عرض العناصر حسب علامة : لجنة التفسيرات
الثلاثاء, 14 ديسمبر 2021 14:54
تحديث IFRIC لشهر نوفمبر 2021
تحديث IFRS هو ملخص للقرارات التي توصلت إليها لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية (اللجنة) في اجتماعاتها العامة. يمكن العثور على التحديثات السابقة في أرشيف تحديث IFRIC.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
IFRIC Update is a summary of the decisions reached by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) in its public meetings. Past Updates can be found in the IFRIC Update archive.
The Committee met on 30 November–1 December 2021. The Committee did not discuss feedback on the Tentative Agenda Decision TLTRO III Transactions (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance)—Agenda Paper 5. The Committee will discuss the feedback at a future meeting.
The Committee discussed:
Related Information
The work plan
Supporting consistent application
Contents
Committee's tentative agenda decisions
Principal versus Agent: Software Resellers (IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers)—Agenda Paper 2
Agenda decisions for the IASB's consideration
Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm (IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 3
Other matters
Negative Low Emission Vehicle Credits (IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets)—Agenda Paper 4
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 6
Committee's tentative agenda decisions
The Committee discussed the following matters and tentatively decided not to add standard-setting projects to the work plan. The Committee will reconsider these tentative decisions, including the reasons for not adding standard-setting projects, at a future meeting. The Committee invites comments on the tentative agenda decisions. Interested parties may submit comments on the open for comment page. All comments will be on the public record and posted on our website unless a respondent requests confidentiality and we grant that request. We do not normally grant such requests unless they are supported by a good reason, for example, commercial confidence. The Committee will consider all comments received in writing up to and including the closing date; comments received after that date will not be analysed in agenda papers considered by the Committee.
Principal versus Agent: Software Resellers (IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers)—Agenda Paper 2
The Committee received a request asking whether, in applying IFRS 15, a reseller of software licences is a principal or agent. In the fact pattern described in the request:
the reseller has a distribution agreement with a software manufacturer that:
gives the reseller the right to grant (sell) the manufacturer’s standard software licences to customers;
requires the reseller to provide pre-sales advice to each customer—before the sale of the software licences—to identify the type and number of software licences that would meet the customer’s needs; and
provides the reseller with discretion in pricing the software licences for sale to customers.
the nature of the pre-sales advice varies depending on the customer’s needs. If the customer decides:
not to purchase software licences, it pays nothing. The reseller and the customer do not enter into an agreement.
to purchase a specified type and number of software licences, the reseller negotiates the selling price with the customer, places an order with the software manufacturer on behalf of the customer (and pays the manufacturer), and invoices the customer for the agreed price.
the software manufacturer provides the customer with the software licences ordered—issued in the customer’s name—via a software portal and with the key necessary for activation. The software manufacturer and the customer enter into an agreement specifying the customer’s right to use the software, a warranty covering the software’s functionality and the term of the licence.
if the reseller advises the customer to order an incorrect type or number of software licences (that fails to meet the customer’s needs), the customer may not accept the licences. The reseller is unable to return unaccepted licences to the software manufacturer or sell them to another customer.
Applicable requirements in IFRS 15—Principal versus agent considerations
Paragraphs B34–B38 set out a framework to determine whether an entity is a principal or agent. When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, an entity determines whether the nature of its promise is a performance obligation to provide the specified goods or services itself (the entity is a principal) or to arrange for those goods or services to be provided by the other party (the entity is an agent).
Paragraph B34A states that determining the nature of its promise requires an entity to:
identify the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer. A specified good or service is a distinct good or service (or a distinct bundle of goods or services) to be provided to the customer (paragraph B34); and
assess whether it controls each specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to the customer.
An entity is a principal if it controls the specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to a customer (paragraph B35). An entity that is an agent does not control the specified good or service provided by another party before that good or service is transferred to the customer (paragraph B36).
Identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer
The first step in identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer is to assess the goods or services promised in the contract with the customer. A contract with a customer generally explicitly states the goods or services that an entity promises to transfer to a customer. However, the contract may also include promises that are implied by an entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements if, at the time of entering into the contract, those promises create a valid expectation of the customer that the entity will transfer a good or service to the customer (paragraph 24).
Having assessed the goods or services promised in the contract with the customer, an entity then identifies—applying paragraphs 27–30—each distinct good or service (or distinct bundle of goods or services) to be provided to the customer.
Assessing whether an entity controls each specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to the customer
When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, paragraph B35A sets out the circumstances in which an entity is a principal—one of which is when the entity obtains control of a good or another asset from the other party that it then transfers to the customer. Control of an asset refers to the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset; control includes the ability to prevent other entities from directing the use of, and obtaining the benefits from, an asset (paragraph 33).
Paragraph B37 sets out indicators to help an entity determine whether it is a principal or agent, which comprise (a) primary responsibility for fulfilling the promise to provide the specified good or service; (b) inventory risk before the specified good or service has been transferred to the customer or after transfer of control to the customer; and (c) discretion in establishing the price for the specified good or service. The indicators may be more or less relevant to the assessment of control depending on the nature of the specified good or service and the terms and conditions of the contract, and different indicators may provide more persuasive evidence in different contracts (paragraph B37A).
Applying IFRS 15 to the fact pattern described in the request
Identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer
In the fact pattern described in the request, the reseller’s contract with a customer includes an explicit promise to transfer a specified type and number of standard software licences to the customer.
The Committee observed that the pre-sales advice the reseller provides—under the distribution agreement between the software manufacturer and the reseller—is not an implicit promise in a contract with a customer. At the time of entering into a contract with a customer, the reseller has already provided the advice. There is no further advice to be provided by the reseller and the advice already provided will not be transferred to the customer after contract inception. Consequently, at the time of entering into a contract with a customer, there is no valid expectation of the customer that the reseller will transfer a good or service to the customer other than the standard software licences.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the promised goods in the reseller’s contract with the customer are the standard software licences. Because the standard software licences are the only promised goods in the contract with the customer, they are distinct goods to be provided to the customer. Those licences are therefore the specified goods to be provided to the customer as described in paragraph B34A(a).
Assessing whether the reseller controls the standard software licences before they are transferred to the customer
In the fact pattern described in the request, the reseller assesses whether it obtains control of the standard software licences from the software manufacturer before they are transferred to the customer. That assessment of control requires consideration of the specific facts and circumstances, which include the terms and conditions of the contracts between the reseller and the customer, the reseller and the software manufacturer and the software manufacturer and the customer.
If—after applying the principles and requirements on control in IFRS 15—it is unclear whether the reseller is a principal or agent, the reseller considers the indicators in paragraph B37 in assessing whether it obtains control of the standard software licences from the software manufacturer before they are transferred to the customer. In the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee observed that:
the software licences provided to the customer exist only after the reseller places an order with the software manufacturer and the software manufacturer issues the software licences in the customer’s name. The software manufacturer is responsible for the software’s functionality as well as issuing and activating the licences. The software manufacturer is therefore responsible in those respects for fulfilling the promise to provide the licences to the customer (paragraph B37(a)).
the reseller is the party that engages with the customer both before and after the software licences are transferred to the customer, taking responsibility for unaccepted licences. The reseller is therefore responsible in those respects for fulfilling the promise to provide the licences to the customer (paragraph B37(a)).
the reseller does not control a pool of standard software licences before entering into the contract with the customer and cannot, for example, direct the software licences to another customer. The reseller therefore has no inventory risk before the licences are transferred to the customer but, in the event of non-acceptance by the customer, the reseller has inventory risk after the transfer (paragraph B37(b)).
the reseller has discretion in establishing the price for the software licences (paragraph B37(c)). Pricing discretion may be less relevant to the assessment of control if, for example, the market for the software licences is such that the reseller, in effect, has limited flexibility in establishing the price.
The Committee observed that the conclusion as to whether the reseller is a principal or agent depends on the specific facts and circumstances, including the terms and conditions of the relevant contracts. The reseller would apply judgement in making its overall assessment of whether it is a principal or agent—including considering the relevance of the indicators to the assessment of control and the degree to which they provide evidence of control of the standard software licences before they are transferred to the customer—within the context of the framework and requirements set out in paragraphs B34–B38 of IFRS 15.
The Committee also observed that the reseller would disclose (a) material accounting policy information in accordance with IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements (as amended in 2021), and (b) information required by IFRS 15, including about its performance obligations (paragraph 119) and the judgements made in applying IFRS 15 that significantly affect the determination of the amount and timing of revenue from contracts with customers (paragraph 123).
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a reseller to determine whether—in the fact pattern described in the request—it is a principal or agent for the standard software licences provided to a customer. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Agenda decisions for the IASB's consideration
Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm (IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 3
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision published in the June 2021 IFRIC Update about whether, applying paragraph B9(a) of IFRS 16, an electricity retailer has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of a windfarm throughout the term of an agreement with a windfarm generator.
The Committee reached its conclusions on that agenda decision. In accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the IFRS Foundation’s Due Process Handbook, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) will consider this agenda decision at its December 2021 meeting. If the IASB does not object to the agenda decision, it will be published in December 2021 in an addendum to this IFRIC Update.
Other matters
Negative Low Emission Vehicle Credits (IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets)—Agenda Paper 4
The Committee discussed a request relating to the application of IAS 37 to government measures to promote energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions from passenger vehicles sold in a specified market. Under these measures, an entity receives negative credits if it produces or imports vehicles whose emission levels exceed targets set by the government. The government measures require an entity to eliminate its net negative credits, either by purchasing positive credits or by generating its own positive credits. If an entity fails to eliminate its negative credits, the government may impose economic sanctions on the entity. The request asked whether an entity that has generated negative credits has a present obligation that meets the definition of a liability in IAS 37.
The Committee tentatively decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan on this matter. The Committee will discuss the wording of the tentative agenda decision at a future meeting.
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 6
The Committee received an update on the current status of open matters not discussed at its meeting in November 2021.
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الثلاثاء, 02 نوفمبر 2021 20:16
تحديث مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية IASB لشهر أكتوبر 2021
يسلط تحديث مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية هذا الضوء على القرارات الأولية الصادرة عن مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية يمكن العثور على المشاريع المتأثرة بهذه القرارات في خطة العمل. يتم التصويت على قرارات مجلس الإدارة النهائية بشأن معايير IFRS والتعديلات وتفسيرات IFRIC رسميًا على النحو المنصوص عليه في دليل الإجراءات القانونية لمؤسسة IFRS.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
IASB Update October 2021
This IASB Update highlights preliminary decisions of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board). Projects affected by these decisions can be found on the work plan. The Board's final decisions on IFRS® Standards, Amendments and IFRIC® Interpretations are formally balloted as set out in the IFRS Foundation's Due Process Handbook.
The Board met on 25–28 October 2021, with some members joining remotely.
Related Information
IASB Update archive
Podcast summaries
Contents
Research and standard-setting
Pension Benefits that Depend on Asset Returns (Agenda Paper 6)
Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities (Agenda Paper 7)
Rate-regulated Activities (Agenda Paper 9)
Equity Method (Agenda Paper 13)
Goodwill and Impairment (Agenda Paper 18)
Primary Financial Statements (Agenda Paper 21)
Second Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard (Agenda Paper 30)
Maintenance and consistent application
Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9—Comparative Information (Amendment to IFRS 17) (Agenda Paper 2)
Maintenance and consistent application (Agenda Paper 12)
Non-refundable Value Added Tax on Lease Payments (IFRS 16): Finalisation of agenda decision (Agenda Paper 12A)
Accounting for Warrants that are Classified as Financial Liabilities on Initial Recognition (IAS 32): Finalisation of agenda decision (Agenda Paper 12B)
Supplier Finance Arrangements: Sweep issue (Agenda Paper 12C)
IFRIC Update (Agenda Paper 12D)
Taxonomy
IFRS Taxonomy Update—Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9—Comparative Information (Agenda Paper 25)
Research and standard-setting
Pension Benefits that Depend on Asset Returns (Agenda Paper 6)
The Board met on 27 October 2021 to discuss additional research findings and the future direction of the project.
The Board decided to stop the research project.
Seven of 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
The Board will consider any further work on pension benefits as part of the Third Agenda Consultation.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities (Agenda Paper 7)
The Board met on 26 October 2021 to:
assess whether IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities are working as intended; and
decide whether the Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12 has identified topics on which the Board should consider taking further action.
All 12 Board members concluded that IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12 are working as intended.
The Board decided that, while developing its work plan for 2022 to 2026 as part of the Third Agenda Consultation, it will consider topics arising from the Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12, including:
topics that are of high priority:
investment entities—subsidiaries that are investment entities; and
collaborative arrangements outside the scope of IFRS 11;
topics that are of medium priority:
investment entities—definition of an investment entity; and
corporate wrappers; and
a low-priority topic (transactions that change the relationship between an investor and an investee).
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Next steps
The Board will consider whether to take further action in relation to other topics identified from feedback on Request for Information Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities.
Rate-regulated Activities (Agenda Paper 9)
The Board met on 28 October 2021 to discuss feedback on its Exposure Draft Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities. The Exposure Draft sets out the Board’s proposals for a model to account for regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities. If issued as a new IFRS Standard, the proposals would replace IFRS 14 Regulatory Deferral Accounts.
The Board was not asked to make any decisions.
Next step
The Board will continue discussing feedback on the Exposure Draft at the next meeting.
Equity Method (Agenda Paper 13)
The Board met on 26 October 2021 to continue its discussions on the Equity Method research project. The Board:
received an update on application questions within the scope of the project; and
discussed the next steps for the project.
The Board decided the staff should research the implications of differences between the principles in IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures and those in other IFRS Standards relating to business combinations and consolidation before considering the application questions.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Next step
At a future meeting the Board will review the research findings on differences between the principles in IAS 28 and those in other IFRS Standards relating to business combinations and consolidation. The Board will also discuss application questions within the scope of the project and consider whether other application questions should be included in the scope of the project.
Goodwill and Impairment (Agenda Paper 18)
The Board met on 26 October 2021 to redeliberate whether to develop proposals to enhance the disclosure objectives and requirements in IFRS 3 Business Combinations in order to improve the information provided to users of financial statements about a business combination and its subsequent performance. The Discussion Paper Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment sets out the Board’s preliminary view on this matter.
Conceptual considerations for location of disclosures (Agenda Paper 18A)
The Board tentatively decided that, based on the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, information can be required in financial statements about the benefits an entity’s management expects from a business combination and the extent to which management’s objectives are being met—such as information about the subsequent performance of a business combination, and quantitative information about expected synergies.
Nine of 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Practical Challenges—Forward-looking information (Agenda Paper 18B)
The Board also discussed practical concerns over requiring entities to include such information in financial statements. In particular, the Board discussed the staff’s additional research and analysis of concerns over requiring entities to disclose information that might be considered forward-looking in some jurisdictions.
The Board was not asked to make any decisions about the practical concerns.
Next steps
The Board will continue its redeliberations on its preliminary views on the package of disclosure requirements at future meetings, including whether not to proceed with some or all of the disclosure requirements for practical reasons.
Primary Financial Statements (Agenda Paper 21)
The Board met on 27 and 28 October 2021 to redeliberate some of the proposals in the Exposure Draft General Presentation and Disclosures relating to:
the classification and presentation of income and expenses from associates and joint ventures in the statement of profit or loss—Agenda Paper 21A.
the presentation of operating expenses in the statement of profit or loss and disclosure in the notes—Agenda Paper 21B and Agenda Paper 21C.
the operating profit or loss before depreciation and amortisation subtotal—Agenda Paper 21D.
Associates and joint ventures (Agenda Paper 21A)
The Board tentatively decided:
to proceed with the proposal to require an entity to classify income and expenses from equity-accounted associates and joint ventures outside the operating category;
not to proceed with the proposal to require an entity to present the subtotal ‘operating profit or loss and income and expenses from integral associates and joint ventures’; and
not to proceed with the proposal to require an entity to identify and present income and expenses from integral associates and joint ventures separately from income and expenses from non-integral associates and joint ventures.
All 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
The Board also tentatively decided to require an entity to include income and expenses from equity-accounted associates and joint ventures in the statement of profit or loss after operating profit and before the subtotal profit before financing and income taxes, but not to specify that such income and expenses should be presented immediately after operating profit.
Six of 12 Board members agreed with this decision. The Chair used his additional casting vote, making the vote 7–6 in favour of the decision.
The Board deferred a decision on whether to include such income and expenses in the investing category until it considers the definition of the investing category.
Analysis of operating expenses—Presentation in the statement of profit or loss (Agenda Paper 21B)
The Board tentatively decided:
to explore providing limited application guidance on the ‘function of expense’ method set out in paragraph 70 of the Exposure Draft.
Nine of 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
not to develop a definition of the term ‘cost of sales’ as part of this project.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
to explore providing application guidance to explain that, as a minimum, cost of sales would include inventory expense (if applicable), calculated in accordance with IAS 2 Inventories.
Eight of 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
to explore:
retaining the proposal to require an entity to analyse and present operating expenses in the statement of profit or loss based on their nature or function;
withdrawing the proposed prohibition on a mixed presentation and instead to provide application guidance in order to improve comparability and help achieve faithful representation; and
retaining the proposal to provide application guidance on how to determine which presentation method an entity would use to provide the most useful information to users of the financial statements (but modifying that guidance as a consequence of withdrawing the proposal to prohibit a mixed presentation).
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Analysis of operating expenses—Disclosure in the notes (Agenda Paper 21C)
The Board tentatively decided not to explore providing a partial cost relief for the disclosure of information about operating expenses by nature when an entity presents in the statement of profit or loss an analysis of expenses by function.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
The Board deferred a decision on the extent of the requirement for the disclosure of information about operating expenses by nature when an entity presents in the statement of profit or loss an analysis of expenses by function. The Board will make that decision after it has considered further analysis of feedback on this topic.
Operating profit or loss before depreciation and amortisation (Agenda Paper 21D)
The Board tentatively decided:
to specify an operating profit or loss before depreciation and amortisation subtotal that excludes impairments of assets within the scope of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.
to do this by amending the specified subtotal ‘operating profit or loss before depreciation and amortisation’, rather than adding an additional subtotal to the list of specified subtotals.
to label the amended specified subtotal as ‘operating profit or loss before depreciation, amortisation, and specified impairments’.
not explicitly to prohibit ‘EBITDA’ as a label for an ‘operating profit or loss before depreciation, amortisation and specified impairments’ subtotal, but to explain in the Basis for Conclusions that such a label would rarely be a faithful representation of the subtotal.
to include no further specific requirements in relation to this subtotal.
Eleven of 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
Next step
The Board will continue to redeliberate the project proposals at future meetings.
Second Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard (Agenda Paper 30)
The Board met on 25 October 2021 to discuss whether and, if so, how to propose amendments to the IFRS for SMEs Standard.
Towards an exposure draft—IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (fallback to full IFRS recognition and measurement requirements) (Agenda Paper 30A)
The Board tentatively decided to propose an amendment to the IFRS for SMEs Standard to remove an entity’s option to apply the recognition and measurement requirements for financial instruments in full IFRS Standards.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Towards an exposure draft—IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (hedge accounting) (Agenda Paper 30B)
The Board tentatively decided to retain unchanged the hedge accounting requirements in Section 12 Other Financial Instrument Issues of the IFRS for SMEs Standard.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Towards an exposure draft—IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement (Agenda Paper 30C)
The Board tentatively decided to propose amendments to the IFRS for SMEs Standard:
to align the definition of fair value in the IFRS for SMEs Standard with that in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement;
to align the guidance on fair value measurement in the IFRS for SMEs Standard with that in IFRS 13 by including in the IFRS for SMEs Standard the principles of the fair value hierarchy set out in IFRS 13;
to include examples relevant to SMEs that illustrate how to apply the hierarchy; and
to move the guidance and related disclosure requirements for fair value to a new section of the IFRS for SMEs Standard.
All 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
Towards an exposure draft—IFRS 14 Regulatory Deferral Accounts (Agenda Paper 30D)
The Board tentatively decided to consider amending the IFRS for SMEs Standard to include requirements for regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in a future review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Towards an exposure draft—IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Agenda Paper 30E)
The Board tentatively decided:
to develop amendments to the IFRS for SMEs Standard to align it with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers by rewriting Section 23 Revenue of the IFRS for SMEs Standard to reflect the principles and language used in IFRS 15; and
to consider providing transition relief by permitting an entity to continue its current revenue recognition policy for any contracts already in progress at the transition date or scheduled to be completed within a set time after the transition date.
All 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
Next step
The Board will continue to develop the project proposals at a future meeting.
Maintenance and consistent application
Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9—Comparative Information (Amendment to IFRS 17) (Agenda Paper 2)
The Board met on 28 October 2021 to redeliberate the amendment to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts proposed in the Exposure Draft Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9—Comparative Information (Exposure Draft).
Classification overlay—Scope (Agenda Paper 2A)
The Board tentatively decided to expand the proposed scope of the classification overlay so that:
an entity that first applies IFRS 17 and IFRS 9 Financial Instruments at the same time is permitted to apply the classification overlay to any financial asset for which comparative information has not been restated for IFRS 9.
an entity that has already applied IFRS 9 is permitted to apply the overlay to a financial asset that would have been redesignated in accordance with paragraph C29 of IFRS 17 if that asset had not been derecognised in the comparative period.
All 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
Classification overlay—Other matters (Agenda Paper 2B)
The Board tentatively decided to finalise the proposals in the Exposure Draft relating to impairment and disclosures, subject to requiring entities that apply the classification overlay to disclose whether the impairment requirements in Section 5.5 of IFRS 9 were applied to the financial assets in the comparative period.
All 12 Board members agreed with these decisions.
Finalising the amendment (Agenda Paper 2C)
All 12 Board members confirmed they were satisfied the Board has complied with the applicable due process requirements and has undertaken sufficient consultation and analysis to begin the process for balloting the amendment to IFRS 17.
No Board member indicated an intention to dissent from issuing the amendment to IFRS 17.
Maintenance and consistent application (Agenda Paper 12)
The Board met on 26 October 2021 to consider matters discussed at the September meeting of the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) and to discuss supplier finance arrangements.
Non-refundable Value Added Tax on Lease Payments (IFRS 16): Finalisation of agenda decision (Agenda Paper 12A)
The Board was asked whether it objected to the Agenda Decision Non-refundable Value Added Tax on Lease Payments (IFRS 16 Leases).
No Board member objected to the Agenda Decision.
Next step
The Agenda Decision will be published in October 2021 in an addendum to IFRIC Update September 2021.
Accounting for Warrants that are Classified as Financial Liabilities on Initial Recognition (IAS 32): Finalisation of agenda decision (Agenda Paper 12B)
The Board was asked whether it objected to the Agenda Decision Accounting for Warrants that are Classified as Financial Liabilities on Initial Recognition (IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation).
No Board member objected to the Agenda Decision.
Next step
The Agenda Decision will be published in October 2021 in an addendum to IFRIC Update September 2021.
Supplier Finance Arrangements: Sweep issue (Agenda Paper 12C)
The Board discussed a sweep issue identified in drafting the exposure draft on supplier finance arrangements.
The Board tentatively decided to add to the proposals a requirement for an entity to disclose, as at the beginning and end of the reporting period, the line items in the statement of financial position in which the entity presents financial liabilities that are part of each supplier finance arrangement.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Next step
The Board plans to publish the exposure draft in November 2021.
IFRIC Update (Agenda Paper 12D)
The Board received an update on the Committee’s September 2021 meeting. Details of this meeting were published in IFRIC Update September 2021.
The Board was not asked to make any decisions.
Taxonomy
IFRS Taxonomy Update—Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9—Comparative Information (Agenda Paper 25)
The Board met on 27 October 2021 to discuss the comment period for the forthcoming proposed IFRS Taxonomy update and the timing of its approval.
The Board decided to shorten the comment period to 30 days.
All 12 Board members agreed with this decision.
Next step
The Board expects that the proposed IFRS Taxonomy update will be balloted alongside the planned amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts before the end of 2021.
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الخميس, 28 أكتوبر 2021 12:30
تجميع قرارات جدول الأعمال -تم نشر المجلد 5 من قبل لجنة تفسيرات IFRS
تجمع المجموعة الخامسة لقرارات جدول الأعمال الصادرة عن مؤسسة المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية قرارات جدول الأعمال التي نشرتها لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية من أبريل إلى أكتوبر 2021.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
The IFRS Foundation’s fifth Compilation of Agenda Decisions brings together agenda decisions published by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) from April to October 2021.
The agenda decisions included in this compilation relate to:
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments;
IFRS 16 Leases;
IAS 2 Inventories;
IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period;
IAS 19 Employee Benefits; and
IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation.
The agenda decisions are organised by the IFRS Standards to which they relate. The document is intended to make the already published work of the Committee more accessible.
The role of the Committee is to work with the International Accounting Standards Board in supporting the consistent application of IFRS Standards.
The Committee publishes an agenda decision when, following consultation, it concludes that a standard-setting project should not be added to the work plan to address a question received about the application of IFRS Standards.
Agenda decisions report the Committee’s decision and, in many cases, also include material that explains how the applicable principles and requirements in IFRS Standards apply to the transaction or fact pattern described in the agenda decision.
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الإثنين, 27 سبتمبر 2021 20:28
تحديث لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية IFRIC لشهر سبتمبر 2021
تحديث IFRIC هو ملخص للقرارات التي توصلت إليها لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية في اجتماعاتها العامة.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
Committee's tentative agenda decisions
The Committee discussed the following matters and tentatively decided not to add standard-setting projects to the work plan. The Committee will reconsider these tentative decisions, including the reasons for not adding standard-setting projects, at a future meeting. The Committee invites comments on the tentative agenda decisions. Interested parties may submit comments on the open for comment page. All comments will be on the public record and posted on our website unless a respondent requests confidentiality and we grant that request. We do not normally grant such requests unless they are supported by a good reason, for example, commercial confidence. The Committee will consider all comments received in writing up to and including the closing date; comments received after that date will not be analysed in agenda papers considered by the Committee.
Demand Deposits with Restrictions on Use (IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows)—Agenda Paper 5
The Committee received a request about whether an entity includes a demand deposit as a component of cash and cash equivalents in its statements of cash flows and financial position when the demand deposit is subject to contractual restrictions on use agreed with a third party. In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity:
holds a demand deposit whose terms and conditions do not prevent the entity from accessing the amounts held in it (that is, were the entity to request any amount from the deposit, it would receive that amount on demand).
has a contractual obligation with a third party to keep a specified amount of cash in that separate demand deposit and to use the cash only for specified purposes. If the entity were to use the amounts held in the demand deposit for purposes other than those agreed with the third party, the entity would be in breach of its contractual obligation.
Cash and cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows
Paragraph 6 of IAS 7 defines ‘cash’ by stating that it ‘comprises cash on hand and demand deposits.’ IAS 7 includes no other requirements on whether an item qualifies as cash beyond the definition itself.
IAS 7 and IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements indicate that amounts included in cash and cash equivalents may be subject to restrictions. Namely:
paragraph 48 of IAS 7 requires an entity to disclose information about ‘significant cash and cash equivalent balances held by the entity that are not available for use by the group’; and
paragraph 66(d) of IAS 1 requires an entity to classify as current an asset that is ‘cash or a cash equivalent (as defined in IAS 7) unless the asset is restricted from being exchanged or used to settle a liability for at least twelve months after the reporting period’.
The Committee concluded that restrictions on use of a demand deposit arising from a contract with a third party do not result in the deposit no longer being cash, unless those restrictions change the nature of the deposit in a way that it would no longer meet the definition of cash in IAS 7.
In the fact pattern described in the request, the contractual restrictions on use of the amounts held in the demand deposit do not change the nature of the deposit—the entity can access those amounts on demand. The Committee therefore concluded that the entity includes the demand deposit as a component of ‘cash and cash equivalents’ in its statement of cash flows.
Presentation in the statement of financial position
Paragraph 54(i) of IAS 1 requires an entity to include a line item in its statement of financial position that presents the amount of ‘cash and cash equivalents’. Paragraph 55 of IAS 1 states ‘an entity shall present additional line items (including by disaggregating the line items listed in paragraph 54) … in the statement of financial position when such presentation is relevant to an understanding of the entity’s financial position’.
The Committee therefore concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the entity presents the demand deposit as cash and cash equivalents in its statement of financial position. When relevant to an understanding of its financial position, the entity would disaggregate the cash and cash equivalents line item and present the demand deposit subject to contractual restrictions on use separately in an additional line item.
An entity that presents assets as current or non-current would, applying paragraph 66(d) of IAS 1, classify the demand deposit as current unless the deposit is ‘restricted from being exchanged or used to settle a liability for at least twelve months after the reporting period’.
Disclosures
Paragraph 45 of IAS 7 states that ‘an entity shall disclose the components of cash and cash equivalents…’, and paragraph 48 of IAS 7 requires an entity to disclose, together with commentary by management, ‘the amount of significant cash and cash equivalent balances held by the entity that are not available for use by the group’. Applying those requirements, the entity discloses the demand deposit subject to contractual restrictions on use as a component of cash and cash equivalents and the amount of significant cash and cash equivalent balances unavailable for use by the group, as well as information about that amount. The entity also considers whether to disclose additional information:
in the context of the requirements in IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures about liquidity risk arising from financial instruments and how an entity manages that risk; and
if the information it provides applying the disclosure requirements in IAS 7 and IFRS 7 is insufficient to enable users of financial statements to understand the impact of the restrictions on the entity’s financial position (paragraph 31 of IAS 1).
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to include demand deposits subject to contractual restrictions on use agreed with a third party as a component of cash and cash equivalents in its statements of cash flows and financial position. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Cash Received via Electronic Transfer as Settlement for a Financial Asset (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments)—Agenda Paper 6
The Committee received a request about the recognition of cash received via an electronic transfer system as settlement for a financial asset. In the fact pattern described in the request:
the electronic transfer system has an automated settlement process that takes three working days to settle a cash transfer. All cash transfers made via the system are therefore settled (deposited in the recipient’s bank account) two working days after they are initiated by the payer.
an entity has a trade receivable with a customer. At the entity’s reporting date, the customer has initiated a cash transfer via the electronic transfer system to settle the trade receivable. The entity receives the cash in its bank account two days after its reporting date.
The request asked whether the entity can derecognise the trade receivable and recognise cash on the date the cash transfer is initiated (its reporting date), rather than on the date the cash transfer is settled (after its reporting date).
The applicable requirements in IFRS 9
The fact pattern described in the request involves the receipt of cash as settlement for a trade receivable. Both the trade receivable, and the cash the entity receives, are financial assets within the scope of IFRS 9. The entity therefore applies paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 in determining the date on which to derecognise the trade receivable and paragraph 3.1.1 of IFRS 9 in determining the date on which to recognise the cash as a financial asset.
The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the entity is neither purchasing nor selling a financial asset. Therefore, paragraph 3.1.2 of IFRS 9—which specifies requirements for a regular way purchase or sale of a financial asset—is not applicable.
Derecognition of the trade receivable
Except when an entity transfers a financial asset, paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to derecognise a financial asset when, and only when, ‘the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset expire’. In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity therefore derecognises the trade receivable on the date on which its contractual rights to the cash flows from the trade receivable expire.
Determining the date on which the entity’s contractual rights to those cash flows expire is a legal matter, which would depend on the specific facts and circumstances including the applicable laws and regulations and the characteristics of the electronic transfer system. In the fact pattern described in the request, if the entity’s contractual right to receive cash from the customer expires only when the cash is received, the entity would derecognise the trade receivable on the transfer settlement date (the date it receives the cash in its bank account).
Recognition of cash (or another financial asset)
Paragraph 3.1.1 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to recognise a financial asset when, and only when, ‘the entity becomes party to the contractual provisions of the instrument’. In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity is party to the contractual provisions of an instrument—its bank account—under which it has the contractual right to obtain cash from the bank for amounts it has deposited with that bank. In the fact pattern described in the request, it is therefore only when cash is deposited in its bank account that the entity would have a right to obtain cash from the bank. Consequently, the entity recognises cash as a financial asset on the transfer settlement date, and not before.
The Committee observed that, if an entity’s contractual rights to the cash flows from the trade receivable expire before the transfer settlement date, the entity would recognise any financial asset received as settlement for the trade receivable (for example, a right to receive cash from the customer’s bank) on that same date. An entity would not however recognise cash (or another financial asset) received as settlement for a trade receivable before it derecognises the trade receivable.
Conclusion
In the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee concluded that, applying paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.1.1 of IFRS 9, the entity:
derecognises the trade receivable on the date on which its contractual rights to the cash flows from the trade receivable expire; and
recognises the cash (or another financial asset) received as settlement for that trade receivable on the same date.
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine when to derecognise a trade receivable and recognise cash received via an electronic transfer system as settlement for that receivable. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Agenda decisions for the Board's consideration
Non-refundable Value Added Tax on Lease Payments (IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 2
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision published in the March 2021 IFRIC Update about how a lessee accounts for any non-refundable value added tax (VAT) charged on lease payments.
The Committee reached its conclusions on that agenda decision. In accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the IFRS Foundation’s Due Process Handbook, the International Accounting Standards Board (Board) will consider this agenda decision at its October 2021 meeting. If the Board does not object to the agenda decision, it will be published in October 2021 in an addendum to this IFRIC Update.
Accounting for Warrants that are Classified as Financial Liabilities on Initial Recognition (IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation)—Agenda Paper 3
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision published in the March 2021 IFRIC Update about the application of IAS 32 in relation to the reclassification of warrants.
The Committee reached its conclusions on that agenda decision. In accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the IFRS Foundation’s Due Process Handbook, the Board will consider this agenda decision at its October 2021 meeting. If the Board does not object to the agenda decision, it will be published in October 2021 in an addendum to this IFRIC Update.
Other matters
Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback—Agenda Paper 4
The Committee discussed the Board’s Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback project. Committee members provided advice on the project’s direction after considering the feedback on the related exposure draft.
The Board will consider the Committee’s advice when it discusses the matter at a future meeting.
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 7
The Committee received an update on the current status of open matters not discussed at its meeting in September 2021.
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الأحد, 12 سبتمبر 2021 14:26
تعرف علي العضو الجديد في مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية
عين أمناء مؤسسة المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية برتراند بيرين كعضو في مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية. ستبدأ ولايته في 1 يوليو 2021.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation have appointed Bertrand Perrin as a member of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board).
Mr Perrin, from France, has extensive experience as a preparer and has worked closely with the Board and the Foundation for several years, most recently as a member of the IFRS Interpretations Committee, which he joined in 2016.
He joins the Board on 1 July 2021 for an initial five-year term from his current position as Director of Accounting Standards and Special Projects at Vivendi, a European content, media and communications group headquartered in France. In this role, he has managed the implementation of various IFRS Standards, integrated new businesses acquired and led the co-ordination of group-wide financial reporting aspects.
Before starting at Vivendi in 2003, he spent nine years as an external auditor at Salustro Reydel, at the time a member firm of RSM International.
Mr Perrin also currently serves as a member of EFRAG’s Advisory Panel on Intangibles.
He has a Master’s degree in Business Administration from Audencia Business School in Nantes.
The Board comprises members from varied professional and geographical backgrounds. Mr Perrin will fill one of the European seats, succeeding Françoise Flores, whose term ends in June.
Erkki Liikanen, Chair of the Trustees, said:
On behalf of the Trustees, we look forward to welcoming Bertrand. His experience in applying IFRS Standards will provide helpful insight in our standard-setting work. I would also like to thank Françoise for the valuable contributions she has made to the Board’s work.
Bertrand Perrin said:
I look forward to joining the Board and participating in the continuous improvement of financial reporting through the standard-setting process, by providing the perspective of a former preparer. Indeed, I am most honoured to have the opportunity to serve the public interest and contribute to the public good.
نشر في
موضوعات متنوعة
الخميس, 19 أغسطس 2021 13:33
ثلاثة أعضاء جدد في لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية
ثلاثة أعضاء جدد تم تعيينهم في لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
Three new members appointed to the IFRS Interpretations Committee
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, who are responsible for the oversight and governance of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board), have appointed Andre Besson, Karen Higgins and M P Vijay Kumar to the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee).
The Committee works with the Board in supporting the consistent application of IFRS Standards. In particular, the Committee responds to application questions by publishing agenda decisions to explain how IFRS Standards apply to particular scenarios. If required, the Committee also develops interpretations (called IFRIC Interpretations, which are subject to ratification by the Board) or proposes that the Board amend the Standards.
New members
Andre Besson is a finance and control professional with more than 25 years of experience, of which half has been in accounting policy and technical accounting. He is currently Head of Financial Reporting Guidelines at Nestlé SA in Switzerland. He is also co-chair of SwissHoldings’ Working Group on Accounting and Reporting and a member of BusinessEurope’s Accounting Harmonisation Working Group and Sounding Board.
Karen Higgins is an audit and assurance partner at Deloitte and has specialised in the financial services industry for more than 30 years. She is the leader of the Canadian IFRS Center of Excellence, and the Canadian firm representative on the Deloitte Global IFRS Leadership Team. Karen is also a former vice-chair of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board.
M P Vijay Kumar is Chief Financial Officer at Sify Technologies, one of India's largest information and communications technology companies. He is a council member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and serves as chair of its Accounting Standards Board. Vijay is also on the IFRS Advisory Council and the SME Implementation Group.
All appointments take immediate effect for a term ending 30 June 2024. Jongsoo Han (Korea Accounting Standards Board) and Robert Uhl (Deloitte) completed their terms at the end of June. Bertrand Perrin (Vivendi) stepped down from the Interpretations Committee before his term ended to assume his new role as a Board member. The IFRS Foundation Trustees thank the outgoing members for their years of valuable service.
نشر في
موضوعات متنوعة
موسومة تحت
الإثنين, 02 أغسطس 2021 15:08
ملخص إخباري شهري من مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية ومؤسسة IFRS يوليو 2021
يرجى الاطلاع أدناه على ملخص موجز للأخبار والأحداث من مجلس معايير المحاسبة الدولية ومؤسسة IFRS خلال الشهر الماضي:
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
Please find below a brief summary of news and events from the International Accounting Standards Board (Board) and the IFRS® Foundation over the past month:
Meet the new IASB Chair—Andreas Barckow
Andreas Barckow is no stranger to the IFRS Foundation, and on 1 July 2021 he began his first term as Chair of the Board. Here he talks about his career, his experience at the Foundation so far and his priorities for the next few years.
For the first time in his new role, Andreas will address delegates at the World Standard-setters Virtual Conference taking place on 27-28 September, sharing his first impressions of joining the Board from the perspective of a former national standard-setter. Find out how to register or read the latest newsletter for national standard-setters.
Update on IFRS Foundation Trustees’ work on sustainability
Earlier in July, the Trustees hosted two webinars covering similar updates on their work on sustainability—watch the recordings here. You can also read a summary of the Trustees’ meeting held virtually on 26 July 2021 during which they discussed arrangements for seed capital for the new board. The Foundation also responded to a communiqué from the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors that welcomed the Trustees’ work programme to develop a baseline global reporting standard under robust governance and public oversight. Finally, you can see the recording of Trustee Chair Erkki Liikanen taking part in a panel debate on regulations, disclosures, financial risk and private financing for the green economy at the recent International Conference on Climate Change.
To keep abreast of developments in the Foundation’s project on sustainability, sign in or register on ifrs.org and move the relevant slider to green under ‘Categories’ on your ‘Follows and notifications’ settings.
Board proposes minor amendment to transition requirements for insurers applying IFRS 17 and IFRS 9 for the first time
The proposed narrow-scope amendment to the transition requirements in IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts does not affect any other requirements in IFRS 17.
IASB proposes reduced disclosure requirements for subsidiaries
The Board has also proposed a new IFRS Standard that would permit eligible subsidiaries to apply IFRS Standards with a reduced set of disclosure requirements. The proposals are designed to ease financial reporting for eligible subsidiaries while meeting the needs of the users of their financial statements.
IASB extends the comment period for targeted Standards-level disclosure consultation
The Board decided at its 21 July 2021 meeting to extend the comment period for Exposure Draft Disclosure Requirements in IFRS Standards—A Pilot Approach to next January because of the unique nature of, and significant new thinking in, the proposals. In particular, the comment period will allow more time for preparers to conduct fieldwork and provide feedback on the practical application of the proposals.
You can also watch the recording of a virtual workshop on this consultation held by the Board in conjunction with the European Accounting Association (EAA) and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG).
Webinar recordings available
A number of webinars were held in June and July to update stakeholders on some of the projects on the Board’s current work plan. Recordings are now available for:
Business Combinations under Common Control—feedback from initial outreach with Board Member Bruce Mackenzie;
Third Agenda Consultation—overview of the consultation across two webinars with question and answer sessions; and
Management Commentary—overview of the Board’s proposals for a new comprehensive framework for preparing management commentary with questions from the audience.
IASB and IFRS Interpretations Committee podcasts now available
In the July episode of the IASB podcast, we introduce new Chair Andreas Barckow as he and Vice-Chair Sue Lloyd discuss Goodwill and Impairment, Primary Financial Statements and the post-implementation review of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, among other topics. You can also read the full IASB Update for July 2021, which includes an update on the joint IASB-FASB education session.
In this episode of the IFRIC podcast, IFRS Interpretations Committee Chair Sue Lloyd joins Technical Staff Member Patrina Buchanan to discuss topics including finalised agenda decisions from the second quarter of 2021 on Supplier Finance Arrangements and Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm, among others.
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الثلاثاء, 23 نوفمبر 2021 08:52
تحديث لجنة التفسيرات يونيو 2021 متاح الآن
تحديث IFRIC هو ملخص للقرارات التي توصلت إليها لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية في اجتماعاتها العامة.
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
Committee's tentative agenda decisions
The Committee discussed the following matters and tentatively decided not to add standard-setting projects to the work plan. The Committee will reconsider these tentative decisions, including the reasons for not adding standard-setting projects, at a future meeting. The Committee invites comments on the tentative agenda decisions. Interested parties may submit comments on the open for comment page. All comments will be on the public record and posted on our website unless a respondent requests confidentiality and we grant that request. We do not normally grant such requests unless they are supported by a good reason, for example, commercial confidence. The Committee will consider all comments received in writing up to and including the closing date; comments received after that date will not be analysed in agenda papers considered by the Committee.
TLTRO III Transactions (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance)—Agenda Paper 4
The Committee received a request about how to account for the third programme of the targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The TLTROs link the amount a participating bank can borrow and the interest rate the bank pays on each tranche of the operation to the volume and amount of loans it makes to non-financial corporations and households.
The request asks:
whether the TLTRO III tranches represent loans with a below-market interest rate and, if so, whether the borrowing bank is required to apply IFRS 9 or IAS 20 to account for the benefit of the below-market interest rate;
if the bank applies IAS 20 to account for the benefit of the below-market interest rate:
how it assesses in which period(s) it recognises that benefit; and
whether, for the purpose of presentation, the bank adds the amount of the benefit to the carrying amount of the TLTRO III liability;
how the bank calculates the applicable effective interest rate;
whether the bank applies paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 to account for changes in estimated cash flows resulting from the revised assessment of whether the conditions attached to the liability have been met; and
how the bank accounts for changes in cash flows related to the prior period that result from the bank’s lending behaviour or from changes the ECB makes to the TLTRO III conditions.
Applying the requirements in IFRS Standards
The Committee observed that IFRS 9 is the starting point for the borrowing bank to determine its accounting for TLTRO III transactions because each financial liability arising from the bank’s participation in a TLTRO III tranche is within the scope of IFRS 9. The bank:
determines whether it bifurcates any embedded derivatives from the host contract as required by paragraph 4.3.3 of IFRS 9;
initially recognises and measures the financial liability, which includes determining the fair value of the financial liability, accounting for any difference between the fair value and the transaction price and calculating the effective interest rate; and
subsequently measures the financial liability, which includes accounting for changes in the estimates of expected cash flows.
The Committee noted that the questions the request asks are unrelated to the existence of an embedded derivative and, therefore, this agenda decision does not discuss the requirements in IFRS 9 with respect to the separation of embedded derivatives.
Initial recognition and measurement of the financial liability
Applying paragraph 5.1.1 of IFRS 9, at initial recognition a bank measures each TLTRO III tranche at fair value plus or minus transaction costs, if the financial liability is not measured at fair value through profit or loss. A bank therefore determines the fair value of the liability using the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the financial liability as required by IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price—that is, the fair value of the consideration given or received (paragraphs B5.1.1 and B5.1.2A of IFRS 9). If the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, paragraph B5.1.1 requires a bank to determine whether a part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial liability.
The Committee observed that determining whether an interest rate is a below-market rate requires judgement based on the specific facts and circumstances of the relevant financial liability. Nonetheless, a difference between the fair value of a financial liability at initial recognition and the transaction price might indicate that the interest rate on the financial liability is a below-market rate.
If a bank determines that the fair value of a TLTRO III tranche at initial recognition differs from the transaction price and that the consideration received is for only the financial liability, the bank applies paragraph B5.1.2A of IFRS 9 to account for that difference.
If a bank determines that the fair value of a TLTRO III tranche at initial recognition differs from the transaction price and that the consideration received is for more than just the financial liability, the bank assesses whether that difference represents a government grant as defined in IAS 20. The Committee noted that if the difference represents a government grant, paragraph 10A of IAS 20 applies only to that difference. The bank applies IFRS 9 to account for the financial liability.
Do TLTRO III tranches contain a government grant in the scope of IAS 20?
IAS 20 defines government as referring to ‘government, government agencies and similar bodies whether local, national or international’. IAS 20 also defines government grants as ‘assistance by government in the form of transfers of resources to an entity in return for past or future compliance with certain conditions relating to the operating activities of the entity. They exclude those forms of government assistance which cannot reasonably have a value placed upon them and transactions with government which cannot be distinguished from the normal trading transactions of the entity’.
Paragraph 10A of IAS 20 requires an entity to treat as a government grant the benefit of a government loan at a below-market rate of interest and apply IAS 20 to account for that benefit. The benefit of a below-market interest rate is the difference between the initial carrying amount of the loan determined by applying IFRS 9 and the proceeds received. Paragraphs 7, 12 and 20 of IAS 20 specify requirements for the recognition of government grants in profit or loss.
The Committee observed that TLTRO III tranches would contain a government grant in the scope of IAS 20 only if it were determined that:
the ECB meets the definition of government in IAS 20;
the interest rate charged on the TLTRO III tranches is a below-market interest rate; and
the TLTRO III transactions with the ECB are distinguishable from the borrowing bank’s normal trading transactions.
The Committee observed that making these determinations require judgement based on the specific facts and circumstances. The Committee therefore said it is not in a position to conclude on whether the TLTRO III tranches contain a government grant in the scope of IAS 20.
The Committee acknowledged that judgement may also be required to identify the related costs for which the grants, if any, are intended to compensate. The Committee nonetheless concluded that if the TLTRO III tranches contain a government grant in the scope of IAS 20, the requirements in IAS 20 provide an adequate basis for the bank to determine how to account for that government grant.
Calculating the effective interest rate on initial recognition of the financial liability
For the purpose of measuring financial liabilities, Appendix A to IFRS 9 defines both the amortised cost of a financial liability and the effective interest rate. Calculating the effective interest rate requires an entity to estimate the expected cash flows through the expected life of the financial liability.
In calculating the effective interest rate for a TLTRO III tranche on initial recognition, the question arises as to what to consider in estimating the expected future cash flows and, specifically, whether the expected future cash flows reflect an assessment of whether the bank will satisfy the conditions attached to the liability. The Committee noted that the question of what to consider in estimating the expected future cash flows for the purpose of calculating the effective interest rate is also relevant to fact patterns other than that described in the request. The Committee therefore concluded that considering how to reflect uncertain conditions in calculating the effective interest rate is a broader matter, which it should not analyse solely in the context of TLTRO III tranches. This is because such an analysis could have unintended consequences for other financial instruments, the measurement of which involves similar questions about the application of IFRS Standards. The Committee is therefore of the view that this matter should be considered as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9, together with similar matters already identified in the first phase of that review.
Subsequent measurement of the financial liability at amortised cost
The contractual terms of the TLTRO III tranches require interest to be settled in arrears on maturity or on early repayment of each tranche. There is therefore only one cash flow on settlement of the instrument.
The original effective interest rate is calculated based on estimated future cash flows at initial recognition as required by IFRS 9. The Committee noted that whether a bank adjusts the effective interest rate over the life of a tranche depends on the contractual terms of the financial liability and the applicable requirements in IFRS 9. Paragraphs B5.4.5 and B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 specify requirements for how an entity accounts for changes in estimated future cash flows.
Paragraph B5.4.5 applies to floating-rate financial liabilities, the estimated future cash flows of which are revised to reflect movements in the market rates of interest. Periodic re-estimations of those cash flows to reflect such movements alter the effective interest rate. IFRS 9 does not elaborate on what is meant by floating rate. However, the Committee observed that a financial instrument with variable contractual cash flows—which can periodically be adjusted to reflect movements in the market rates of interest—is a floating-rate financial instrument.
The Committee also observed that a floating-rate financial instrument may consist of a variable interest rate element, which is reset to reflect movements in the market rates of interest (for example, the ECB rate on the main refinancing operations) plus or minus other elements, which are fixed and therefore not reset to reflect movements in the market rates of interest (for example, the fixed 50 basis points discount given by the ECB on particular TLTRO III tranches for a fixed period).
When considering how to account for changes in cash flow estimates, the Committee noted that paragraph B5.4.5 of IFRS 9 applies only to the variable interest rate element of a floating-rate instrument (as far as it reflects movements in the market rates of interest) and not to other interest rate elements of the instrument (which are typically not reset to reflect movements in the market rates of interest).
Paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 applies to changes in estimated future cash flows of financial liabilities other than those dealt with in paragraph B5.4.5, irrespective of whether the change arises from a modification or another change in expectations. However, when changes in contractual cash flows arise from a modification, an entity assesses whether those changes result in the derecognition of the financial liability and the initial recognition of a new financial liability by applying paragraphs 3.3.2 and B3.3.6 of IFRS 9.
The Committee considered a situation in which, as a result of a modification that does not result in derecognition or other changes in expected future cash flows, a bank estimates the final repayment cash flow relating to a TLTRO III tranche to be different from that used in determining the carrying amount. In such a situation, the bank adjusts the carrying amount to reflect the modification or other change in expected future cash flows and recognises the difference immediately in profit or loss. The bank therefore makes no adjustment to interest recognised in prior periods.
The Committee also noted that application of paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 relates to a bank’s estimates of expected future cash flows in calculating the effective interest rate on initial recognition of the financial liability. This is because, applying B5.4.6, the original effective interest rate is used to discount the revised cash flows.
The Committee observed that the question of whether conditions attached to the interest rate should be reflected in the estimates and revisions of expected future cash flows when determining the effective interest rate is part of a broader matter, which it should not analyse solely in the context of TLTRO III tranches. The Committee is therefore of the view that this matter should be considered as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9, together with similar matters already identified in the first phase of that review.
Disclosure
If a bank determines that the ECB meets the definition of government in IAS 20 and that it has received government assistance from the ECB, the bank needs to provide the information required by paragraph 39 of IAS 20 with respect to government grants and government assistance that does not meet the definition of a government grant.
In addition, given the judgements required and the risks arising from the TLTRO III tranches, a bank needs to consider the requirements in paragraphs 117,122 and 125 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, as well as paragraphs 7, 21 and 31 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. Those paragraphs require a bank to disclose information that includes its significant accounting policies and the assumptions and judgements that management has made in the process of applying the bank’s accounting policies and that have the most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements.
Conclusion
The Committee concluded that if the bank determines that the TLTRO III tranches contain a government grant in the scope of IAS 20, the requirements in IAS 20 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine how to account for that government grant.
With respect to the question of whether conditions attached to the interest rate should be reflected in the estimates and revisions of expected future cash flows when determining the effective interest rate, the Committee concluded that the matters described in the request are part of a broader matter that, in isolation, are not possible to address in a cost-effective manner and should be reported to the Board. The Board should consider this matter as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9.
For these reasons, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Economic Benefits from Use of a Windfarm (IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 5
The Committee received a request about whether, applying paragraph B9(a) of IFRS 16, an electricity retailer (customer) has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of a windfarm throughout the term of an agreement with a windfarm generator (supplier). In the fact pattern described in the request:
the customer and supplier are registered participants in an electricity market, in which customers and suppliers are unable to enter into contracts directly with each other for the purchase and sale of electricity. Instead, customers and suppliers make such purchases and sales via the market’s electricity grid, the spot price for which is set by the market operator.
the customer enters into an agreement with the supplier. The agreement:
swaps the spot price per megawatt of electricity the windfarm supplies to the grid during the 20-year term of the agreement for a fixed price per megawatt, and is settled net in cash. In effect, the supplier receives a fixed price per megawatt for the electricity it supplies to the grid during the period of the agreement and the customer settles with the supplier the difference between that fixed price and the spot prices per megawatt for that volume of electricity.
transfers to the customer all renewable energy credits that accrue from use of the windfarm.
Paragraph 9 of IFRS 16 states that ‘a contract is, or contains, a lease if the contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration’. To control the use of an identified asset for a period of time, the customer—throughout the period of use—must have both the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the identified asset and the right to direct the use of that asset (paragraph B9 of IFRS 16).
Paragraph B21 of IFRS 16 specifies that ‘a customer can obtain economic benefits from use of an asset directly or indirectly in many ways, such as by using, holding or sub-leasing the asset. The economic benefits from use of an asset include its primary output and by-products (including potential cash flows derived from these items), and other economic benefits from using the asset that could be realised from a commercial transaction with a third party’.
The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the economic benefits from use of the windfarm include the electricity it produces (as its primary output) and the renewable energy credits (as a by-product or other economic benefit from use of the windfarm).
The agreement results in the customer settling with the supplier the difference between the fixed price and the spot prices per megawatt of electricity the windfarm supplies to the grid throughout the 20-year term of the agreement. That agreement, however, gives rise to neither the right nor the obligation for the customer to obtain any of the electricity the windfarm produces and supplies to the grid. Although the customer has the right to obtain the renewable energy credits (which represent a portion of the economic benefits from use of the windfarm), the customer does not have the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the windfarm because it has no right to obtain any of the electricity the windfarm produces throughout the period of the agreement.
The Committee therefore concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the customer does not have the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of the windfarm. Consequently, the contract does not contain a lease.
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a customer that enters into an agreement as described in the request to determine whether it has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefits from use of an identified asset. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Agenda decisions for Board consideration
Costs Necessary to Sell Inventories (IAS 2 Inventories)—Agenda Paper 2
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision published in the February 2021 IFRIC Update about the costs an entity includes as the ‘estimated costs necessary to make the sale’ when determining the net realisable value of inventories.
The Committee reached its conclusions on that agenda decision. In accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the IFRS Foundation’s Due Process Handbook, the Board will consider this agenda decision at its June 2021 meeting. If the Board does not object to the agenda decision, it will be published in June 2021 in an addendum to this IFRIC Update.
Preparation of Financial Statements when an Entity is No Longer a Going Concern (IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period)—Agenda Paper 3
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision published in the February 2021 IFRIC Update about the accounting applied by an entity that is no longer a going concern.
The Committee reached its conclusions on that agenda decision. In accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the IFRS Foundation’s Due Process Handbook, the Board will consider this agenda decision at its June 2021 meeting. If the Board does not object to the agenda decision, it will be published in June 2021 in an addendum to this IFRIC Update.
Other matters
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 6
The Committee received an update on the current status of open matters not discussed at its meeting in June 2021. - البلد الأردن
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الثلاثاء, 23 نوفمبر 2021 12:05
إعادة تعيين عضوين من أعضاء لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية
أعاد أمناء مؤسسة المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية تعيين عضوين من أعضاء لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية لإعداد التقارير المالية
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
16 March 2021
IFRS Foundation Trustees reappoint two IFRS Interpretations Committee members
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, responsible for the governance and oversight of the International Accounting Standards Board, have today announced the reappointment of Guy Jones and Goro Kumagai to the IFRS Interpretations Committee.
Their second three-year terms commence on 1 July 2021.
Guy is a partner in the Toronto office of EY’s Professional Practice Group and a member of EY’s Global IFRS Policy Committee.
Goro is the Senior Fellow of the Markets Strategic Intelligence Department at Mizuho Securities, the investment banking arm of Mizuho Financial Group.
The Interpretations Committee works with the Board in supporting the application of IFRS Standards and comprises 14 members drawn from various jurisdictions and professional backgrounds.
The Foundation is currently recruiting new members for the Interpretations Committee. - البلد الأردن
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة
موسومة تحت
الأربعاء, 28 سبتمبر 2022 12:27
تحديث لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية للتقارير المالية IFRIC لشهر فبراير 2021 متاح الآن
اجتمعت لجنة تفسيرات المعايير الدولية للتقارير المالية في 2 فبراير 2021
معلومات إضافية
-
المحتوى بالإنجليزية
IFRIC Update February 2021
IFRIC Update is a summary of the decisions reached by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) in its public meetings.
The Committee met on 2 February 2021, and discussed:
Items on the current agenda
Sale and Leaseback of an Asset in a Single-Asset Entity (IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 2
Committee’s tentative agenda decisions
Costs Necessary to Sell Inventories (IAS 2 Inventories)—Agenda Paper 3
Preparation of Financial Statements when an Entity is No Longer a Going Concern (IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period)—Agenda Paper 4
Other matters
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 5
Related information
Next scheduled IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting:
16–17 March 2021
Interpretations Committee open items
For further information about IFRS Interpretations Committee activities including how to receive past IFRIC Updates follow the Interpretations Committee group page.
Items on the current agenda
Sale and Leaseback of an Asset in a Single-Asset Entity (IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 16 Leases)—Agenda Paper 2
The Committee considered feedback on the tentative agenda decision discussing the applicability of the sale and leaseback requirements in IFRS 16 to a transaction in which an entity sells its equity interest in a subsidiary that holds only a real estate asset and leases that real estate asset back. The Committee recommended that the Board undertake narrow-scope standard-setting to address this and similar transactions.
Next step
The Board will discuss the Committee’s recommendation at a future Board meeting.
Committee’s tentative agenda decisions
The Committee discussed the following matters and tentatively decided not to add standard-setting projects to the work plan. The Committee will reconsider these tentative decisions, including the reasons for not adding standard-setting projects, at a future meeting. The Committee invites comments on the tentative agenda decisions. Interested parties may submit comments on the open for comment page by 14 April 2021. All comments will be on the public record and posted on our website unless a respondent requests confidentiality and we grant that request. We do not normally grant such requests unless they are supported by a good reason, for example, commercial confidence. The Committee will consider all comments received in writing by 14 April 2021; agenda papers analysing comments received will include analysis only of comments received by that date.
Costs Necessary to Sell Inventories (IAS 2 Inventories)—Agenda Paper 3
The Committee received a request about the costs an entity includes as the ‘estimated costs necessary to make the sale’ when determining the net realisable value of inventories. In particular, the request asked whether an entity includes all costs necessary to make the sale or only those that are incremental to the sale.
Paragraph 6 of IAS 2 defines net realisable value as ‘the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business less the estimated costs of completion and the estimated costs necessary to make the sale’. Paragraphs 28–33 of IAS 2 include further requirements about how an entity estimates the net realisable value of inventories. Those paragraphs do not identify which specific costs are ‘necessary to make the sale’ of inventories. However, paragraph 28 of IAS 2 describes the objective of writing inventories down to their net realisable value—that objective is to avoid inventories being carried ‘in excess of amounts expected to be realised from their sale’.
The Committee observed that, when determining the net realisable value of inventories, IAS 2 requires an entity to estimate the costs necessary to make the sale. This requirement does not allow an entity to limit such costs to only those that are incremental, thereby potentially excluding costs the entity must incur to sell its inventories but that are not incremental to a particular sale. Including only incremental costs could fail to achieve the objective set out in paragraph 28 of IAS 2.
The Committee concluded that, when determining the net realisable value of inventories, an entity estimates the costs necessary to make the sale in the ordinary course of business. An entity uses its judgement to determine which costs are necessary to make the sale considering its specific facts and circumstances, including the nature of the inventories.
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether the estimated costs necessary to make the sale are limited to incremental costs when determining the net realisable value of inventories. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.
Preparation of Financial Statements when an Entity is No Longer a Going Concern (IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period)—Agenda Paper 4
The Committee received a request about the accounting applied by an entity that is no longer a going concern (as described in paragraph 25 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements). The request asked whether such an entity:
can prepare financial statements for prior periods on a going concern basis if it was a going concern in those periods and has not previously prepared financial statements for those periods (Question I).
restates comparative information to reflect the basis of accounting used in preparing the current period’s financial statements if it had previously issued financial statements for the comparative period on a going concern basis (Question II).
Question I
Paragraph 25 of IAS 1 requires an entity to prepare financial statements on a going concern basis ‘unless management either intends to liquidate the entity or to cease trading, or has no realistic alternative but to do so’. Paragraph 14 of IAS 10 states that ‘an entity shall not prepare its financial statements on a going concern basis if management determines after the reporting period either that it intends to liquidate the entity or to cease trading, or that it has no realistic alternative but to do so’.
Applying paragraph 25 of IAS 1 and paragraph 14 of IAS 10, an entity that is no longer a going concern cannot prepare financial statements (including those for prior periods that have not yet been authorised for issue) on a going concern basis.
The Committee therefore concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity that is no longer a going concern to determine whether it prepares its financial statements on a going concern basis.
Question II
Based on its research, the Committee observed no diversity in the application of IFRS Standards with respect to Question II—entities do not restate comparative information to reflect the basis of preparation used in the current period when they first prepare financial statements on a basis that is not a going concern basis. Therefore, the Committee has not [yet] obtained evidence that the matter has widespread effect.
For the reasons noted above, the Committee [decided] not to add a standard-setting project on these matters to the work plan.
Other matters
Work in Progress—Agenda Paper 5
The Committee received an update on the current status of open matters not discussed at its meeting in February 2021. - البلد الأردن
نشر في
محاسبة و مراجعة