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".
  • CFO Insights — Facing (and embracing) strategic risks
    Forgot password Welcome My account Logout IAS Plus United States English Global English Global Deutsch Canada English Canada Français United Kingdom English United States English Toggle navigation Search site Toggle navigation Home News Publications Standards Projects Resources My US GAAP Plus Topics Communications Toggle navigation Search site Publication Directory U S publications Accounting Journal Entries Accounting Roundup Accounting for Income Taxes Audit Committee Brief CFO Insights Dbriefs webcasts EITF Snapshot Financial Reporting Alerts Financial services industry Accounting and financial reporting updates 2015 Heads Up Hot Topics Industry Spotlight Other industry publications Roadmap series SEC comment letter series TRG Snapshot U S comment letters XBRL Global publications Info CFO Insights Facing and embracing strategic risks Published on Jan 28 2016 Risk management has undergone a refocusing in recent years in an attempt to make its techniques and processes more adaptable to shifts in business and the economy and more responsive to the demands of C suite executives And those same executives including CFOs are finding that by focusing on strategic risks they are better equipped to identify what could undermine their future business adapt to new challenges and take advantage of emerging opportunities This issue discusses the barriers to recognizing and responding to strategic risks and outline some of the tools available to help harness them Download Related Topics Publication series CFO Insights Related Publications CFO Insights Special Edition CFO Signals 2015 Q4 Survey Results Jan 07 2016 CFO Insights Diagnosing your team and curing its ills Dec 17 2015 CFO Insights Compliance risks What you don t contain can hurt you Dec 03 2015 CFO Insights Creating an effective communications program Nov 12 2015 All Related About Contact us Legal Privacy Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/cfo/2016/strategic-risks (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • U.S. comment letter on clarifying the definition of a business
    Industry Spotlight Other industry publications Roadmap series SEC comment letter series TRG Snapshot U S comment letters XBRL Global publications Info U S comment letter on clarifying the definition of a business Published on Jan 25 2016 Deloitte Touche LLP comments on the FASB s proposed ASU Clarifying the Definition of a Business which was issued in November 2015 An excerpt from the comment letter is shown below While we believe that the proposed ASU would significantly improve the current guidance appropriately resulting in the identification of more transactions as asset acquisitions rather than as business combinations we think that it may be helpful to clarify the definition and related interpretive guidance to avoid diversity in practice Full text of the comment letter is available below Download Related Topics Publication series U S comment letters Resources FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB Projects Clarifying the definition of a business Standards ASC 805 Business Combinations Related news Highlights from the FASB s February 3 meeting Feb 05 2016 FASB proposes guidance on certain cash flow classification issues Jan 29 2016 FASB issues proposed ASUs on pensions and other postretirement benefit plans Jan 26 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 20 meeting Jan 22 2016 FASB publishes new issue of FASB Outlook Jan 12 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 6 meeting Jan 07 2016 All Related Related Publications Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on cash flow classification Feb 04 2016 Accounting Roundup January 2016 Feb 02 2016 Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on presentation of net periodic benefit cost and disclosures related to defined benefit plans Jan 28 2016 Journal entry Consolidation FASB tentatively decides to make technical corrections and improvements to ASU 2015 02 Jan 25 2016 All Related Related Dates FASB proposal on government

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/uscl/pasus/definition-of-a-business (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Journal entry — Consolidation — FASB tentatively decides to make technical corrections and improvements to ASU 2015-02
    FASB tentatively decided to amend the guidance in ASC 810 10 25 42 1 as amended by ASU 2015 02 2 The FASB staff indicated that the catalyst for this tentative decision was a technical inquiry submitted to the staff regarding the implementation of ASU 2015 02 After adopting ASU 2015 02 when evaluating whether the economics criterion has been met a reporting entity that has a variable interest in a variable interest entity is required to consider interests held by its related parties including de facto agents only if the reporting entity has a direct interest in the related parties 3 If the related party is not under common control the indirect interest is considered on a proportionate basis However if the related party is under common control the reporting entity must include the related party s entire interest in its economics criterion evaluation 4 At the meeting the Board tentatively decided to remove the last sentence in ASC 810 10 25 42 that states Indirect interests held through related parties that are under common control with the decision maker should be considered the equivalent of direct interests in their entirety The removal of this sentence may affect consolidation conclusions reached under ASU 2015 02 Next Steps The Board instructed the FASB staff to evaluate whether any amendments to the guidance in ASC 810 10 that addresses fees paid to decision makers or service providers 5 will need to be made as result of the Board s tentative decision to amend ASC 810 10 25 42 The Board expects to issue a separate proposed ASU related to this amendment for a 30 day comment period 1 For titles of FASB Accounting Standards Codification ASC references see Deloitte s Titles of Topics and Subtopics in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification 2 FASB Accounting Standards Update No 2015 02 Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis 3 This guidance is only applicable for a reporting entity that is a single decision maker 4 On the basis of the guidance in ASC 810 10 25 42 5 ASC 810 10 55 37 through 55 37D address fees paid to decision makers or service providers in the context of evaluating whether fees are variable interests ASC 810 10 25 38H through 25 28J also address fees paid to a decision maker Download Related Topics Publication series Accounting Journal Entries Resources Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB Projects Consolidation Principal versus agent analysis Standards ASC 810 Consolidation Related news Highlights from the FASB s February 3 meeting Feb 05 2016 FASB proposes guidance on certain cash flow classification issues Jan 29 2016 FASB issues proposed ASUs on pensions and other postretirement benefit plans Jan 26 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 20 meeting Jan 22 2016 FASB publishes new issue of FASB Outlook Jan 12 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 6 meeting Jan 07 2016 All Related Related Publications Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on cash flow classification Feb 04 2016 Accounting Roundup January

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/aje/2016/0125 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Journal entry — Proposed technical corrections to the new revenue recognition standard
    renewals and extensions when measuring the remaining amount of consideration the entity expects to receive 4 Include in the amount of consideration the entity expects to receive both 1 the amount of cash expected to be received and 2 the amount of cash already received but not yet recognized as revenue Test for and recognize impairment in the following order 1 assets outside the scope of ASC 340 40 such as inventory under ASC 330 2 assets accounted for under ASC 340 40 and 3 reporting units and asset groups under ASC 350 and ASC 360 Amend certain guidance in ASC 605 35 that will not be superseded by ASC 606 i e the requirement for an entity to test for onerous contracts to specify that the contract level is the lowest level on which loss provisions are required to be recorded However the amended guidance would also state that an entity would not be precluded from recording at the performance obligation level a loss that results in a contract with a customer Clarify the scope exception in ASC 606 related to contracts subject to ASC 944 in ASC 606 10 15 2 b the phrase insurance contracts would be changed to the term contracts Revise the analysis in Example 7 of ASC 606 10 55 125 through 55 128 which illustrates the modification of a services contract to better align it with the modification guidance in ASC 606 10 25 12 Include a scope exception in ASC 924 for fixed odds wagering contracts by adding a new subtopic ASC 924 815 Entertainment Casinos Derivatives and Hedging clarifying that such contracts are revenue contracts within the scope of ASC 606 5 Amend ASC 946 to remove a portion of a conforming amendment from ASU 2014 09 to eliminate the potential for diversity in accounting for incurred costs by private funds and public funds The Board also tentatively agreed to 1 issue these technical corrections separately from technical corrections to other ASC topics 2 use the same effective date and transition provisions as those in ASC 606 as amended and 3 permit a 45 day comment period 1 For titles of FASB Accounting Standards Codification ASC references see Deloitte s Titles of Topics and Subtopics in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification 2 FASB Accounting Standards Update No 2014 09 Revenue From Contracts With Customers 3 This topic was discussed at the November 9 2015 meeting of the FASB IASB joint revenue transition resource group TRG meeting See Deloitte s November 2015 TRG Snapshot for more information 4 This topic was discussed at the July 18 2014 TRG meeting See Deloitte s July 2014 TRG Snapshot for more information 5 This topic was discussed at the November 9 2015 TRG meeting See Deloitte s November 2015 TRG Snapshot for more information Download Related Topics Publication series Accounting Journal Entries Resources Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB Projects Revenue recognition Standards ASC 606 Revenue From Contracts With Customers Other FASB Meetings Related news Highlights

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/aje/2016/0122b (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Heads Up — The new revenue standard — Adoption and transition observations
    effective Over the past few months Deloitte has sponsored various seminars on the new revenue standard and obtained feedback from participants through questionnaires 4 Figure 1 shows survey respondents thoughts regarding the transition method they may adopt Figure 1 Which Method Will You Use to Adopt the New Revenue Standard Only 14 percent of respondents indicated an affirmative decision on a method of adoption with 10 percent noting they would adopt the new revenue standard on a full retrospective basis Overwhelmingly respondents had not reached a definitive conclusion regarding selection of a transition method Of the 86 percent that had not affirmatively responded on which method they would use for adoption 49 percent indicated a preliminary leaning to one of the new revenue standard s transition methods Editor s Note Like Deloitte s above survey results informal polling during the 2015 AICPA Conference indicated that most preparers had still not decided which transition method to use and that the percentages of those with a preliminary leaning toward the full retrospective method and those with a preliminary leaning toward the modified retrospective method were now relatively even In deciding which transition method to use companies should confer with key stakeholders and gain an understanding of the methods used by peer companies The greater the differences expected between a company s legacy revenue accounting and accounting for revenue under the new standard the more the company may want to consider using the full retrospective transition method Under this method the company would reflect revenue consistently for all years presented in its financial statements rather than for only the latest year presented as is permitted under the modified transition method In addition entities are permitted to early adopt the new revenue standard However under U S GAAP early adoption is limited to the effective date before the standard s deferral As shown in Figure 2 nearly 60 percent of respondents to Deloitte s survey do not plan to early adopt the new standard Figure 2 Will You Early Adopt the New Revenue Standard Editor s Note At the 2015 AICPA Conference members of a revenue panel noted that early adoption may be difficult given the current status of implementation efforts continued diversity in practice and the ongoing issuance of clarifying guidance by the FASB and IASB Accounting Processes and Internal Controls Management will need to exercise significant judgment in applying certain aspects of the new revenue standard s requirements including those related to the identification of performance obligations and allocation of revenue to each performance obligation Accordingly to comply with the new revenue standard s new accounting and disclosure requirements entities will have to 1 document new or different judgments and 2 gather and track information that they may not have previously monitored The systems and processes associated with such information may need to be modified to support the capture of additional data elements that may not currently be supported by legacy systems Further to ensure the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting management will want to assess whether it should revise existing or implement additional controls In assessing the effect of applying the new revenue standard on systems processes and internal controls entities may need to consider questions such as the following What processes should entities implement to identify all goods and services in a contract with a customer How will entities estimate the stand alone selling price for contracts involving multiple goods or services How will entities ensure consistency of judgments in identifying performance obligations estimating stand alone selling prices and progress toward completion What systems processes and controls are necessary to reliably estimate variable consideration and determine whether it is probable that a significant reversal of revenue will not occur Will entities need new processes and controls to identify and capitalize contract costs that would be considered incremental Will entities need to implement new processes and controls to periodically review contract costs and to test capitalized amounts for recoverability or impairment When should new policies and procedures be designed and implemented Despite the potential for significant changes to systems processes and internal controls many respondents to Deloitte s survey indicated the following about their current state of readiness to implement the new revenue standard Figure 3 Have You Started to Implement the New Standard Figure 4 Have You Established a Budget for Implementation Figure 5 Do You Expect the New Standard to Have a Material Impact Only 25 percent of respondents believed that the new revenue standard would not have a material impact on their financial statements In comparison 75 percent of respondents indicated the standard would or could have a material impact on their financial statements However 43 percent of respondents have not started to implement the new revenue standard and of the respondents that have started most indicated that they are in the very early phases of their implementation process In addition only 13 percent of respondents indicated that they have formally established a budget for implementing the new revenue standard Editor s Note At the 2015 AICPA Conference Ashley Wright a professional accounting fellow in the OCA noted that all companies should expect some degree of change to their accounting processes controls judgments and disclosures as a result of implementing the new revenue standard Ms Wright thus suggested that companies take a fresh look at their accounting policies and practices and have candid discussions with their audit committees executive management and auditors about the status of implementation plans and impact assessments A change management project plan including an assessment of resources needed to execute that plan should be a priority of company management and audit committees Implementation Resources Available to Preparers The TRG has provided a public forum related to the new revenue standard and has addressed more than 50 implementation questions since its inception For more information about the TRG see Deloitte s TRG Snapshot newsletters In addition the AICPA has 16 industry task forces that address implementation questions and plans to publish interpretive guidance

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/heads-up/2016/issue-2 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Consolidation — A roadmap to identifying a controlling financial interest
    on the consolidation of variable interest entities VIEs most notably the FASB s issuance of Accounting Standards Update ASU No 2015 02 Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis earlier this year While ASU 2015 02 is not yet effective for all companies generally it is effective in 2016 for public entities and 2017 for private entities with early adoption permitted the guidance in this Roadmap is written as if adoption has occurred Notwithstanding this focus many of the concepts underlying the identification of a controlling financial interest have remained the same Accordingly this Roadmap highlights the significant changes that resulted from the issuance of ASU 2015 02 and describes the purpose and effects of the ASU s changes Further the Roadmap s Appendix A and Appendix B compare ASU 2015 02 with the predecessor consolidation models in ASU 2009 17 and FIN 46 R respectively In addition while the Roadmap s focus is on the complexities of identifying whether a legal entity is a VIE and whether a reporting entity should consolidate a VIE Appendix D provides a framework and our interpretations of how a reporting entity should apply the voting interest entity model Download Related Topics Publication series Roadmap series Resources Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB Projects Consolidation Principal versus agent analysis Standards ASC 810 Consolidation Related news Highlights from the FASB s February 3 meeting Feb 05 2016 FASB proposes guidance on certain cash flow classification issues Jan 29 2016 FASB issues proposed ASUs on pensions and other postretirement benefit plans Jan 26 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 20 meeting Jan 22 2016 FASB publishes new issue of FASB Outlook Jan 12 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 6 meeting Jan 07 2016 All Related Related Publications Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on cash flow classification

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/publications/us/roadmap-series/consolidation (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Announcing the launch of @DeloitteAcctg
    Canada Français United Kingdom English United States English Login or Register Deloitte User Login Login Name Password Login Register Forgot password Welcome My account Logout IAS Plus United States English Global English Global Deutsch Canada English Canada Français United Kingdom English United States English Toggle navigation Search site Toggle navigation Home News Publications Standards Projects Resources My US GAAP Plus Topics Communications Toggle navigation Search site Navigation News 2016 2015 2014 2013 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 Info Announcing the launch of DeloitteAcctg Oct 29 2013 DeloitteAcctg is now live on Twitter The feed offers Deloitte Touche LLP s insights on the latest U S focused accounting financial reporting regulatory and industry developments It will also announce new articles and publications that are available on the US GAAP Plus Web site as well as recent communications by the Financial Accounting Valuation Securitization group To fully take advantage of this resource Join in Follow DeloitteAcctg on Twitter Connect Respond to posts and give your feedback by using USGAAPPlus Discover Keep up with Deloitte accounting publications such as CFOInsights We look forward to hearing from you Please tweet DeloitteAcctg or email us with any questions about the new feed You can also follow iasplus for global accounting news Related Topics Resources Welcome to US GAAP Plus Related news New Canadian Web sites added to IAS Plus family Jun 03 2015 UK and U S focused sites added to IAS Plus family Sep 10 2013 About publications Feb 23 2012 All Related About Contact us Legal Privacy Material on this website is 2015 Deloitte Global Services Limited or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited or one of their related entities See Legal for additional copyright and other legal information Deloitte refers to one

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/news/2013/10/twitter (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • FASB proposal on government assistance
    United Kingdom English United States English Toggle navigation Search site Toggle navigation Home News Publications Standards Projects Resources My US GAAP Plus Topics Communications Toggle navigation Search site Navigation Events Comment deadlines 2016 Conferences and forums Dbriefs Effective dates Transition Resource Group Revenue meetings Webcasts Info FASB proposal on government assistance When Feb 10 2016 from 12 00 PM to 10 55 PM Timezone UTC 5 Where Comment deadline Add event to calendar vCal iCal The FASB has issued proposed ASU Government Assistance on November 13 2015 Comments are due by February 10 2016 Related Topics Date type Comment letter deadline Resources FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB Related news Highlights from the FASB s February 3 meeting Feb 05 2016 FASB proposes guidance on certain cash flow classification issues Jan 29 2016 FASB issues proposed ASUs on pensions and other postretirement benefit plans Jan 26 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 20 meeting Jan 22 2016 FASB publishes new issue of FASB Outlook Jan 12 2016 Highlights from the FASB s January 6 meeting Jan 07 2016 All Related Related Publications Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on cash flow classification Feb 04 2016 Accounting Roundup January 2016 Feb 02 2016 Heads Up FASB proposes guidance on presentation of net periodic benefit cost and disclosures related to defined benefit plans Jan 28 2016 U S comment letter on clarifying the definition of a business Jan 25 2016 All Related Related Dates GASB exposure draft on pension issues Feb 13 2016 Comment deadline SEC proposed rule on resource extraction disclosures Feb 17 2016 Comment deadline SEC proposes alternative trading systems enhancements Feb 27 2016 Comment deadline FASB proposal on the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements Mar 01 2016 Comment deadline All Related About Contact us Legal

    Original URL path: http://www.iasplus.com/en-us/events/deadlines/2016/fasb-pasu-2015-340 (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •