreed with that The Technical Director also agreed but said that all

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

  • Revenue from contracts with customers — Effective date of IFRS 15
    in May 2015 and the IASB members voted on whether to finalise the deferral of the effective date of IFRS 15 by one year to 1 January 2018 One IASB member observed that feedback had been received on the Exposure Draft encouraging the IASB to set a formula for determining the implementation lead time when deciding on the effective date of standards He highlighted the difficulties associated with setting a formula that would apply to all standards He noted that IFRS 15 was a Standard that involved up to millions of day to day transactions and therefore preparers would need more lead time than if they were implementing a Standard that only affected transactions that occurred once a year and noted that he disagreed with setting a formula but suggested that the IASB should work on this area a bit more The IASB agreed to finalise the amendment to IFRS 15 so that entities would be required to apply IFRS 15 for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018 with early application continuing to be permitted All IASB members voted in favour The IASB members confirmed that they were satisfied that all due process requirements had been met and gave the IASB staff permission to begin the balloting process to amend the effective date of IFRS 15 No IASB members indicated that they planned to dissent from the publication of the amendment to IFRS 15 Related Topics Projects Clarifications to IFRS 15 Issues emerging from TRG discussions Standards IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers Related news FASB constituents of the TRG will continue to meet 02 Feb 2016 IASB says TRG not scheduled to meet again 22 Jan 2016 IFRS Foundation publishes proposed IFRS Taxonomy update for IFRS 16 Leases 21 Jan 2016 IASB updates work

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

  • Provisions and contingent liabilities IAS 37 — research project (education session)
    IFRS reporting entities in the US were having any issues which could indicate that they were applying more of a US GAAP threshold in that marketplace and perhaps even internationally He also suggested that paragraph 92 of IAS 37 could be trumping recognition thresholds however another IASB noted that this exemption for rare cases when disclosing information would be expected to prejudice seriously the position of the entity in a dispute with another party only applied to disclosure not recognition There were concerns expressed about how the staff would go about performing the research into the practice applied by IFRS reporters given it was a very judgmental assessment and would be difficult to make an assessment unless identical liabilities were being looked at which would be difficult to achieve given the nature of litigation One IASB member pointed out that global banks domiciled in a number of different jurisdictions have had major misconduct problems which have resulted in litigation and are all negotiating with the justice department and suggested the IASB could talk to enough people to get a sense of whether the same threshold was being applied by US GAAP and IFRS reporters The Technical Director noted that he was cautious about going out and talking to people unless the IASB had a clear sense that it might lead somewhere as it could get people excited for no reason An IASB member noted that this was a major focus for the investor community and it was important for the IASB to know whether its recognition requirements were being overridden by prejudices and therefore entities were not recognising liabilities when they should Another IASB member noted that from her experience in practice she had not seen anyone fail to provide information because of commercial prejudice Topic 3 Measurement With respect to risk adjustments one IASB member pointed out that the guidance in IAS 37 in this area was old and that it had been discussed in more recent Standards and suggested that it would make sense to update to reflect the best most recent thinking if the IASB was to do something on measurement He also noted that paragraph 43 of IAS 37 contained a reference to the word prudence which was inconsistent with where the IASB was going in the Conceptual Framework ED and noted that it was dangerous to allow it to stay there He noted that prudence and risk adjustments were completely different things and that they were being confused here Another IASB member noted that from an agenda consultation perspective the IASB should make people aware that there could be a big project on IAS 37 and if the IASB did not move forward with this there was the potential for a second much narrower project She also highlighted the need for the IASB to make it clear that a more limited project could address a group of practical problems that existed which had not been addressed in the past because of a preference to hold

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/iasb/2015/july/ias-37 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •