• Agenda decision: At the July 2006 Meeting the Board approved an ongoing process for annual improvements to IFRSs
• Discussed at September 2008 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at October 2008 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at December 2008 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at January 2009 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at February 2009 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at May 2009 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at June 2009 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at July 2009 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below) 
• Discussed at January 2010 IFRIC Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at 10 February 2010 Special IASB-FASB Joint Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at March 2010 IFRIC Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at March 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at Special 8 April 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at May 2010 IFRIC Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at May 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at July 2010 IFRIC Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at July 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at September 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at October 2010 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at January 2011 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• Discussed at May 2011 IASB Meeting (jump to notes below)
• ED published 22 June 2011 (more information)
  Comment deadline 21 October 2011
• Discussed at January 2012 IFRIC Meeting (jump to notes below)

Timetable

• Click for IASB Project Timetable

Background

Each year the Board considers minor amendments to IFRSs in an annual improvements project. The amendments are proposed in an omnibus Exposure Draft.

Discussion at the September 2008 IASB Meeting

The staff presented an item it proposed to be included in the annual improvements process 2009. IFRIC 13 requires consideration received or receivable to be allocated between award credits and other components of a sale. The allocation must be done by reference to fair value. If fair value for the awards credits is not directly observable, it must be estimated. This could be done by reference to the awards redeemable. As fair value both refers to the value of the award credits and the value of the awards to be redeemed, this could be interpreted to mean that both fair values are equal. To avoid any confusion the staff recommended addressing this issue via the annual improvements process and proposed some wording that was omitted from the observer notes. The Board agreed. One Board member asked to avoid using the term 'redemption value' as this is in some jurisdictions, for legal reasons, a cash amount close to zero.

Discussion at the October 2008 IASB Meeting

IAS 39 – Application of the Effective Interest Rate Method

The staff presented the Board with a proposal to amend the Application Guidance in IAS 39.AG6-8 regarding the application of the effective interest rate method. The issue was originally raised with the IFRIC, but it decided not to add the issue to the agenda and refer it to the Board for clarification. Two questions arise in this context:

• What is a floating rate instrument?
• How is the effective interest rate calculated for such instruments?

What is a floating rate instrument?

The guidance in IFRS is not sufficiently clear on what a floating rate is - is it market interest rate only or could it be other market factors or possibly entity-specific factors? The staff agreed that the guidance is not clear and proposed three alternatives:

• Alternative 1: Provide no clarification
• Alternative 2: Define floating rate instruments as any instruments with contractual variable cash flows amounts arising from changes in market variables
• Alternative 3: Define floating rate instruments some other way

The Board agreed with this proposal adding the word 'observable'.

How is the effective interest rate calculated for such instruments?

The issue regarding calculation is whether to include expectations about future cash flows when determining the EIR? The staff proposed to clarify IAS 39 that expectations should not be considered when determining the EIR of a floating rate instruments as defined above, that is apply IAS 39.AG7.

The Board agreed

Way Forward

The staff then asked the Board whether the amendments should be proposed via the annual improvements project.

The Board agreed.

Discussion at the December 2008 IASB Meeting

IAS 39: Treating loan prepayment penalties as closely related embedded derivatives (2007 AIP issue)

The Board agreed to replace paragraph IAS 39.AG30(g) along the following lines:

(g) A call, put, or prepayment option embedded in a host debt contract or host insurance contract is not closely related to the host contract unless:

(i) the option's exercise price is approximately equal on each exercise date to the amortized cost of the host debt instrument or the carrying amount of the host insurance contract; or

(ii) the exercise price of a prepayment option [is approximately equal to an amount that would]* reimburse the lender for the present value of lost interest for the remaining term of the host debt contract. Lost interest is the excess of the effective interest rate of the original contract and the effective interest rate for a contract with the same terms as the host debt contract.

The assessment of whether the call or put option is closely related to the host debt contract is made before separating the equity element of a convertible debt instrument under IAS 32.

The staff paper used the phrase 'no more than reimburses the lender' in sub-paragraph (g)(ii). Board members thought that this was inconsistent with sib-paragraph (i) and implied a level of precision that the Board probably did not intend. The Board agreed and instructed the staff to make sub-paragraph (g)(ii) consistent with (g)(i).

IAS 1: Classification of the liability component of a convertible instrument (2007 AIP issue)

The Board noted that in the 2007 AIP they had concluded that classifying the liability on the basis of the requirements to transfer cash or other assets rather than on settlement better reflects the liquidity and solvency position of an entity, and it proposed to amend IAS 1 accordingly. However, it acknowledged that the wording proposed in the ED had not reflected the Board's intent.

The Board agreed that IAS 1 paragraph 69 should be amended as follows:

69 An entity shall classify a liability as current when: [...] (d) it does not have an unconditional right to defer settlement of the liability for at least twelve months after the reporting period (see paragraph 73). The potential settlement of a liability by the issue of equity instruments [when the terms of the liability instrument permits settlement in shares does not affect]* its classification as current.

The staff paper used the phrase 'is not relevant' to the classification. Board members noted that the potential settlement through the issue of equity instruments must be a feature of the instrument and not a matter of management intent.

IAS 17: Classification of leases of land and buildings (2007 AIP issue)

The Board did not agree with a staff recommendation that this issue should be subsumed in the forthcoming Leases Discussion Paper. Board members acknowledged that they had caused the problem when the IASB had amended IAS 17 in 2003 and they had an obligation to constituents to make IAS 17 operational.

After discussion, the Board agreed to amend IAS 17 but revise the amendment proposed in the 2007 Annual Improvements ED to address various consequential amendments identified in the comment letters, to expand the Basis for Conclusions to set out the Board's rationales underlying the change from its previous decision in 2003 and explain why it is imperative to do so at this time outside of the Board's active project on leases. No amendments will be made to IAS 40.

Transitional relief will be made, so that if an entity had a 'previously published fair value' of a lease, it could use that as the transitional fair value rather than attempting a 'with hindsight' exercise.

Next steps: All 2007 AIP issues discussed

The staff will prepare ballot drafts of the three 2007 AIP issues. These issues will be included in the 2008 Annual Improvement Amendments document, rather than as a separate document. The effective date for these amendments will be 1 January 2010.

New issues for 2009 AIP

Guidance inconsistency in Appendix to IAS 18

The Board considered whether paragraph 17 of the Appendix to IAS 18 (dealing with initiation, entrance, and membership fees) was inconsistent with the general principles in IAS 18 and in particular with IAS 18.13, which addresses multiple element transactions.

The Board agreed that the first sentence of paragraph 17 of the Appendix to IAS 18 should not be read in isolation – the paragraph goes on to give examples of situations in which revenue from identifiable components of a single transaction should be identified.

For this, and other reasons highlighted by the staff, the Board did not add this issue to the 2009 AIP.

IAS 40: Transfers from Investment Property (to Inventory (IAS 2) or Held for Sale (IFRS 5))

The Board discussed a potential inconsistency between IAS 40 Investment Property, IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations and IAS 2 Inventories in situations when an investment property is now being held for sale.

The staff explained that there was confusion around the operation of IAS 40 paragraphs 56 and 58 regarding reclassifications out of investment property when management determines that it will sell a non-current asset. In addition, there was the anomaly that when an entity transferred an investment property to inventory (IAS 40.57(b)), it ceased to be remeasured at fair value, but reverted to the cost method under IAS 2.

The Board discussed these issues for some time. Several expressed dissatisfaction with the relatively permissive nature of the fair value alternative in IAS 40 and were in favour of keeping investment properties for which the fair value model had been chosen in that model until disposal. The Board noted that the measurement provisions of IFRS 5 do not apply to investment property measured using the IAS 40 fair value model (IFRS 5.5(d).

The Board agreed:

• To amend IAS 40 paragraph 60 to remove the reference to 'inventories' and 'IAS 2' (i.e., IAS 40.60 will address transfers from investment property to owner-occupied property only) [that is, restricting transfers from the fair value model];
• To amend IAS 40 to require investment property accounted for under the fair value model to be analysed between 'investment property' and 'investment property held for sale'; and
• To require disclosures similar to those required for non-current assets held for sale in IFRS 5 whenever investment property is held for sale.

A majority of the Board were in favour of including this issue in the Annual Improvements Project. The staff stated that this decision could be reviewed once the Board had seen the proposed changes.

Customer-related Intangible Assets

The Board noted that in light of the explicit guidance in IFRS 3R, the IFRIC had decided at its November 2008 meeting that the issue of customer-related intangible assets could be best resolved by referring it to the IASB and the FASB with a recommendation to review and amend their respective business combination standards by:

• removing the distinction between 'contractual' and 'non-contractual' customer-related intangible assets recognised in a business combination and focusing on the nature of the relationship rather than how it is established; and
• reviewing the indicators that identify the existence of a customer relationship in paragraph IE28 of IFRS 3 and including them in the standard (IASB only).

Because IFRS 3R is a converged standard, the staff asked if the Board would like to consider this amendment proposal made by the IFRIC as a joint project with the FASB. The Board asked the staff to discuss the extent of such a project with the staff of the FASB and return to the Board with more specific proposals.

Discussion at the January 2009 IASB Meeting

The Board received but did not discuss the Staff's 'Summary of preliminary comment letter analysis, deliberation objective and provisional project plan'. Under the project plan, the staff expects to complete all redeliberations, including any sweep issues, by the March 2009 IASB meeting, allowing the Improvements IFRS to be issued in April 2009.

Comment analysis – Minor issues

The Board agreed the staff's proposed disposition of the following proposals. A majority of respondents concurred with the Board's proposals:

• Scope of IFRS 2 and revised IFRS 3 (IFRS 2)
• Disclosures of non-current assets (or disposal groups) classified as held for sale or discontinued operations (IFRS 5)
• Unit of accounting for goodwill impairment (IAS 36)
• Additional consequential amendments arising from revised IFRS 3 (IAS 38)
• Measuring the fair value of an intangible asset acquired in a business combination (IAS 38)

A Board member objected to the staff's proposed amendments to the implementation guidance in IAS 18 with respect to determining whether an entity is acting as a principal or as an agent. The Board member was concerned that the IASB would introduce jurisdictional bias in to its guidance that was neither necessary nor desirable at the level of (non-mandatory) implementation guidance. The Board member would not amend the IG at all. It was unclear whether the Board as a whole concurred with this view.

IAS 7 – Classification of expenditures on unrecognised assets

The Board agreed to modify the amendment to IAS 7 paragraph 16, such that it would state:

16 The separate disclosure of cash flows arising from investing activities is important because the cash flows represent the extent to which expenditures have been made for resources that are recognised as long-term assets and other investments not included in cash equivalents in the statement of financial position. Examples of cash flows arising from investing activities are: (a) ...

A proposal to amend IAS 7 paragraph 32 (not included in the ED) was not approved.

Scope of IFRIC 9 and Revised IFRS 3 (new issue)

The Board agreed that an amendment to paragraph 5 of IFRIC 9 Reassessment of Embedded Derivatives was necessary to clarify that the scope of IFRIC 9 excludes contracts with embedded derivatives acquired in a combination between entities under common control or in the formation of a joint venture. With the revised definition of a 'business' in IFRS 3 (2008), the formation of a joint venture was brought within the scope of IFRIC 9, something that the Board had not addressed specifically as it developed IFRS 3 (2008).

The Board agreed that the scope of IFRIC 9 should be amended to read as follows:

5 This interpretation does not apply to the acquisition of contracts with embedded derivatives in:

• a. a business combination;
• b. a combination of entities or businesses under common control as described in paragraphs B1-B4 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations (as revised in 2008); or
• c. the formation of a joint venture as defined in IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures

nor their possible reassessment at the date of acquisition.

So this amendment can be in place in time for the effective date of IFRS 3 (2008) – 1 July 2009 – the Board agreed that it should issue an exposure draft of the proposals for a 30-day comment period (the minimum permitted by the IASB's Due Process Handbook). (See also Hedges of a Net Investment, below).

Discussion at the February 2009 IASB Meeting

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements: Presentation of the statement of changes in equity

The Board agreed to propose an amendment to IAS 1 paragraphs 106 and 107 to allow the reconciliation for each class of accumulated other comprehensive income either on the face or in the notes to the financial statements. The proposed effective date is 1 January 2011.

In addition, the Board agreed that it should not modify the Implementation Guidance accompanying IAS 1.

Discussion at the May 2009 IASB Meeting

The Board discussed several proposed amendments relating to the revisions to IFRS 3 and IAS 27.

The Board considered the following proposed amendments to the revised IFRS 3 and IAS 27:

1. the transition requirement to apply retrospectively some of the consequential amendments to other standards
2. the transition requirements for losses attributable to the non-controlling interest that have previously been allocated to the controlling interest
3. the transition requirements for contingent consideration from a business combination that occurred before the effective date of the revised standard
4. the treatment of pre-existing contingent consideration of the acquiree
5. the IFRIC recommendation to amend the standard to include the indicators that identify the existence of a customer relationship in the implementation the Board tentatively agreed to in December 2008
6. the allocation of other comprehensive income in a transaction with the on-controlling interest that does not result in loss of control
7. the interaction of the effective date of IFRS 3 with the requirements in IFRS 1
8. the application of IFRS 5 in a step acquisition and in loss of significant influence over an associate or a jointly controlled entity

The Board also considered FASB deliberations on the scope of SFAS 160 Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, as well as a list of other issues.

The transition requirement to apply retrospectively some of the consequential amendments to other standards

The first issue the Board considered was whether the consequential amendments from phase II of the business combinations project be applied prospectively or retrospectively?

One Board member said that they thought that it was obvious. IFRS 3 is prospective. Others agreed. One other Board member was not sure it was so clear. Following some discussion, the Board agreed that the consequential amendments should be applied prospectively. The majority of the Board thought, however, that this was already clear from the existing guidance in the standards, and voted not to make any amendments as part of the Annual Improvements Process.

The transition requirements for losses attributable to the non-controlling interest that have previously been allocated to the controlling interest

The second issue the Board considered was how an entity should account for losses in excess of the NCI in the subsidiary's equity that were previously absorbed by the owners of the parent (a) at the day of transition and (b) when the subsidiary reports subsequently profits.

The Board considered two questions:

• Question 1: At the day of transition should an entity reallocate losses attributable to NCI that were previously allocated against the equity of the owners of the parent to NCI?
• Question 2: If reallocation is not required, how should the subsidiary allocate future profits? Should it be allocated to the owners of the parent until the previously absorbed losses have been reversed? Or should an entity allocate future profits on the basis of the present ownership interests of the owners of the parent and NCI, ignoring the losses that have been previously absorbed by the owners of the parent?

The staff outlined three alternatives to address those questions:

• Alternative 1: Upon transition, the entity does not reallocate previously absorbed losses from equity of the owners of the parent to NCI. In addition, future profits are allocated in proportion to the respective interests of the owners of the parent and NCI; thus ignoring the losses that have been previously absorbed by the owners of the parent.
• Alternative 2: Upon transition, the entity does not reallocate previously absorbed losses from equity of the owners of the parent to NCI. However, future profits will be allocated first to the owners of the parent until the previously absorbed losses are reversed. Subsequently profits are attributed to the owners of the parent and NCI.
• Alternative 3: Upon transition, the entity reallocates previously absorbed losses from the equity of the owners of the parent to NCI without restating prior years' comparatives. If the Board adopts this alternative, it is not necessary to provide further guidance on the subsequent accounting.

The staff views were divided between Alternative 1 (view 1) and Alternative 3 (view 2).

The Board were asked if they would like to add the issue to the annual improvements project. The Board voted to not add this issue to the annual improvements project. They noted that the original intention of the Board when developing the standard was Alternative 1.

The transition requirements for contingent consideration from a business combination that occurred before the effective date of the revised standard

The next issue the Board considered was whether transitional guidance should be added to IAS 39 to exempt pre-adoption contingent consideration from the scope of IAS 39. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation to add the issue to the annual improvements project. The proposal would amend the effective date paragraph for the consequential amendment to IAS 39 to clarify that IAS 39 does not apply to pre-adoption contingent consideration.

The treatment of pre-existing contingent consideration of the acquiree

The next issue the Board considered was how to account for pre-existing contingent consideration. Specifically, the IASB were asked to clarify the treatment of contingent consideration of the acquiree that an acquirer assumes in a business combination. The staff were of two views in considering this question. Some staff believe that pre-existing contingent consideration retains its nature as contingent consideration in a subsequent business combination (view 1) and other staff believe that pre-existing contingent consideration does not meet the definition of contingent consideration in IFRS 3 and cannot be analogised as such (view 2). The Board were asked if they agreed that they issue should be added to the annual improvements project (they did), and whether they supported view 1 or 2. There was significant confusion amongst the Board members as to what view 1 and 2 were trying to convey. For example, Board members queried whether view 1 meant you would be accounting for the contingent consideration under the old IFRS 3 or the new. The staff clarified that they thought it would be the new. Following discussion, the staff were requested by the (acting) Chair to reconsider the views and clarify the paper, including some example. The staff were also requested to come back to the Board with a recommendation as part of the revised paper.

The IFRIC recommendation to amend the standard to include the indicators that identify the existence of a customer relationship in the implementation the Board tentatively agreed to in December 2008

At its December 2008 meeting, the Board tentatively concurred with the IFRIC's recommendations to consider proposed amendments to IFRS 3 Business Combinations that clarify the guidance on non-contractual customer relationships acquired in a business combination. The Board also directed the staff to liaise with the FASB to prepare additional analysis for a future meeting.

The first recommendation the staff presented to the Board was to remove the distinction between the treatments of 'contractual' and 'non-contractual' customer-related intangible assets in a business combination and focus on the nature of the relationship rather than how it is established. The Board agreed that this issue should be addressed as part of the post-implementation review of the revised standard.

The staff then proposed to review the indicators that identify the existence of a customer relationship in paragraph IE28 of illustrative examples of IFRS 3 and include them in the standard. The board did not support this change and voted against the staff recommendation to move the indicators.

The third staff recommendation was to amend IFRS 3 to delete a depositor relationship example from the section that illustrates 'separate intangibles'. The staff indicated that this request was made to eliminate confusion. One Board member asked the staff why it was confusing? The staff responded by noting that the example implies that depositors were non-contractual as we only consider separable if something is non-contractual. Other Board members did not think that the example was confusing. In response to a vote 5 Board members were in favour of removing the example and 5 were against, so the Chair indicated that the example should stay as is.

The allocation of other comprehensive income in a transaction with the on-controlling interest that does not result in loss of control

The Board then considered whether IAS 27 should include additional requirements to specify the accounting treatment of OCI when a change in ownership interest in a subsidiary occurs that does not result in the loss of control. The Board thought that this was already clear from the standard and therefore disagreed with the staff recommendation to provide additional explicit requirements in IAS 27.

The interaction of the effective date of IFRS 3 with the requirements in IFRS 1

The Board then considered whether the IASB should remove the date limitation on early application of IFRS 3 and IAS 27 to be consistent with the requirements in IFRS 1. A number of Board members noted that they did not see what there was to clarify. If you apply a standard on first time adoption you apply it for all years. The Board unanimously agreed not to amend the standard.

The application of IFRS 5 in a step acquisition and in loss of significant influence over an associate or a jointly controlled entity

The Board then considered two issues relating to IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations:

• Issue 1: Should an entity classify as held for sale an associate or a jointly controlled entity in accordance with IFRS 5 when it is highly probable that the entity will lose significant influence or joint control (step-down)?
• Issue 2: Should an entity classify as held for sale an associate or a jointly controlled entity in accordance with IFRS 5 when it is highly probable that control will be obtained (step-up)?

The staff noted that in Improvements to IFRSs issued in May 2008, the Board amended IFRS 5 to clarify that an entity that is committed to a sale plan involving loss of control of a subsidiary shall classify all the assets and liabilities of that subsidiary as held for sale when the criteria set out in paragraphs 6-8 of IFRS 5 are met, regardless of whether the entity will retain a non-controlling interest in its former subsidiary after the sale. The IASB has been asked to clarify the applicability of IFRS 5 to an associate or jointly controlled entity when it is highly probable that control will be obtained and/or significant influence or joint control will be lost.

In relation to Issue 1 the board agreed that this issue should be addressed in the annual improvements project. A new paragraph should be included in IFRS to clarify that the entity classifies as held for sale an associate or a jointly controlled entity when it is highly probable that significant influence or joint control will be lost.

In relation to Issue 2 one Board member noted that it was not the intention in IFRS 5 to classify things not for sale as held for sale. The Board agreed that IFRS 5 did not apply to such transactions and agreed to add discussion on the issue to the basis for conclusions.

FASB deliberations on the scope of SFAS 160 Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, as well as a list of other issues

The final issue considered by the Board was whether to amend the scope of the requirements in IAS 27 that deal (a) with transactions with non-controlling interest that do not result in the loss of control and (b) the loss of control of an entity following FASB deliberations on these issues. The staff recommended not to add the issue to the annual improvements project. The Board agreed.

Finally, the Board considered how to progress a list issues relating to IFRS 3 and IAS 27 that were not covered by the 2009 annual improvements project. These issues were not available to observers. These issues will be considered as part of the post implementation review.

Discussion at the June 2009 IASB Meeting

IAS 28 Investments in Associates – Venture capital consolidations and partial use of fair value through profit or loss

The issue under discussion was one in which an investor, at a consolidated level, has an investment in an associate, a part of which is held by a subsidiary that is an investment-linked insurance fund (or any entity potentially included within the scope exemption of paragraph 1 of IAS 28). The question raised was whether that part of the investment held by a subsidiary that is an investment-linked insurance fund is able to be designated at initial recognition as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement, while another part of the investment held by another group entity is accounted for in accordance with IAS 28.

The Board determined that there were 2 steps to this question:

• first to determine whether, at a consolidated level, there was significant influence; and then
• to conclude on the appropriate accounting.

The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that all direct and indirect interests held in the associate should be identified, but that the scope criteria in IAS 28 should be used to determine the allowed accounting treatments for the investment (or a portion of the investment). Therefore the scope of IAS 28 should be used to group the investment holdings into one of potentially two valuation models (equity method or fair value through profit or loss, or both).

IAS 28 Investments in Associates – Impairment of investments in associates

The issue under discussion was whether the Board agreed with the staff recommendation that impairment testing of investments in associates should be performed:

• for the consolidated financial statements in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets; and
• for the separate financial statements of the investor in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.

In respect of the consolidated financial statements, the staff believed that the guidance in IAS 28.31-33 is clear. In respect of the separate financial statements, the staff believed that paragraph BC66 of IAS 27 clearly explains the Board's intent that, in the separate financial statements of the investor, investments in associates should be accounted for consistent with the accounting for financial instruments. Given the Board's underlying rationale for separate financial statements, in the staff's opinion, in the separate financial statements of the investor, impairment testing of investments in associates should be performed in accordance with the provisions of IAS 39 for both investments 'at cost' and 'in accordance with IAS 39'. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation.

Contingent consideration of an Acquiree ('pre-existing contingent consideration')

The issue under discussion was to clarify the treatment of contingent consideration of an acquiree that an acquirer assumes in a business combination ('pre-existing contingent consideration' or 'PCC').

The staff presented 2 views:

1. Although PCC does not meet the definition of contingent consideration, it retains its nature in the subsequent acquisition. Accordingly, it should be accounted for in the same way as any contingent consideration in the subsequent business combination.
2. PCC does not meet the definition of contingent consideration in the subsequent business combination. Therefore, it should be accounted for as part of the acquired identifiable assets and liabilities in the subsequent acquisition.

The staff recommended the second view and the Board agreed.

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards - Accounting for privatisation

The issue under discussion was to clarify the accounting guidance for a continuing business restructured in connection with privatisation and subsequent initial public offering (IPO).

The first scenario presented was where an entity is about to undergo an IPO and its revaluation occurs at about the same time as the restructuring for privatisation and during the periods covered by its first IFRS financial statements.

The staff provided two views to support a possible conclusion that a privatisation-triggered revaluation would qualify for 'deemed cost' under IFRS 1, as follows:

• View A – The revaluation date falls within the periods covered by Newco's first set of IFRS financial statements even though that period includes predecessor periods of the restructured or carved-out business; or
• View B – The date of transition is Year 3 when Newco is formed because Newco cannot adopt IFRS before it was legally formed.

The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that the Board adopt View A and amend IFRS 1 to permit an entity to use the revaluation basis as deemed cost when the revaluation for a privatisation occurs during the period covered by its first set of IFRS financial statements, even if that revaluation date is after the entity's date of transition to IFRSs and before the entity's legal date of formation.

The rationale for this decision is that an SOE whose assets and liabilities are revalued contemporaneously with a privatisation and IPO is similar to a first-time adopter that established a deemed cost under previous GAAP. The similarity is also the same when such an SOE presents 'carved-out' financial statements because those financial statements related to a continuing business that was previously a portion of its predecessor's, was subsequently revalued by its predecessor, and is now transferred to be held by Newco. The staff therefore recommended that the Board should broaden the current exemption in paragraph D8 of IFRS 1 to cover such an SOE even though its revaluation was obtained during the period covered by its first set of IFRS financial statements and not prior to its date of transition to IFRS.

Comparative Period

The Board then discussed how, under View A above, comparative information should be presented. The staff had considered two alternatives:

• Option A – establish the deemed cost on the date of transition to IFRSs using the revaluation amounts obtained in Year 3, adjusted to exclude any depreciation, amortisation or impairment between the date of transition to IFRSs and the date of that revaluation; or
• Option B – establish the deemed cost on the date of revaluation, present historical costs or previous GAAP amounts as permitted by IFRS 1 for the comparative periods prior to revaluation date.

Some Board members supported option B on the basis that it would be impossible to apply option A without employing hindsight. Other Board members supported option A on the basis that they believed that option B did not provide meaningful information. Overall the majority of the Board agreed with the staff recommendation of option B.

Transition

The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that retrospective application of these proposed amendments to IFRS 1 should be permitted but not required.

Existing IFRS Preparer

The Board agreed not to address how an existing IFRS preparer should account for a one-off restructuring for a privatisation or whether the revaluation in relation to that restructuring results in a change in accounting policy.

IFRS 1 – Accounting policy changes in the year of adoption

The issue under discussion was to clarify whether a first-time adopter is exempt from all the requirements of IAS 8 for the interim and annual periods presented in its first IFRS financial statements. If IAS 8 does not apply, what, if any, requirements apply if an entity changes its accounting policies between the first interim financial statements it presents in accordance with IFRSs and the first annual financial statements? In addition, although this was not part of the clarification requested, a similar question arises with respect to changes an entity might make in the IFRS 1 exemptions it chooses to apply.

The staff recommended that:

• IFRS 1 should continue to specify the required disclosures relating to first-time adoption and an entity's transition to IFRSs rather than referring to IAS 8. IFRS 1.27 should be amended to explicitly state that:
  • (a) IAS 8 does not apply both to the entity's selection of accounting policies at the date of transition to IFRSs and to any changes to those policies made up to the date of the first annual IFRS financial statements, and
  • (b) all of IAS 8's requirements related to changes in accounting policies do not apply (rather than only its disclosure requirements); and
• that the reconciliations required by paragraphs IFRS 1.27 and 32 must be updated for changes the entity makes during the year of first time adoption in accounting policies and in transitional choices made in accordance with IFRS 1.

The Board agreed with the staff recommendation.

Discussion at the July 2009 IASB Meeting

The IFRIC Coordinator reported that the July 2009 IFRIC meeting had been a relatively full day and had resulted in a number of Agenda Decisions being issued in final, the most significant of which was perhaps on related to IAS 39 and the meaning of 'significant or prolonged' in IAS 39.61 (see the IAS Plus report of the July 2009 IFRIC Meeting for further information).

Write-down of a disposal group (IFRS 5)

The Board agreed that the staff should prepare a full agenda proposal to address an issue identified by the IFRIC to resolve a conflict between IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations and IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. In addition, the proposal should include the solution suggested by the staff together with the proposed Basis for Conclusions. The solution suggested was to align the presentation of disposal groups in IFRS 5 with that for associates - this results in displaying the disposal group as a single line, measured at fair value less costs to sell. This would be included in the next round of annual improvements (2010-2011).

Debt-to-equity swap in a restructuring (IAS 32 and IAS 39)

The Board noted that the IFRIC, noting the significance and pervasiveness of the issue, had decided to develop an Interpretation with respect to the application of IAS 39 when an entity issues its own equity instruments in settlement of its existing debt instruments in a restructuring. The IFRIC had reached a tentative consensus at its July meeting and would meet by teleconference on 4 August at 1200 London time, with the intention of confirming its draft consensus. The Draft Interpretation would be issued as soon as possible thereafter with the usual 60 day comment period. The IFRIC would seek to confirm the consensus in November 2009, if possible, or in January 2010. The Board approved the approach and commended the IFRIC for acting as swiftly as it was.

Some Board members were concerned that the exchange of debt for equity resulted in a gain being recognised in profit and loss, but other Board members defended this result noting that it was the only logical result of the extinguishment of a liability for no cash outlay. The IFRIC was likely to conclude that the equity instruments issued should be measured at the fair value of the equity instruments issued or the fair value of the liability extinguished, whichever provides the most relevant measure.

A Board member asked what would be the accounting if the debt was held by a majority shareholder. The IFRIC Coordinator noted that IFRS had no measurement guidance for related party transactions. Judgement would be required and the transaction would need to be assessed to determine whether the shareholder was acting in their capacity as an owner before the appropriate accounting could be determined.

Measurement of Non-controlling Interest (IFRS 3)

The staff noted that IFRS 3 and IAS 27 (as issued in 2008) amend the definition of non-controlling interest (NCI) to 'the equity in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly to a parent'. They also noted that some constituents had suggested that the amended definition of NCI widened the scope of instruments to include, for example, the equity components of convertible bonds, warrants, options over own shares and options under share-based payment plans (not held by the parent). IFRS 3.9 (2008) permits a measurement choice of acquisition date fair value or the proportionate share of the acquired entity's identifiable net assets. There are differing interpretations of how the latter measurement should be applied.

The Board agreed that components of NCI other than the present ownership instruments that entitle the owners to a proportionate share of the net assets of the subsidiary should be measured at fair value or using the measurement basis required by IFRS. For example, a stock option under share-based payment awards should be measured in accordance with the method in IFRS 2 and the equity component of a convertible bond should be measured in accordance with IAS 32.

This item will be included in the 2009-2010 Annual Improvements.

Un-replaced and voluntarily replaced share-based payment awards

The Board agreed that un-replaced awards are non-controlling interests and are measured at a market-based measure in accordance with IFRS 2 on the date of acquisition; and that the application guidance in IFRS 3 paragraphs B57 to B61 [the split between consideration and post-combination compensation expense] should be adopted for the apportionment of the market-based measure of the un-replaced awards to the consideration transferred and post-combination expenses.

This item will be included in the 2009-2010 Annual Improvements.

Meaning of 'general borrowings' (IAS 23)

One Board member noted that in his opinion it is not appropriate to exactly match the qualifying asset with the liability. Another Board member acknowledged the apparent inconsistency between IAS 23.10 and IAS 23.14 and supported the staff in proposing amendment to IAS 23 to limit the capitalisation to general borrowings taken for an unspecified purpose.

Nonetheless, the majority of the Board was of the opinion that the standard is clear enough, any further allocation criteria would be rule-based and this amendment would not lead to improvement of financial reporting. Moreover, the Board was concerned that any amendment could lead to the need for further amendments to this standard that are of nature of application guidance.

The Board finally decided not to include this issue in annual improvements process.

Classification of rights issues (IAS 32)

Finally, the Board considered the urgent issue arising from the IFRIC meeting regarding classification of rights denominated in a foreign currency. The staff proposed a fast-tracked amendment to IAS 32 to deal with a narrow issue of classification of rights denominated in foreign currency distributed pro rata to all the shareholders as an exception to the principle developed in IAS 32. The Board agreed that as the issue is urgent and widespread, urgent amendment of IAS 32 is necessary.

One Board member noted that the issue shall be not limited to the narrow issue, but to all the instruments for all instruments where the price is defined in the fixed amount in a foreign currency. This proposal received a mixed reaction.

While many members would be prepared to support such proposal under normal circumstances, they felt that it would be such a significant change for a fast-tracked ED that not all the consequences of the change could be carefully assessed by the Board and the constituents. Moreover, as director of the capital markets pointed out, broadening of the issue could cause problems in developing of the liabilities and equity project. Even with the narrow amendment some conclusions in this project has to be revisited in order to link these two conclusions together. Moreover, some of the Board members were concerned that broadening of the scope could also lead to structuring opportunities. The Board finally agreed that the amendment should be extremely narrow; limited to rights denominated in foreign currency distributed pro rata to all shareholders.

The Board discussed the transition and effective date and agreed on the staff proposals that the amendment should be applied retrospectively and that the intended effective date should be included in the ED (90 days after it is published with early adoption permitted).

The Board agreed the timetable for the project, with ballot to be circulated during the week commencing 27 July, ED issued in the week commencing 3 August with a 30 days comment period (as the issue is narrow and matter urgent). The Board intends to analyse the comment letters at the September meeting where it also plans to finalise the amendment. Final amendment would be issued in late September or early October.

The Board approved the ED, subject to drafting and balloting, with one member dissenting.

Discussion at the January 2010 IFRIC Meeting

The IFRIC has assumed responsibility for making recommendations to the Board on the Annual Improvements to IFRSs.

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of IFRSs – Fair value or revaluation basis as deemed cost

The IFRIC considered the comment letters received to the proposed amendments to IFRS 1 related to event-driven revaluations after the transition date but before the end of the entity's first IFRS reporting period.

The IFRIC discussed several specific issues raised by the constituents. The IFRIC reconfirmed the earlier Board decision that did not allow roll-back adjustment for comparative data. Even though some IFRIC members saw merit in a roll-back approach (data more useful than other deemed costs), the staff noted that no new arguments had been presented that would justify the change of the decision made by the Board at the June 2009 Board meeting.

The IFRIC agreed with the staff to clarify the wording of the amendment to better capture the rationale behind the amendment.

The IFRIC also agreed to specify that adjustments related to event-driven revaluation should be recognised directly in retained earnings (or a specific category of equity).

The IFRIC also agreed to amend the transition requirements to better reflect the intention of the Board – to allow existing IFRS preparers, whose restructuring for a privatisation occurred in the past, but within the period covered by the first set of IFRS financial statement prepared in accordance with IFRS 1 to apply the proposed amendment retrospectively.

Some IFRIC members did not feel comfortable with the decrease in consistency and comparability of the financial statements. On the other hand, a majority of IFRIC members acknowledged IFRS 1 already contains exemptions intended to facilitate first time adoption of IFRSs.

On that basis, the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

IAS 27 – Impairment of investments in subsidiaries, jointly controlled entities and associates in the separate financial statements of the investor

The IFRIC considered the comment letters received to the proposed amendments to IAS 27. After a short discussion the IFRIC decided not to finalise the amendments. The amendments would have been relevant if equity instruments are measured at cost. However, the recently-issued IFRS 9 requires that all equity instruments must be measured at fair value.

Some IFRIC members expressed their view that IAS 36 would be the most appropriate standard on which to base impairment of investments in associates in the separate financial statements of the investor. Other IFRIC members disagreed. The IFRIC asked the staff to analyse the issue and provide additional analysis at a future IFRIC meeting with the aim to include the issue in the next year's annual improvements process. Finally, in a preliminary indicative vote, a slight majority of the IFRIC members expressed their preference for the new guidance to be based on IAS 36 requirements.

Some IFRIC members noted that this issue was too broad for an annual improvement and might be accommodated better by a separate Board project that would encompass the whole remit of accounting in the separate financial statements.

IFRS 3 Business Combinations – Measurement of non-controlling interests (NCI)

The IFRIC considered the comment letters received to the proposed amendments of IFRS 3 to clarify that the option to measure NCI at the proportionate share of the acquiree's identifiable net assets should be applied only to those NCI components that are present ownership instruments and entitle their holders to a pro-rata share on the entity's net assets.

Some IFRIC members felt that the amendment should be broader, considering not only this issue but the interplay of NCI with goodwill, impairment, and potentially even definition of equity. Nonetheless, the Chairman noted that this was a narrow amendment that should only clarify an inconsistency and not address all concerns and implications IFRS 3 might have created. He warned that IFRIC should not try to address all the known issues with IFRS 3 within that amendment. Two IFRIC members disagreed with this assessment and continued to support a broader project considering wider implications.

After a short discussion, in which several IFRIC members noted that this improvement might change the current practice and could have further implications, the IFRIC finally supported the staff proposal to proceed with the amendments. The IFRIC agreed with drafting suggestions making the amendment more clear and and agreed to resolve several remaining inconsistencies between the proposed Basis for Conclusions and the amendment itself.

The discussion continued with identification of instruments to which the 'present ownership instruments representing proportional share in net assets' definition applied. The IFRIC agreed that it would be predominantly ordinary shares, with possible inclusion of specific types of preference shares in a limited number of jurisdictions.

On that basis, the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

IFRS 3 – Transition requirements for contingent consideration from a business combination that occurred before the effective date of the revised IFRS

The IFRIC discussed the comment letters to the Board proposals. The IFRIC agreed with the concerns of some constituents that the new guidance referred to the superseded requirements of IFRS 3 (2004) and agreed to reproduce the guidance within the transitional requirements of this amendment.

On application, the IFRIC agreed that the proposed amendment be applied from the application of IFRS 3 (2008). The IFRIC acknowledged that early adopted of IFRS 3 (2008) that had applied IAS 39 to contingent considerations balances from earlier business combinations would have to restate the balances (revert to original IFRS 3 (2004) treatment). The IFRIC noted that this requirement would provide better comparability.

On the other hand, a majority of the IFRIC agreed that first-time adopters should account for subsequent changes in these balances in accordance with IAS 39 if they relate to financial assets or financial liabilities.

Some IFRIC members expressed their view that such approach was overly burdensome for early adopters and were concerned that the IFRIC would send a wrong signal regarding early adoption of new standards.

After a short discussion the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

The IFRIC also asked the Board to consider whether it would be more efficient to have all the related guidance to contingent considerations within one Standard.

IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures – Disclosures about the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments

The IFRIC discussed the comment letters received in response to the Board proposal to enhance the disclosures for financial instruments. Without much discussion, the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

IAS 28 Investments in Associates – Partial use of fair value for measurement of associates

The IFRIC discussed the comment letters received in response to the Board proposals to allow partial use of fair value for measurement of associates in consolidated financial statements. Most IFRIC members supported the amendment subject to drafting and editorial amendments that would better explain the amendment in the proposed Basis for Conclusions.

The IFRIC considered a comment that an implication of the proposal might be that a 1% share in a 30%-owned associate would be accounted for using the equity method and remaining 29% using the fair value exemption. The IFRIC noted that it would be the consequence of the model used (split accounting). Several IFRIC members challenged the economic sense and usefulness of such accounting. Nonetheless, no different proposal how to solve this issue was proposed.

The IFRIC briefly discussed consistency of this proposal with the requirements of IFRS 5 and agreed that IFRS 5 served a different purpose.

On that basis, the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

The IFRIC also discussed the possible amendment of IAS 31 (as a similar provision currently applies for Joint Ventures). The Technical Director explained that the new Joint Ventures Standard is scheduled for publication in March, so amendment to IAS 31 would not be practicable (as it would have to be re-exposed in any case). The staff would analyse the requirements of the new Standard and this amendment to IAS 28 and analyse how a similar requirement could be incorporated in the new Joint Venture Standard requirements.

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting – Significant events and transactions

The IFRIC discussed the comment letters received in response to the Board proposals to amend IAS 34 to emphasise the disclosure principle and to add further guidance.

The IFRIC in principle agreed with the amendments, subject to clarifications of the terminology used and subject to specifying which disclosure requirements were required (what the principle was and which generic and specific events should be disclosed).

On that basis, the IFRIC recommended to the Board to finalise the amendments subject to editorial drafting suggestions.

Discussion at the Joint IASB-FASB Special Meeting 10 February 2010

The IASB deliberated the IFRIC's recommendations on the annual improvements project issues the IFRIC discussed at its Meeting in January 2010.

IFRS 1 - Fair value or revaluation as deemed cost exemption

The Board deliberated whether to require that any adjustments resulting from an event-driven revaluation after the date of the transition to IFRSs (but during the period covered by the first IFRS financial statements) be recognised in retained earnings or allow recognition in another category of equity, if deemed appropriate. The Board confirmed that allowing recognition in another category of equity in certain circumstances is consistent with the general guidance in IFRS 1 relating to transition adjustments.

The Board also confirmed the amendment to the effective date paragraph to clarify that entities that applied IFRS 1 in a previous period are permitted to apply the amendment to paragraph D8 retrospectively in the first annual period after the amendment is effective.

IFRS 3 - Transition requirements for contingent consideration from a business combination that occurred before the effective date of the revised IFRS 3

The Board confirmed the proposed amendment to clarify that for existing users of IFRSs, the financial instrument standards do not apply to contingent consideration arising from a business combination for which the acquisition date preceded the application of IFRS 3 (2008). Without much deliberation, the Board further agreed to delete the reference to IFRS 3 (2004) and to reproduce those requirements within the transition section of IFRS 3 (2008).

IFRS 3 - Measurement of non-controlling interests

The Board discussed the clarification that the choice for measuring the non-controlling interest (NCI) in an acquiree applies only to 'components of non-controlling interest that are present ownership instruments and entitle their holders to a proportionate share of the entity's net assets in the event of liquidation'. Without discussing the matter, the Board confirmed the proposed clarification and agreed that other present ownership instruments that are classified as NCI should be measured at fair value unless another measurement basis is required by IFRSs.

IFRS 7 - Clarification of disclosures on the nature and extent of risk arising from financial instruments

The Board confirmed the IFRIC's recommendation to include a paragraph to emphasise the interaction between qualitative and quantitative disclosures and how it contributes to the disclosure of information in a way that enables users to evaluate an entity's exposures to risks.

The Board's discussion then focused on the credit risk disclosures and the proposal to remove the requirements to disclose the carrying amount of financial assets that would otherwise be past due or impaired whose terms have been renegotiated (par 36(d) of IFRS 7).

Two Board members were opposed to the immediate deletion of the requirement, as the information is very useful for analysts and investors, albeit that it was worded poorly. Those Board members requested the deferral of the decision to delete the requirement and explore possibilities of improving the wording as part of the Impairment or Derecognition projects.

Other Board members did not agree and when put to a vote, the majority of members supported the proposed deletion.

IAS 28 - Partial use of fair value for measurement of associates

The Board confirmed the IFRIC's recommendation to amend IAS 28 in order to clarify that different measurement bases can be applied to portions of an investment in an associate when part of the investment is designated at initial recognition to be measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with the scope exclusion in IAS 28. One Board member questioned whether the consequences of subsequent measurement resulting from the proposed amendment have been thought through and noted that it may lead to opportunities for earnings management. Some other Board members had similar concerns but agreed that those concerns do not stem from this proposed amendment and should be addressed somewhere else.

The Board also agreed to include minor modifications to clarify that an entity first determines whether it has significant influence over an entity in accordance with the requirements of IAS 28. Only after significant influence has been evidenced does an entity measures the portion of the investment to which the scope exemption applies at fair value. The remaining interest in the associate should be accounted for using the equity method.

IAS 34 – Significant events and transactions

Without much deliberation the Board confirmed the proposed amendment to emphasise the existing disclosure requirements in IAS 34 and to add guidance to illustrate how those requirements should be applied. The Board also agreed to include an explanation in the Basis for Conclusions setting out the reasons for the removal of paragraph 18 of the current Standard dealing with disclosures required when the interim financial report only includes condensed financial statements.

Discussion at the March 2010 IFRIC Meeting

Hard-wire dates (IFRS 1)

The IFRIC discussed an exception that IFRS 1 provides from full retrospective application of the requirements for derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities in IAS 39 for transactions before 1 January 2004.

One of the IFRIC members agreed with the staff that exception was introduced to the Standard due to effective date of IAS 39 and was originally not intended as a stand-alone exception in IFRS 1. Therefore, she noted that any such exception would endanger the consistency of the transition balance sheet.

Other IFRIC members disagreed. In their view, extending the exemption, for instance, to the date of one year before the date of transition would be a practical accommodation similar to the one was applicable for Europe in 2005 and would, at the same time, avoid potential abuse. Some IFRIC members agreed that the exemption is conceptually wrong but noted that, practically, not providing it would make it very burdensome for first-time adopters, and IFRS 1 was developed to facilitate the transition.

One IFRIC member asked if the exemption was needed at all and what would be the consequences of the repeal of this exemption. Another IFRIC member suggested another approach that would recognise only assets at the date of transition (no 'stickiness').

Several IFRIC members were concerned what the answer would be under the new derecognition guidance. As such any amendment would be applicable only for entities not applying the new guidance (that is, for an interim period of two to three years).

Finally, the IFRIC agreed that more research of the issue was warranted and asked the staff to consult the derecognition project team. In addition the IFRIC agreed to consult the national standard setters on the differences with local GAAPs as well as practical experiences with application of the exemption.

Accounting for contingent consideration for business combinations that occurred prior to the date of IFRS 3(2008) for first-time adopters (IFRS 3)

The IFRIC discussed potential amendment of IFRS 3 to clarify accounting treatment for contingent consideration from a business combination that occurred before the effective date of IFRS 3(2008) for first time adopters.

Without much discussion the IFRIC agreed not to provide any additional relief to the first-time adopters in this respect as that would go against the principles of IFRS 3(2008). The IFRIC agreed that the current accounting treatment (any outstanding contingent consideration balance at transition date is a financial asset or liability recognised at fair value with corresponding adjustment to opening retained earnings) does not require use of hindsight. Therefore the IFRIC decided not to proceed with this issue in the Annual Improvements process.

Scope of IFRS 8

The IFRIC discussed a potential clarification of the applicability of IFRS 8 to entities that issue debt and equity instruments to the public, but those instruments are not traded on a 'public market'.

In a brief discussion, most of the IFRIC members agreed that the current IFRS 8 scope requirements are clear and well understood and thus there is a limited diversity in practice. Moreover, they agreed that the potential widening of the applicability of IFRS 8 to entities with public accountability is outside of scope of Annual Improvement process and should be addressed by the Board as part of the post-implementation review of IFRS 8. This reasoning was supported also by the Basis for Conclusions of the IFRS 8, which suggests that the Board planned reconsideration of applicability of IFRS 8 to other entities when the SME Standard is finalised.

'CTA' recycling in IAS 27 (revised) transactions (IAS 21)

The IFRIC held an initial discussion on whether the separate foreign currency equity reserve related to the translation of the net assets of an investor's net investment in a subsidiary (often referred to as the cumulative translation adjustment, or 'CTA') should be recycled and if so, when such recycling is appropriate. The discussion focussed on whether the recycling should apply for transaction in which there is a reduction in proportionate (relative) equity ownership in a foreign operation or in absolute interest (for example, pro-rata repayment of capital to all equity holders).

One IFRIC member noted that there are two connected issues: what is the disposal and partial disposal and what are the principles connected to recycling connected to disposal and partial disposal. In his opinion this is a broad issue that is unlikely to be an Annual Improvement project but rather an interpretation.

Another IFRIC member agreed and noted that the current practical application of the guidance would limit recycling to cases when the investor actively participated in the transaction (that is, there would be no recycling of CTA if there was a deemed disposition, e.g. because the investor's interest was diluted by a transaction in which it did not participate).

Several IFRIC members expressed their conceptual preference for the absolute interest view, but some expressed unease for developing an interpretation related to recycling, as this is a concept the Board does not support. In response, another IFRIC member noted that as the Board did not address recycling as part of the Financial Statement Presentation project, interpretation related to CTA recycling might be necessary.

Some IFRIC members, on the other hand, noted that the issue might be too broad for an Interpretation.

The IFRIC did not make any decision and will continue to consider this issue at the May IFRIC meeting.

Presentation of retirement benefit plan investments (IAS 26)

The IFRIC considered a clarification of presentation of changes in the fair value of plan assets, as in view of some constituents there is an inconsistency between IAS 26 (present those changes in the statement of changes in net assets available for benefits) and IAS 39 (present them in profit or loss or in OCI depending on classification of the assets).

The IFRIC agreed that the guidance is clear, and IAS 26 provides a complete guidance on the recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of plan assets in the financial statements of retirement benefit plans and thus classification of these assets in accordance with IAS 39 would be inappropriate.

The IFRIC disagreed with any comprehensive scope exemption of those assets from IAS 39/IAS 32 or IFRS 7 as it believed that some guidance that does not conflict with IAS 26 requirements but complements it would be useful (for example, fair value measurement).

The IFRIC thus decided not to proceed with annual improvement and publish an agenda decision.

Consistency in disclosure of total segment assets (IFRS 8 and IAS 34)

The IFRIC discussed the potential conflict between IFRS 8 and IAS 34. Some constituents read the IAS 34 requirement to provide a measure of segment assets in interim financial statements even if that amount was not provided to the chief operating decision maker.

The IFRIC members disagreed with this interpretation of IAS 34 requirements and noted that IAS 34 should be an update on a set of annual financial statements. They argued that when no measure of total assets is provided in the annual financial statement, interim financial statements need not provide an update. Nonetheless, the IFRIC agreed that wording of IAS 34 could be clarified in that respect. In addition, the IFRIC agreed to clarify the IAS 34 requirements to require an update of total assets in the interim financial statements only for those segments for which the measure of total asset change since the annual financial statements were published (and not all segments).

Discussion at the March 2010 Joint IASB Meeting

Amendments recommended for finalisation

The Board ratified the IFRIC's recommendation to finalise amendments to the following IFRSs:

• IFRS 1 – Accounting policy changes in the year of adoption
• IAS 1 – Clarification of paragraph 106(d)
• IAS 27 – Transition requirements for amendments made to IAS 21, IAS 28 and IAS 31 as a result of IAS 27 (as amended in 2008)
• IFRIC 13 – Fair value of award credit

Other issues

IFRS 3: Un-replaced and voluntarily replaced share-based payment transactions

The Board ratified the IFRIC's recommendations on finalising the proposed amendment to IFRS 3 paragraph 30, and related material in IFRS 3.B56, B62A and B62B. IFRS 3.30 will refer to 'share-based payment transactions' rather than 'share-based payment awards'. This approach was adopted to keep the alignment between IFRS and US GAAP on this issue as close as possible, while also clarifying the issue identified in the annual improvements process.

The Board also noted that the IFRIC had declined to take three further issues related to modifications (rather than replacements) of share-based payment awards; subsequent accounting for un-replaced share-based payment awards; and situations in which the replacement award has a lower value than the original market-based measure allocated to the pre-combination value. The staff assured Board members that these issues would be considered in due course either for inclusion in the next cycle of annual improvements or as part of the planned post-implementation review of IFRS 2.

IFRS 3: Measurement of non-controlling interests-Illustrative examples

The Board declined to finalise proposed illustrative examples designed to illustrate the application of IFRS 3.19. Some Board members did not think that Board time was required to agree non-authoritative illustrations. Some also disagreed with the illustrations themselves.

The staff agreed to address Board members' concerns out of session and return to the Board only if necessary.

IAS 8: Change in terminology to the qualitative characteristics

The Board ratified the IFRIC's recommendation to finalise the proposed changes to IAS 8 that would conform the terminology in the IFRS with that in the forthcoming final Chapters of the revised IASB Framework with respect to qualitative characteristics. This decision was subject to the caveat that the changes to IAS 8 should not be issued before the Chapters of the Framework are issued. The staff noted that the post-ballot draft of those Chapters would be circulated to the IASB later in March, suggesting that the Chapters could be issued by the end of March or very early April 2010.

Items to be discontinued without finalisation

IFRS 5-Loss of significant influence over an associate or loss of joint control over a joint venture

The Board agreed to discontinue and to remove from the Annual Improvements project the proposed amendment to IFRS 5: Application of IFRS 5 to loss of significant influence over an associate or loss of joint control over a jointly controlled entity. The IFRIC was concerned that clarity was needed on the application of IFRS 5 in circumstances in which a highly probable sale transaction is expected to result in the loss of significant influence or loss of joint control they considered that the issue was best addressed in the forthcoming Joint Arrangements IFRS. The staff confirmed that this was in hand.

Any problems encountered would be treated as a sweep issue.

IAS 40: Change from fair value model to the cost model.

ED 2009/11 included proposals designed to remove a potential inconsistency between IAS 40, IFRS 5, and IAS 2 when an entity determines there is a change in use of an investment property. The responses to the exposure draft demonstrated mixed views in favour of and opposed to the proposals. In addition, several respondents thought that the issue required further and more detailed analysis and/or was a more significant change than should be within the Annual Improvements project.

The Board declined to discontinue the project and referred it back to the IFRIC. The Board noted that the problem was more with IFRS 5, especially with respect to entities such as real estate investment trusts, which routinely sell buildings in their portfolio. In this situation, it was 'nonsensical' to move from a fair value model to a cost model.

Discussion at the Special 8 April 2010 IASB Meeting

The Board briefly discussed the package of decisions on the Annual Improvements Project that will be published later this month. The Board clarified a few minor issues that were raised by the staff when drafting the Amendments to IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards related to the use of deemed cost for operations subject to rate regulation. In particular, the Board agreed to require the entity to disclose the use of this deemed cost exemption, and explained in the basis for conclusion that the exemption was not conditional on the nature of the differences between previous GAAPs and IFRSs, but on the fact that the asset was subject to rate regulation and the carrying amount was determined in accordance with previous GAAP.

The Board also assessed the package of Annual Improvements against the current criteria for inclusion in Annual Improvements Project ('non urgent but necessary amendments to IFRSs'). On this basis the Board agreed with all the Amendments as agreed at the February and March meetings.

The Board also noted that it would develop a new set of criteria for inclusion in the Annual Improvements and apply them for the 2009-2011 cycle.

Discussion at the May 2010 IFRIC Meeting

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards – Repeat application of IFRS 1

The Committee considered a request to clarify whether an entity can apply IFRS 1 First-time adoption of the IFRSs more than once in a situation that an entity previously applied IFRS 1 and reported in accordance with the IFRSs in order to comply with foreign listing requirements. Subsequently, the entity delisted and no longer presented its financial statements in accordance with IFRSs, reporting only in accordance with its national GAAP. As the reporting requirements in the entity's local jurisdiction change from national GAAP to IFRS, the entity is again required to present its financial statements in accordance with IFRSs.

The members of the Committee unanimously supported the possibility to apply the IFRS 1 requirements more than once. They argued that it may be difficult to resume presenting financial statements in accordance with IFRSs after a long period of time if IFRS 1 is not applied. In their opinion, the original intend of IFRS 1 was to apply IFRS 1 if and only if the most recent financial statements were not prepared in full compliance with IFRSs. Following a brief discussion, the Committee decided to propose an amendment that would require entities in that situation to apply IFRS 1.

Nonetheless, some Committee members were concerned about possible misuse and suggested tightening of wording of any amendment to avoid structuring. Some Committee members even suggested removing the reference to 'First-time adoption' and rather referring to 'Adoption of IFRSs'. Nonetheless, such a move was perceived being a too big change that would not be in scope of annual improvement process.

Some Committee members were concerned with the guidance provided in the IFRS for SMEs and suggested that the guidance in the IFRS for SMEs shall be amended. The Chairman noted that the Committee has no power to interpret IFRS for SMEs.

IFRS 1/IFRS 9 (erecognition Chapter): Fixed Date in the Derecognition Exemption

The IFRIC continued its discussion of an exception that IFRS 1. provides from full retrospective application of the requirements for derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities in IAS 39 for transactions before 1 January 2004. The issue was discussed initially in March 2010.

The Committee had great sympathy to move to a 'relative date' approach in IFRS 1, rather than the fixed date of 1 January 2004, such that IFRS 1 would refer to 'date of transition to IFRS'. However, it was acknowledged that it was unlikely that the change could be implemented in time for those entities adopting IFRS in 2010.

On a related matter, the Committee discussed whether a similar accommodation should be made to IFRS 1.D20 (Fair value measurement of financial assets or financial liabilities at initial recognition /'day 1 differences'), which permits entities to apply prospectively the provisions of AG76 and AG76A of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for transactions entered into after 25 October 2002, or 1 January 2004.

There was considerable disquiet about moving to a 'relative date' for such transactions-the Committee would be inviting structuring of transactions in anticipation of the move to IFRS in situations in which predecessor GAAP provided a 'more advantageous' financial reporting result. In addition, the Committee did not think it appropriate to write financial reporting standards in anticipation of an uncertain future event.

The Committee stressed that it and the IASB's derecognition team had to come to the same answer, and noted that the derecognition team was not in a position to inform the Committee on their position yet. The Committee did not conclude on this issue and will await developments in the derecognition phase of the IASB's financial instruments project.

IAS 1: Comparative Information

The Committee re-discussed the issue of comparative information from the March meeting. The staff clarified that the Board at the March meeting decided to amend the exposure draft on Financial Statement Presentation (expected to be published later in May) to provide relief from the requirements that were seen as too onerous (for details please refer to the IAS Plus notes from the IASB meeting held on March 11, 2010).

After a brief discussion the IFRIC decided to propose the same amendments to IAS 1 as part of the annual improvement process based on the wording proposed by the Board in the Financial Statement Presentation project.

IAS 1: Going Concern Disclosure

The Committee considered a request a request on whether the disclosures required by IAS 1 Financial Statement Presentation on 'material uncertainties related to events or conditions that may cast a significant doubt upon the entity's ability to continue as a going concern' should be enhanced.

Committee members, especially those in public practice, noted that subtle differences in the manner in which similar requirements in International Auditing Standards and IFRSs were expressed had the potential for disclosures considered necessary by the auditor might be omitted by management yet the financial statements could still claim compliance with IFRSs.

In a short debate, the Committee noted the auditors' predicament, but thought that the principles in IAS 1 in general, and the requirements of IAS 1.25 in particular were sufficiently clear and that an Interpretation was not necessary, nor was this a topic that should be referred to the IASB for inclusion in the 2009-2011 cycle of Annual Improvements. A tentative Agenda Decision will be published in the forthcoming IFRIC Update.

IAS 16: Clarification on Classification of Servicing Equipment as Inventory or Property, Plant, and Equipment

The Committee considered a request for improvement of IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) with respect to servicing equipment and classification as PP&E or inventory. The constituent referring the issue to the IASB had observed that of IAS 16.8 is unclear with respect to the classification of servicing equipment as PP&E or inventory. The confusion arises from a perceived contradiction in the way servicing equipment is addressed in the paragraph.

After a short debate, the Committee agreed to propose an Annual Improvement amendment to IAS 16.8 to state that 'major spare parts, stand-by equipment and servicing equipment' qualify as PP&E when they are expected to be used during more than one annual period. The amendment will also propose deleting the last sentence of the same paragraph.

IAS 23: Capitalisation of Borrowing Costs and First-time Adoption

The Committee discussed a request to clarify the interaction of IAS 23 Borrowing costs and IFRS 1 First-time adoption of IFRSs with respect to the borrowing costs that were capitalised in accordance with previous GAAP (when the previous GAAP was inconsistent with the IFRSs). The issue results from the revision of IAS 23 effective from 1 January 2009 that removed the option of expensing borrowing costs.

After a brief discussion the Committee decided to propose a clarification of IAS 23 that would allow grandfathering of the borrowing costs capitalised in accordance with the previous GAAP in the opening statement of financial position prepared in accordance with the IFRSs. The Committee also proposed to clarify the transition requirement for first time adopters and suggested that requirements IAS 23 should be applied after transition, regardless of the date capitalisation started.

Some Committee members suggested that first-time adopters should apply the requirements of their previous national GAAP also after transition when they started capitalisation before the date of transition. This proposal did not receive significant support as the Committee was concerned about comparability and consistency of the first IFRS financial statements.

IAS 32: Clarification of the Puttable Instruments Criteria for Income Trust Units

The Committee considered a request for clarification on guidance relating to the classification of puttable financial instruments (puts) that include contractual obligations to provide pro rata distributions. The request observed such obligations were often included within the terms of income trust units that are redeemable on demand by the holder. The obligation is frequently to distribute cash or additional trust units with a value equivalent to taxable income.

After a short debate the Committee agreed that this issue fell within the IASB's project on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity, the exposure draft of which was due in May or early June 2010, with an expected implementation date of the final IFRS being 1 January 2012,

The Committee agreed with the staff recommendation that this not be added to the 2009-2011 cycle of Annual Improvements, subject to the agreement of the IASB.

IAS 40: Transfers from Investment Property

The Committee discussed the issue resulting from the annual improvements cycle 2008-2010 related to classification and measurement of an investment property when the management intends to sell the asset. At the March meeting, the Committee recommended the Board not to finalise the proposed amendment. The Board, at the March meeting discussed the issue and decided to refer the issue back to Committee for further deliberations as it believed the clarification was needed to address the issues identified. The committee will start deliberating the issue at its July meeting.

Discussion at the May 2010 IASB Meeting

Revised criteria for annual improvements

Based on the request from the Trustees, the Board considered revised criteria for the annual improvements process different from the current definition of 'non-urgent but necessary amendments to IFRSs'.

The suggested criteria would emphasise the fact that the annual improvements should neither change existing principles, nor introduce new ones, but should clarify the wording or address apparent conflicts. Some Board members expressed their concerns that such wording would not encompass possible exceptions to the current principles.

Some Board members questioned whether conflict between principles should be addressed by the Interpretations committee (as an Interpretation) or should warrant a separate project.

Several Board members suggested that the criteria for annual improvements should be considered together with the criteria for the Interpretations Committee agenda decisions so that these criteria are consistent. Other Board members warned against being too prescriptive in defining the details. In general the Board agreed that the Annual Improvements should be very narrow amendments and broader amendments have to warrant a separate Board project.

Discussion at the July 2010 IFRIC Meeting

Annual Improvements—Re-grouping and consistency of contingent consideration guidance

The Committee reviewed a staff analysis that highlighted inconsistencies and potential conflicts between the IFRS 3 requirements on accounting for contingent consideration and other applicable IFRSs, and recommended that these inconsistencies be removed by deleting references to other IFRSs from the guidance on accounting for contingent consideration within IFRS 3.

Many Committee members supported the staff conclusions that it was desirable to remove inconsistencies and conflicts around contingent consideration and that IFRS 3 was the most logical place in which to house all the requirements. Those supporting the proposals thought that they were consistent with the intention of the IASB when it revised IFRS 3. However, some were concerned that the proposed changes could be more significant than would be within the scope of an 'Improvement'.

A Committee member was concerned that the transition requirement was potentially troublesome as drafted and asked the staff to clarify what 'prospective' meant in this circumstance (i.e. business combination transactions involving contingent consideration or contingent consideration re-measurements).

Accepting the need for this clarification, the Chairman asked whether there was consensus that an Improvement to IFRS 3 should be proposed removing references to other IFRSs in IFRS 3 paragraph 58 and improving clarity in paragraph 40. The staff would map the changes against the Improvements Project criteria and report their findings to the Committee and the Board.

The Committee agreed to this approach (one member opposed).

IFRS 1 – Fixed Date in Derecognition Exception

At its May meeting, the Committee decided to delay the finalisation of the request to replace the fixed date of 1 January 2004 in IFRS 1.B2 with a more relevant date, pending the transition requirements specified in the exposure draft on Derecognition to be issued by the Board.  Following the revised work plan issued by the Board and the decision not to issue an exposure draft on derecognition in the near future, the Board referred to matter back to the Committee for reconsideration.

Without much discussion on the matter, the Committee agreed with the staff recommendation to replace the fixed date with the phrase “date of transition to IFRSs”.  The Committee also agreed with the proposal to recommend to the Board that the amendment to IFRS 1 not being done as part of the Annual Improvement Process, but rather as a separate amendment to IFRS 1 as this will result in a more expedient solution to those jurisdictions planning to adopt IFRSs in the near future.

IAS 28: Purchases in stages—fair value as deemed cost

The Committee debated the issue of how to account for changes from available for sale (AFS) category to equity method for an associate purchased by stages. A question had been raised about how to account for an investment in an associate when the investment was purchased in more than one step. IAS 28 is silent on the accounting for an investment in an associate purchased in stages.

The Committee agreed that at the time the investment changes its nature from AFS to Associate should trigger a disposal of the AFS investment, with gains or losses reclassified from other comprehensive income to profit or loss and that the fair value of the total holding establishes the initial carrying amount for equity accounting purposes. This was thought to be consistent with the step acquisition principles in IFRS 3. However, a significant proportion of the Committee was concerned that such an amendment would represent a significant change in principle to IAS 28, one that was beyond the scope of the Improvements Project.

The Committee agreed to refer this issue to the IASB together with its recommendations.

IAS 29 – Reporting in Accordance with IAS 29 after a Period of Chronic Hyperinflation

Issues related to the preparation of the separate financial statements of an entity with a functional currency that is no longer the currency of a hyperinflationary economy

The Committee reached a tentative conclusion at the meeting in May that IAS 29 should be amended to provide guidance on how an entity shall prepare and present an opening statement of financial position at the date when the entity's functional currency ceases to be a currency that is suffering from chronic hyperinflation.

The Committee presented the proposed amendments to IAS 29 presented by the staff. There were broad support in following the IFRS 3 methodology when initially recognising assets and liabilities on the start-up basis, however a couple of Committee members supported using the IFRS 1 methodology instead. Following the short deliberation of the matter, the majority of Committee members agreed to follow an IFRS 3 methodology.

Several Committee members noted that although this would be the preferred methodology to follow, it does raise quite a few questions on matters such as intangible assets (including goodwill) and leases.

Some Committee members supported recognising these at fair value at the date that the new accounting basis is applied, whereas others were supportive of allowing some practical expedients to fair value accounting for such items.

The Committee agreed that since IFRS 3 already includes some exceptions to fair value, any amendment to IAS 29 should refer to these instead of listing every instance where it may not be appropriate to apply full fair value accounting. It was also agreed to create an exception to limit the recognition of goodwill and other intangible assets to those that would have been recognised under IAS 38.

No objections were raised on the proposed wording of IAS 29 and the Committee approved the wording of the tentative agenda decision to be issued.

Issues related to the preparation and presentation of consolidated financial statements of a parent with an interest in an entity that ceases to have a functional currency that is the currency of a hyperinflationary economy

The Committee discussed a number of situations addressing the preparation by the parent of consolidated financial statements that include an interest in an entity with a functional currency that has just ceased to be that of a hyperinflationary economy.  The agenda papers were prepared on the basis of whether the parent could or should apply IFRS 1 to its interest.

A majority of the Committee disagreed with the staff assessment, instead preferring an analogy to IAS 27, under which the parent would regard the entity emerging from hyperinflation as a new entity. In essence, the parent would 'dispose' of the existing interest in the entity at its carrying amount when it could no longer prepare IFRS-compliant financial statements and 'acquire' a new entity at the date IFRS-compliant financial statements could once again be prepared.

The Committee developed this approach, noting that it was similar to that for an acquisition under IFRS 3, except that the parent would be determining the fair value of the assets and liabilities in the entity rather than the fair value of the business.

The Committee agreed that any gain or loss arising as a result of this exercise would be recognised in profit or loss.

IAS 40 – Transfers from Investment Property

At the request of the IASB, the Committee discussed a number of issues related to the amendment to IAS 40 paragraphs 57-60, proposed in Exposure Draft ED/2009/11 Improvements to IFRS. The proposed amendments were (in summary):

• (a)  Removing the requirement to transfer investment properties to IAS 2 Inventories at the commencement of development with a view to sale;
• (b)  That investment properties held for sale should be displayed as a separate category in the statement of financial position; and
• (c)  That investment properties held for sale should be subject to the same disclosures as non-financial assets held for sale in accordance with IFRS 5.

In March 2010, the comment letter analysis of respondents to the proposed changes highlighted the confusing array of interactions between IAS 40 and other IFRSs and the Committee recommended that the proposed amendment was not finalised. The staff noted that the IASB had asked the Committee to revisit the issue, noting that developments in IFRS since the Exposure Draft had clarified many of the conflicting interactions noted by constituents.

Recognition

With little discussion after the staff introduction, the Committee agreed that the transfer to inventories required by IAS 40 is retained and that recognition of investment properties in accordance with different IFRSs, depending on intended use and stage of development, should continue as at present.

Measurement of investment properties

As a result of changes to the proposals in the IASB's Fair Value Measurement Guidance project, investment properties would be measured at fair value less costs to sell, consistent with other IFRS 5 assets. There was no issue for the Committee to address. The Committee agreed.

Investment properties held for sale displayed as a separate asset category

The Committee agreed that investment properties held for sale that do not satisfy the criteria of IFRS 5 should not be displayed as a separate asset category (this is contrary to the proposal in ED/2009/11).

Next steps

The Committee agreed that no further activities were necessary because the IASB's actions in other standard-setting projects had addressed other concerns raised by constituents. The Committee would recommend that the Board not do anything further.

Discussion at the July 2010 IASB Meeting

IFRS 1 - Clarification of borrowing costs exemption

The Board was presented with a recommendation from the IFRS Interpretations Committee with regards to a perceived lack of guidance in paragraph D23 of IFRS 1 with respect to the accounting for borrowing costs capitalised in accordance with previous GAAP for completed and under-construction projects at the date of transition.

The staff explained that there is current divergence in practice as to whether borrowing costs capitalised under previous GAAP should be eliminated or retained (grandfathered) at the date of transition. Furthermore, for qualifying assets under construction at the date of transition and for which the commencement date for capitalisation is before the transition date, there are divergence as to whether subsequent borrowing costs incurred should be capitalised under IAS 23 or remain accounted for in accordance with previous GAAP.

The Board unanimously agreed to include additional guidance in IFRS 1 through the annual improvement process to clarify that capitalised borrowing costs should be retained at the date of transition and that borrowing costs incurred after the date of transition should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 23.

A Board member questioned whether the Board will be opening itself to numerous other requests for the grandfathering of previous GAAP accounting in situations where the requirements are different to IFRSs. The Chairman responded that the amendment will be limited to this specific situation and that the Board will not be opening the floodgates for other assets as well.

Another Board member noted that the proposed amendment will also be of benefit to those jurisdictions that are transitioning to IFRSs in the near future and whether the amendment should be included as part of the separate exposure draft on amendments to IFRS 1 discussed earlier. The Chairman responded that although the final amendments following from the Annual Improvements ED will only be published towards May 2011, the effective date for this amendment can be backdated to annual periods starting on 1 January 2011. In that way the amendment can still be applied by jurisdictions that adopted IFRSs on 1 January 2011.

IAS 16 - Clarification of accounting for servicing equipment

The Board was asked to consider an apparent inconsistency in paragraph 8 of IAS 16 which states that spare parts and servicing equipment are usually carried as inventory but that major spare parts and stand-by equipment qualify as property, plant and equipment when they are expected to be used during more than one period. The matter was recommended as an annual improvement by the Committee.

The Board unanimously agreed that servicing equipment qualify as PP&E when used during more than one period, otherwise it should be classified as inventory. The Board also agreed to delete the requirement that spare parts and servicing equipment used only in connection with an item of PP&E be classified as such.

The Board considered the proposed amendments to IAS 16 presented by the staff and deliberated whether the make some editorial changes to ensure the proposed wording bring across the Board's intention. The Board finally accepted the proposed wording, subject to replacing the term 'usually' with 'often' in the proposed amended paragraph 8 of IAS 16.

IAS 32 – Tax effect of distributions to holders of equity instruments

The Board considered a conflict between IAS 12 and IAS 32 in respect of accounting for income tax consequences of distributions to holders of equity instruments, recommended as an annual improvement by the Committee.

The Board unanimously agreed to amend IAS 32 through the annual improvements process to require accounting for income tax in accordance with IAS 12 instead of addressing the specific accounting treatment on equity transactions within IAS 32 itself. A Board member pointed out that IAS 32 currently refers to 'distributions' whereas IAS 12 refers to 'dividends' and questioned whether the proposed amendment may have some unintended consequences in jurisdictions where not all distributions are treated as dividends. The Chairman clarified that all the proposed amendment will do is to clarify that users should refer to IAS 12 instead of IAS 32 for the tax treatment of distributions. The staff was asked to make sure that there are no unintended consequences while finalising the exposure draft.

IFRS 8 and IAS 34 - Consistency in disclosure of total segment assets

The Board considered a proposal to clarify the disclosure of total segment assets in the interim financial statements prepared in accordance with IAS 34. IFRS 8 was amended in April 2009 to only require disclosure of total segment assets when regularly provided to the chief operating decision maker, however no consequential amendments were made to IAS 34. The Committee recommended the matter to the Board to be clarified as an amendment to IAS 34 through the annual improvement process.

A few Board members noted that an amendment to IAS 34 is not required as IAS 34 only requires disclosure of material changes to information that has been previously disclosed. As total segment assets would not have previously disclosed where it is not regularly reported to the chief operating decision maker, nothing would need to be disclosed in accordance with IAS 34. However, the Board unanimously agreed to amend IAS 34 as part of the annual improvement process.

Issues recommended by the Committee not to lead to amendments within the scope of the Annual Improvements process

The Board considered the following three issues recommended not to lead to amendments by the Committee:

• IFRS 3 - Contingent consideration and first-time adoption;
• IFRS 8 - Determination of scope; and
• IAS 32 - Clarification of the puttable instruments criteria for income trust units

The Board confirmed that contingent consideration existing on first-time adoption should continue to be accounted for under IFRS 3 (2004) and that no amendment to IFRS 3 is required.

The Board confirmed the Committee's recommendation that matters regarding the scope of IFRS 8 should be addressed as part of the post-implementation review of IFRS 8 and that no amendments to IFRS 8 should be made during this annual improvement cycle.

The Board unanimously confirmed the Committee's recommendation not to amend IAS 32 as part of the annual improvement process as the requested exception to the definition of a financial liability is outside the scope of the annual improvements and that many of the arguments supporting the application of the fixed for fixed condition also apply in considering this request.

The Board discussed the IFRS Interpretations Committee's request to consider clarifying how an entity should resume presenting financial statements in accordance with IFRSs after a period of severe hyperinflation, during which it had been unable to comply with IAS 29.

The request identifies an entity whose functional currency is that of a hyperinflationary economy and the entity is unable to comply with IAS 29 and prepare IFRS financial statements, because the general price index relating to the entity's functional currency is unavailable, and the functional currency lacks exchangeability. Once an economy ceases to be severely hyperinflationary, the question has been raised of 1) how the entity resumes preparing IFRS financial statements and 2) how the parent of a subsidiary in the above scenario would account for its involvement with the subsidiary. This issue is particularly relevant for those entities based in Zimbabwe or parents with subsidiaries based in Zimbabwe. The Committee recommended the Board to make amendments to IAS 29 as well as other standards including IFRS 1.

While the Board recognised the significance of the issue, they felt that they could not address the issue sufficiently with a complete review of IAS 29 under the time frame needed. The Board asked the staff to reach out to the South African Institute as well as groups in Mexico and Argentina who have been analyzing potential issues with regards to IAS 29 to discuss how best to move forward.

Discussion at the September 2010 IASB Meeting

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements: Comparatives in financial statements

The Board discussed the recommendation of the IFRS Interpretation Committee to include in the Annual Improvements Project an issue to clarify the requirements for comparative information when an entity provides individual financial statements beyond the minimum comparative information.

Without significant discussion the Board agreed that required comparative information in paragraphs 38 to 40 of IAS 1 is part of a complete set of financial statements and decided to make clear the minimum requirements for comparative information. The Board also agreed to clarify the requirements for comparative information when there is a change in an accounting policy, a retrospective restatement or a reclassification.

These changes are consistent with the staff draft of the Financial Statements Presentation project that was published earlier in the year.

The Board considered the proposed change to the Annual Improvements Criteria and agreed to include the proposal in the Exposure Draft Improvements to IFRSs which will be published later in the year.

Discussion at the October 2010 IASB Meeting

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of IFRSs – Repeat application of IFRS 1

The Board discussed the recommendation of the IFRS Interpretation Committee to include in the Annual Improvements Project an issue to clarify whether an entity can apply IFRS 1 more than once. (e.g. in a situation when the entity applied IFRSs as a listed company but was then de-listed from the stock exchange and was required to apply national GAAP. After certain period the local jurisdiction changes national GAAP to IFRSs.)

The Board considered the IFRS Interpretation Committee recommendation that proposed clarification that an entity is required to apply IFRS 1 each time it prepares and presents financial statements that meet definition of its first IFRS financial statements (i.e. when the entity's most recent previous financial statements do not contain an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRSs), even if the entity has applied IFRS 1 in the past.

Some Board members were uncomfortable with the proposal as they noted that aim of IFRS 1 was to provide relief to facilitate IFRS 1 adoption with a set of optional and required exemptions and therefore it should be applied only once.

Another Board member noted that the reference to statement of unreserved compliance was not helpful (e.g. in case of European carve-out, if the carve-out ended, that would require applying IFRS 1 for all companies). Nonetheless, the staff noted that this is already the requirement of IFRS 1 and the amendment only clarifies unclear requirements rather than changes practice.

Some Board members noted that they could agree with the proposal if the period between the last application of IFRS and the re-applying IFRS 1 is sufficiently long.

Finally, the Board narrowly (by 9 votes) agreed to publish this proposal in the forthcoming exposure draft.

The Board considered the proposed change against current Annual Improvements Criteria and agreed to include the proposal in the Exposure Draft Improvements to IFRSs which will be published later in the year.

IFRS 3 Business Combinations – Regrouping and consistency of contingent consideration guidance

The Board discussed the recommendation of the IFRS Interpretation Committee to include in the Annual Improvements Project an issue to amend the guidance on contingent consideration and to present it within one standard.

The Board considered the IFRS Interpretation Committee recommendation to clarify that contingent consideration that is a financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 is not in the scope of IAS 39 or IFRS 9. The IFRS Interpretation Committee also proposed that all contingent consideration shall be measured at fair value at each reporting date, with any resulting gain or loss recognised in profit or loss.

The Board was uncomfortable with the proposal. One Board member questioned whether the proposal leads to convergence with US GAAP, given that IFRS 3 was developed together with the FASB with the aim to achieve convergence. The staff agreed to further investigate the impact of the proposal on convergence.

Several Board members were concerned with the proposal as they noted that the proposal would lead to fair valuing liabilities that are currently in scope of IAS 37. These Board members noted that this amendment raises questions about the broader issues of liability measurement and could potentially change current practice and thus it was in their view inappropriate to address this issue within Annual Improvement Project. The staff responded that the proposal only tries to address inconsistent wording within IFRS 3 rather than addressing broader issues.

Another Board member asked about the consistency of contingent consideration guidance between IFRS 3 and the proposed revenue recognition guidance. The staff will investigate the issue.

Finally, some Board members expressed concerns about the issue of own credit in contingent consideration measured at fair value. The staff noted that the own credit issue is pervasive and relates to the principle in IFRS 3 as such when fair value is applied.

The Board asked the staff to perform additional research to address the current practice, consistency with US GAAP and proposed revenue recognition guidance.

The Board also considered the proposed change against current Annual Improvements Criteria and noted that it needs to consider whether the issue is best addressed by annual improvements project or by post-implementation review of IFRS 3. The Board will revisit this issue at a later meeting.

IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures – Key management personnel

The Board discussed the recommendation of the IFRS Interpretation Committee to include in the Annual Improvements Project an issue to clarify the required disclosures in accordance with IAS 24 in cases where reporting entity hires key management services from a separate management entity (e.g. in case of mutual funds who hire a separate management entity rather than management personnel).

The Board discussed modification of the definition of a related party to include among related parties the entity or members of its group that provides key management personnel services to the reporting entity and clarification whether the employees of the entity that provides these services, are key management personnel for the purposes of IAS 24.

Several Board members expressed concerns over these proposals as they considered potential unintended consequences on consolidation guidance. The staff noted that the fact that the management entity is identified as related party would not necessarily lead to consolidation (but rather it would depend on the agent or principal relationship and the nature of the benefits earned from the management relationship).

Other Board members questioned whether change in definition of related party fulfils the annual improvements criteria. The staff noted that the objective of the amendment is clarification of the inconsistency and change of definition is only a way how to achieve the objective.

Some Board members were also concerned by the number of related parties created by this changed definition. The staff clarified that the management entity is identified as a related party only if it provides key management services as defined by IAS 24 rather than by virtue of being a management entity.

As the Board was split on this issue, it asked the staff to bring the issue back and to provide examples that would clarify the proposals and consider potential unintended consequences.

Annual improvements - criteria

The Board considered the package of decisions (those annual improvements already agreed, i.e. IAS 1 – Clarification of borrowing costs exemption, IAS 1 – Comparative information, IAS 16 – Classification of servicing equipment, IAS 32 – Income tax consequences of distributions, IAS 34 – Segment information for total assets and IFRS 1 – Repeat application of IFRS 1) against the set of the proposed annual improvements criteria.

Without much discussion the Board agreed with the assessment against the annual improvements criteria and directed the staff to proceed to the balloting phase. The Board agreed to expose the proposal with a 90 days comment period. The staff is expecting to publish the Exposure Draft within a month.

IAS 40 – Transfers from Investment Property

This issue originated during the 2009 Annual Improvements process when concerns were raised about the changes in measurement bases from transferring investment property from one asset category to another. The 2009 Annual Improvements proposed

• removing the requirement to transfer investment properties to IAS 2 at the commencement of development with a view to sale
• investment properties held for sale should be displayed as a separate category in the balance sheet
• investment properties held for sale should be subject to the same disclosures as non-financial assets held for sale in accordance with IFRS 5.

However, the comment letter analysis highlighted several issues in the interaction between IAS 40 and other IFRS.

Based on the comment letter responses, the IFRS Interpretations Committee recommended not finalising the proposals. During the May 2010 Board meeting, the Board asked the IFRS Interpretations Committee to reconsider the issue. After additional consideration the IFRS Interpretations Committee recommends that the transfers to inventories required by IAS 40 be retained and continue the present recognition and measurement of investment properties under other IFRSs, depending on the intended use and stage of development. The Board agreed with the recommendation of the IFRS Interpretations Committee.

Annual improvements – issues not to be addressed

During the September 2010 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting, certain issues were reviewed for potential resolution through the Annual Improvements process.

The IFRS Interpretations Committee tentatively decided not to address two issues through the Annual Improvements process:

• The first issue related to IAS 1 regarding encouraged versus required disclosures which was not addressed primarily because current Board projects are proposing the inclusion of disclosure principles in IFRSs
• The second issue related to IAS 21 and repayments of investments and foreign currency translation reserves. The IFRS Interpretations Committee could not reach a consensus view on this issue.

The Board agreed with the IFRS Interpretations Committee's decision not to address these issues through the Annual Improvements process.

Discussion at the January 2011 IASB Meeting

Amendments to Due Process Handbook

The staff raised a number of issues with the Board related to the IFRS Foundation's proposals for amendments to the IASB's Due Process Handbook. The staff discussed the feedback received through comment letters on the Consultation Document with the IFRS Interpretations Committee during their January 2011 meeting.

During this meeting the staff brought various proposed changes to the Due Process Handbook, and when the staff's view differed from that of the Committee, the staff brought both proposals to the Board for consideration.

The comments primarily focused on the guidance in paragraph 65 of the proposal related to the criteria necessary to be met in order to qualify for inclusion in annual improvements. While considering the comments received, the Board has tentatively agreed on the following:

• to eliminate language that suggested annual improvements could create an exception from an existing IFRS principal,
• to change the proposed wording from "there must be a pressing need to make the amendment" and instead provide language that the IASB will consider if annual improvements are the appropriate process or whether amending through another project would be a "quicker or more efficient" method,
• to retain the language in paragraph 65(a)(ii); one respondent had requested clarification of "resolving a conflict" and "addressing an oversight" as they felt this could be beyond the scope of the annual improvements process,
• to not provide further clarification on the language in paragraph 65B related to the Board's assessment of annual improvements against the criteria before the exposure for public comment,
• to amend the proposed language in paragraph 65A(b) on the proposed amendment being narrowly focused to now read "the proposed amendment is well-defined and sufficiently narrow in scope such that the consequences of the proposed change have been considered", and
• to retain the language in paragraph 65A(c) on the inability to reach a timely conclusion may be indicative of an issue that cannot be addressed through the annual improvements process.

The Board also tentatively agreed to provide further distinction between an annual improvement and an interpretation by providing more detailed language around the objectives of the annual improvements process. The Board also tentatively agreed to provide a single set of qualifying criteria for assessing an issue for inclusion as an annual improvement or as interpretive guidance.

Amendments to IAS 1 to reflect the Conceptual Framework

With the issuance of the Conceptual Framework in September 2010, there are portions of IAS 1 that are based on superseded guidance from the Framework. The first issue relates to the objective of financial reporting as the Conceptual Framework describes while IAS 1 discusses the objective of financial statements. The Board tentatively agreed to amend IAS 1 to reflect that the objective of financial statements should be replaced with the objective of financial reporting. The second issue relates to the definition of understandability in IAS 1. The Board tentatively agreed updating the definition of understandability in IAS 1 to be consistent with the definition included in the Conceptual Framework.

Discussion at the May 2011 IASB Meeting

In October 2010 the proposed annual improvements were assessed against the proposed enhanced criteria for the annual improvement processed, before those had been approved by the Trustees. This was done because the ED was initially planned to be published in November 2011. Since the publication of the ED was delayed from November 2010 to April 2011, the proposed annual improvements can now be assessed against the finalised criteria approved by the Trustees in February 2011.

The IASB staff eplained that the new assessment has not led to any new results. The IASB agreed.

Also, in January 2011 the IASB tentatively decided to include an additional proposed amendment, dealing with enhanced consistency between IAS 1 and the Conceptual Framework, into the ED for the 2009-2011 cycle of annual improvements. This decision was confirmed.

22 June 2011: IASB publishes proposals for amendments under its annual improvements project

The IASB uses the annual improvements project to make necessary, but non-urgent, amendments to IFRSs that will not be included as part of another major project. The ED proposes that all of the amendments will be effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013, although entities shall be permitted to adopt them earlier. Click for IASB Press Release (link to IASB website).

You can access the ED via the the 'Comment on a proposal' page on the IASB's website. The IASB requests comments on the ED by 21 October 2011.

Discussion at the January 2012 IFRS Interpretations Committee Meeting

The Committee met to redeliberate and decide on the Committee's revised recommendations on the Improvements to International Financial Reporting Standards (ED).

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards — Repeated application of IFRS 1

The ED includes the Board's proposal for an amendment to clarify that an entity is required to apply IFRS 1 First time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards when the entity's most recent previous annual financial statements do not contain an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRSs, even if the entity has already applied IFRS 1 in a previous reporting period.

The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that a majority of the respondents broadly agreed with the proposed amendment to IFRS 1 but some respondents noted that the Board should also require entities to disclose the reason for ceasing to report under IFRS; and the reason for re-adoption (issue 1). Some respondents also noted that an entity that prepares its first IFRS financial statements, even if the entity has previously applied IFRS 1, should be allowed to apply IFRSs retrospectively in its first financial statements (issue 2). They also noted that the repeated application of IFRS 1 is inappropriate where such an entity is unable to express an unreserved statement of full compliance with IFRSs only because an endorsement body is late in ratifying an IFRS during its endorsement process (issue 3). These respondents also noted that when an entity applies IFRSs in its financial statements, but intentionally or unintentionally does not include an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRSs, an entity should not be required to apply IFRS 1 (issue 4).

In relation to issue 1, the staff noted while there was limited risk of an entity's potential abuse of the exemptions and exceptions provided by IFRS 1, this suggested disclosure would provide useful information. The staff's recommendation on issue 2 was that an entity should be allowed rather than required to apply IFRS 1 (if they have previously applied IFRS 1). The staff did not agree with the respondents view in issue 3 and therefore did not recommend a revision in the proposed wording on the basis that it is rare that such a scenario could occur. The staff's view was that contrary to issue 4, it was unlikely that such a situation would occur but that if such on omission occurred, this would be considered an error. The staff did not recommend revisions to the proposed amendment.

The Committee tentatively decided that an entity could adopt IFRS 1 more than once. Some Committee members expressed concern that the proposed amendment appeared to provide options to an entity and that some entities may chose to apply IFRS 1 retrospectively through comparatives whereas some entities may publish revised financial statements. Some Committee members expressed concerns with having multiple sets of financial statements out in the market as well the potential tax impact. The Committee tentatively agreed to inform the Board of the Committee's concerns around the issue of providing options to entities and the relative preferences of the various Committee members.

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards — Borrowing costs relating to qualifying assets for which the commencement date for capitalisation is before the date of transition to IFRSs

The ED includes the Board's proposal for an amendment to the exemption for borrowing costs in IFRS 1 that would clarify the transitional provisions that a first-time adopter may apply to account for borrowing costs for which the commencement date for capitalisation is before the date of transition to IFRSs.

The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that the majority of the respondents agreed in principle with the proposal but noted that some respondents felt that the drafting was not sufficiently clear. Their concerns centred on the requirements for first-time adopters appearing to be stricter than current guidance.

The Committee tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendations to recommend to the Board to proceed with the proposed amendment by adding some further changes that would make the proposed amendment clearer. The Committee tentatively agreed to modify the proposed wording to delete a reference to paragraph 27 of IAS 23 Borrowing Costs that might cause confusion, and clarify that a first time adopter should account for borrowing costs for qualifying assets for the commencement of construction or after the date of transition in accordance with IAS 23. The Committee asked the staff to make some drafting changes to the proposed wording.

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements — Clarification of the requirements for comparative information

The ED includes the Board's proposal for an amendment to: (a) clarify the requirements for providing comparative information when an entity provides financial statements beyond the minimum comparative information requirements; and (b) address two aspects of the requirement in specific cases where an entity changes accounting policies, or make retrospective restatements or reclassifications. The proposed changes are that: (i) the opening statement of financial position should be presented as at the beginning of the required comparative period; and that (ii) related notes are not required to accompany this opening statement of financial position.

The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that most respondents supported the intention behind the amendment but there were concerns that some of the new terms used in the proposed amendment should be defined in the list of defined terms in paragraph 7 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements (issue 1). The staff suggested replacing the terms 'required comparative period' with explaining what was required in the respective paragraphs and clarifying that 'additional information' is information provided in addition to the minimum comparative requirements in paragraphs 38 and 38A.

There were also concerns by respondents that the Board should review its proposals for presenting additional comparative information in paragraphs 40A-40C and in paragraph 38B because they seemed inconsistent in that the requirements for providing voluntary additional comparative information in paragraph 38B appeared to give rise to a requirement to present related information in the notes (i.e. more information) whereas the requirements for providing mandatory additional comparative information in paragraphs 40A-40C do not give rise to a requirement to provide related information in the notes for the opening statement of financial position (issue 2). The staff noted that the Board's rationale for requiring related notes for selected additional information in paragraph 38B was different from its rationale for not requiring related information in the notes for an opening statement of financial position in proposed paragraph 40C (i.e. to provide relief to avoid repetition of information that is available in previous financial statements). The staff recommended that paragraph 38B should clarify the meaning of 'additional comparative information' (i.e. comparative information in addition or in excess to the minimum comparative information required by the IFRSs) and that the Basis for Conclusions should note that this could include voluntary information or information required by law or other regulations and that requiring related notes would present financial statements that achieve a fair presentation.

The staff agreed with some respondents' suggestion that the proposed paragraph 40A be amended such that the presentation of a third statement of financial position at the beginning of the preceding period only applies when the change in accounting policy, the correction of an error or the reclassification of items in the financial statements has a material effect upon the statement of financial position (issue 3).

Some respondents also noted that the Board should assess the interaction of the proposed requirements for comparative information with the requirements in some other standards (issue 4). The staff recommended that the requirement in paragraph 21 of IFRS 1 to present three statements of financial position and related notes be retained and not be cross-referenced to IAS 1 to avoid confusion.

The Committee tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendation to recommend to the Board to proceed with the proposed amendment by adding some further changes that would make the proposed amendment clearer. However, the Committee recommended the staff make drafting changes to the proposed amendment and Basis for Conclusions. The Committee also agreed to communicate to the Board that several Committee members had expressed concerns over the inclusion of the word 'materiality' within the proposed paragraph 40C.

IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment — Classification of servicing equipment

The ED includes the Board's proposal to amend paragraph 8 of IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment to clarify that servicing equipment should be classified as property, plant and equipment (PP&E) when it is used during more than one period and as inventory otherwise.

The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that the majority of the respondents broadly agreed with the proposed amendment but some raised comments that further clarification would be needed around the difference between spare parts and major spare parts, the definition of the term 'period', and some respondents disagreed with the full retrospective application of the proposed amendment. The staff recommended that the Committee should recommend to the Board that it should clarify that items such as spare parts, stand-by equipment and servicing equipment qualify as PP&E when they meet the definition of PP&E. However, the staff noted that a clarification of the definition of the term 'period' is outside the scope of the proposed amendment but proposed a simplification of the wording in the proposed amendment to omit the word 'period'. The staff noted that the modified proposed amendment should alleviate the respondents' concerns about retrospective application.

The Committee tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendation to recommend to the Board to proceed with the proposed amendment by adding some further changes that would simplify and make the proposed amendment clearer by stating that spare parts, stand-by equipment and servicing equipment qualify as property, plant and equipment when they meet the definition of property, plant, and equipment; otherwise they are classified as inventory if they meet the definition of inventory.

IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation — Tax effect of distribution to holders of equity instruments

The ED includes the Board's proposal to amend IAS 32 to clarify that income tax relating to distributions to holders of an equity instrument and income tax relating to transaction costs of an equity transaction should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 12 Income Taxes.

The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that the respondents agreed with the proposed amendment. However, many respondents highlighted a perceived inconsistency between the guidance in IAS 12 on the income tax consequences on dividends in paragraph 52B and the guidance in paragraphs 58 and 61A. However, the staff noted that it had addressed the apparent consistency noted above in Agenda Paper 14C of July 2010.

The Committee (with the exception of one member) tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendation to recommend to the Board to proceed with the proposed amendment. The Committee also tentatively agreed with the suggested clarification changes proposed by the staff to the Basis for Conclusions to state in which cases each guidance should be applied that would make the proposed amendment clearer.

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting — Interim financial reporting and segment information for total assets

The ED includes the Board's proposal to clarify the requirements in IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting in order to enhance consistency with the requirements in IFRS 8 Operating Segments. The proposed amendment clarifies that total assets for a particular reportable segment need to be disclosed only when the amounts are regularly provided to the chief operating decision maker and there has been a material change in the total assets for that segment from the amount disclosed in the last annual financial statements. The proposed amendment arose as a result of observations from constituents that paragraph 16A(g)(iv) of IAS 34 is inconsistent with paragraph 23 of IFRS 8 because the former requires disclosure of segment assets in interim financial statements regardless of whether the information is provided to the chief operating decision maker. The staff noted from the comment letter analysis that while respondents agreed with the proposed amendment, some respondents disagreed with the proposal that the amendment be applied prospectively.

The Committee tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendation to recommend to the Board that it should proceed with the proposed amendment (including the staff's modifications to IAS paragraph 16A(g)(iv) of 34 for consistency with paragraph 23 of IFRS 8) – “a measure of total assets and liabilities for a particular reportable segment if such amounts are regularly provided to the chief operating decision maker and if there has been a material change from the amount disclosed in the last annual financial statements for that reportable segment.” The Committee also tentatively agreed that this amendment should be applied retrospectively as this was consistent with the Board's intention as noted in the IASB Update of July 2010.