Please read our cookie notice for more information
on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version. Please upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee continued deliberations on its project on accounting for production phase stripping costs in the mining industry, continued to explore whether IFRIC 6 should be applied by analogy, and considered a large number of other issues.
Agenda for the meeting
Thursday 7 July (10:00h-17:30h)
Active Committee projects
IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment – Accounting for production phase stripping costs in the mining industry
Items for continuing consideration
IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IFRIC 6 Liabilities arising from Participating in a Specific Market – Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment – Use of IFRIC 6 by analogy
Review of Tentative Agenda Decisions published in May IFRIC Update
IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment – Cost of testing asset
IAS 19 Employee Benefits – Defined contribution plans with vesting conditions
New items for initial consideration
IFRS 3 Business Combinations – Common control transactions and business combinations involving newly formed entities
IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements – Group reorganisations in separate financial statements
IFRS 3 Business Combinations – Definition of a business
Friday 8 July (09:00h-10:45h)
New items for initial consideration (continued)
IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements – Acquisition of an interest in a joint operation
IFRS 8 Operating Segments – Aggregation of operating segments and identification of the chief operating decision maker
The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered three issues arising from the drafting of the near final Interpretation.
The Committee discussed three other issues which came to the staff's attention while drafting the near final Interpretation.
Firstly, the Committee tentatively agreed to amend paragraph 17 to acknowledge the cost or revaluation alternatives for subsequent measurement, according to the valuation model used for the entity's mining assets.
Secondly, the Committee tentatively agreed to remove paragraphs 12 and 13 as paragraph 12 appeared to state the obvious and paragraph 13 could be read to imply that the stripping activity asset should be derecognised once the stripping activity is completed - which was not what was intended.
Thirdly, the Committee tentatively agreed to propose to the Board that the effective date for the Interpretation should be 1 January 2013 with earlier application permitted.
The Committee tentatively agreed not to re-expose the near final Interpretation but requested the staff to make some changes to the guidance, including changing the wording to require rather than to suggest that the entity use an allocation basis that is based on a relevant production measure as a basis to allocate the production stripping costs between the inventory produced and the stripping activity asset.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered additional staff analysis on two issues: (1) whether, in the situations described to the Committee, the obligating event is the participation in an activity on the date specified by the legislation, or whether other factors create an earlier obligation (2) how to account in interim reporting periods.
In May, the Committee received a request for clarification about whether, under certain circumstances, IFRIC 6Liabilities arising from Participating in a Specific Market - Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment should be applied by analogy to other levies charged for participation in a market on a specified date to identify the event that gives rise to a liability. The request focuses on the date of recognition of the liability and whether analogy to IFRIC 6 should be made because the taxes on these example scenarios all refer to the taxes being conditional on the entity existing or participating in a particular activity at a specified date (similar to the decommissioning liability discussed in IFRIC 6). Most of the Committee members were supportive of the Committee adding the project to their agenda as they acknowledged it is a significant issue in current practice and that IAS 37 was the real issue.
The staff performed additional analysis on the issue and identified two critical issues: a) whether, in the situations (UK bank levy, fees paid to the Federal Government by pharmaceutical manufacturers in the US, bank levy in Hungary, and the railway tax in France) described to the Committee, the obligating event is the participation in an activity on the date specified by the legislation, or whether other factors create an earlier obligation; and b) how to account in interim reporting periods in which the situations where the activity date/period and the calculation date/period fall in the same annual financial reporting period. The staff's position was to assess whether current guidance is sufficient to help preparers of financial statements and others to apply IFRSs to a range of facts and circumstances rather than to provide answers to each of the specific situations presented to them.
The Committee tentatively agreed with the staff observations that IFRIC 6 addresses a different set of circumstances from those present in the levies and is therefore not directly applicable, but because IAS 37 is the applicable standard and IFRIC 6 is an interpretation of IAS 37, any conclusions drawn on the application of IAS 37 to the levies must be consistent with the conclusions drawn in IFRIC 6.
The Committee also tentatively agreed with the staff's recommendation to provide guidance to: a) clarify the phrase "no realistic alternative settling the obligation created by the event", and b) to help with the recognition criterion in paragraph 14(a) of IAS 37 in those specific cases where the levy combines the two following features: i) the measurement of the levy is based on financial data in the previous annual financial reporting period; and ii) it is virtually certain at the end of the previous annual financial reporting period that the entity will have to pay the levy. The Committee acknowledged that this issue would be challenging to address and reaffirmed their decision to take the issue onto its agenda to reduce current diversity and to enable preparers to comply with the principles in IAS 37 and to reflect the economic reality of the levy and noted that the two issues noted above should be addressed in the one project.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee confirmed its decision not to take onto its agenda a request to clarify the accounting for sales proceeds received from testing an asset before it is ready for its intended use.
In May, the Committee considered a request to clarify the accounting for sales proceeds received from testing an asset before it is ready for its intended use. The question arising from this request is whether, with respect to paragraph 17(e) of IAS 16Property, Plant and Equipment, revenue from products produced from completed plants and sold on the market could be used to offset the costs of testing the other plants that are still in the commissioning phase. That is, could such revenues be accounted for as a reduction in the cost of plants being constructed, rather than recognised as revenue in profit or loss?
The Committee in May noted that the guidance in IAS 16 is sufficient to identify the date at which an item of property, plant and equipment is "ready for intended use" and therefore, to distinguish proceeds that offset the costs of testing the asset from revenue from commercial production. In addition, the Committee noted there is no significant diversity in practice nor does it expect significant diversity in practice to emerge in the future. As such, the Committee decided not to take this project forward.
Subsequently, the Committee received two comment letters which supported the decision not to take the issue to the Committee's agenda but one of the letters provided additional comments for the Committee to consider: a) it is inappropriate for the Committee to comment on the likely accounting treatment for a submitted fact pattern "likely to apply separately to each individual plant"; and b) the term "ready for intended use" should be removed because this term is not used in IAS 16.
The Committee reaffirmed its decision not to take the issue to its agenda and to proceed with the agenda decision to incorporate proposed amendments to improve the wording to the agenda and a) remove reference to the submitted fact pattern "likely to apply separately to each individual plant" mentioned above; and b) revise the wording to be consistent with the terminology used in IAS 16.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee confirmed its decision not to take onto its agenda a request to clarify the impact that vesting conditions have on the accounting for defined contribution plans.
In May, the Committee considered a request to clarify the impact that vesting conditions have on the accounting for defined contribution plans. The question that had arisen was whether contributions are recognised as an expense in the period they are paid for or are they recognised over the vesting period. The Committee agreed with the staff's position and noted there is no significant diversity in practice nor does it expect significant diversity in practice to emerge in the future. As such, in May, the Committee decided to not take this project forward.
Subsequently, the Committee received comment letters from three major constituents. One of them agreed with the Committee's tentative decision and the other two did not object to it. While these comment letters suggested editorial changes, two constituents made substantive comments. The Committee analysed the substantive comments relating to: a) vesting period as an indicator that should be considered in determining the period over which an employee renders service in exchange for a specific benefit, and b) that there is an alternative interpretation to that taken by the Committee and that this alternative view should not be precluded.
The majority of the Committee members disagreed with the constituent's proposal to highlight the vesting period as a strong indicator for the period over which the contributions to a defined contribution plan are recognised as an expense. In particular, these Committee members agreed with the staff's position that there is a distinction between the two periods when accounting for defined contribution plans as defined in IAS 19: a) the period of service that obliges the employer to pay contributions to the separate entity that runs the defined contribution plan (contribution period); and b) the period of service that entitles the employee to receive benefits from the separate entity that runs the defined contribution plan. The Committee tentatively agreed that paragraph 44 of IAS 19 requires an employer to recognise contributions to a defined contribution plan over the period of service that obliges the employer to pay contributions to the separate entity that runs the defined contribution plan (the contribution period).
The Committee reaffirmed its May decision that an alternative interpretation of paragraph 44(a) of IAS 19 might be taken but concluded that it was contrary to the concept of defined contribution accounting and the related guidance and explanation in other paragraphs. As such, the Committee read paragraph 44(a) of IAS 19 to mean that contributions to defined contribution plans are expensed or recognised as a liability when they fall due and refunds are recognised as an asset and income when the entity/employer becomes entitled to it, e.g. the employee failing to meet the vesting conditions.
The Committee agreed with the staff's position to incorporate some of the proposed editorial changes for clarification purposes in the wording of the final agenda decision and reaffirmed the Committee's decision not to take the project forward.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on identifying an acquirer in a business combination under IFRS 3 'Business Combinations', specifically where the transaction is conditional on an event such as an initial public offering (IPO).
Identification of the acquirer
The Committee received a request for guidance on the circumstances or factors that are relevant when identifying an acquirer in a business combination under IFRS 3Business Combinations.
More specifically, clarification was requested as to whether the existence of a condition (for example, an initial public offering (IPO)) that is imposed to effect the acquisition of subsidiaries by a new entity that has been formed to effect a business combination (and the identity of the party that formed this new entity), is relevant in this identification. T
he Committee discussed this request for guidance in the context of specific circumstances outlined by the submitter, but acknowledged that this fact pattern appeared rare in practice. Specifically, the Committee considered an environment in which a group spins-off a portion of its business in an IPO by incorporating a new entity (Entity A). Entity A will only acquire that part of the group being spun-off if the IPO occurs. The environment surrounding the acquisition is such that:
Entity A raises adequate funds to purchase the other entities of the group from outside parties.
A change in control is evident as a result of the transaction.
Cash (or other consideration) is transferred in the acquisition.
The business combination will not occur without the IPO (the condition) occurring.
In the context of these particular circumstances, the Committee was asked to consider two distinct views:
The fact that an acquisition is conditional on an IPO is a critical feature, and the newly incorporated entity subsequent to the IPO, Entity A, may be considered the acquirer in a business combination because there would not have been a business combination had the IPO not occurred.
The fact that an acquisition is conditional on an IPO is not a critical feature, and the critical feature in identifying the acquirer is who established Entity A.
The staff presented its analysis of the guidance in paragraphs 7 and B13-B18 in IFRS 3, which they believed provided sufficient guidance for the identification of the acquirer in a business combination, with "control" (paragraph 7 of IFRS 3) serving as the fundamental concept for identifying the acquirer. The staff, in application of this guidance, noted that a newly formed entity could be regarded as the acquirer when it transfers cash as consideration in the acquisition and obtains control of the business acquired. Thus, the conditional event of an IPO, in this particular circumstance, could be considered a critical feature in the business combination as it could trigger a change in control.
Multiple Committee members expressed a desire to ensure any agenda decision with respect to this submission clearly specified the facts and circumstances presented by this particular submission as opposed to providing a generalised view for application to other transactions. The reason for this clarification was that multiple Committee members wanted to ensure the merits of a particular transaction were considered in the context of IFRS 3 in determining that a transaction is representative of a business combination and not merely a structural transaction which would not meet the definition of a business combination.
In considering the staff's analysis of available and sufficient guidance in IFRS 3 to identify the acquirer in a business combination in these particular circumstances, as well as staff outreach of national standard-setters on this particular issue which noted that the issue appears neither prevalent nor a current or emerging source of significant diversity in practice, the Committee decided not to add the issue to its agenda.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered a request for guidance on business combinations under common control involving a fact pattern that illustrated a type of a common control transaction in which an entity transfers a business into a new entity ("Newco").
The Committee received a request for guidance on business combinations under common control. More specifically, the submission considered by the Committee provided a fact pattern that illustrated a type of a common control transaction in which an entity transfers a business into a new entity ("Newco").
The submission requested clarification on (a) the accounting at the time of the transfer of the business to Newco; (b) whether an imminent IPO that might occur after the formation of Newco is considered relevant in analysing the transaction under IFRS 3 and (c) whether a business that is not a legal entity could be considered the acquirer in a reverse acquisition under IFRS 3.
The submitter, in outlining alternative accounting treatments (issue (a) above) outlined consideration to the acquisition method (i.e., apply IFRS 3 guidance by analogy), pooling of interest and reverse capitalisation accounting (i.e., reverse acquisition accounting without recognition of goodwill). The staff's outreach with national standard-setters found that the pooling of interest method is most commonly used to account for business combinations under common control, but many jurisdictions prefer the acquisition method as they believe it results in more relevant and reliable information, and the staff sought the Committee's view about bringing this issue onto its agenda.
Many Committee members highlighted this particular submission as a further example of practical concerns regarding application of a business combination under common control, in which it was noted that IFRS 3 (paragraphs 2(c) and B1) explicitly excludes business combinations under common control from its scope. In this context, many Committee members expressed concern with expressing any interpretation on this submission which may trump the IASB's scope exclusion, or likewise, overstep the IASB's intended project to look at these transactions at a later date (the IASB has planned to address the accounting for business combinations under common control at a later stage but this project was paused in 2009 given other project demands). Other Committee members noted that in the absence of specific guidance to account for business combinations under common control, entities could select an appropriate accounting policy using the hierarchy described in paragraphs 10 to 12 of IAS 8 Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, including that of IFRS 3 if acceptable under the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.
The Committee noted that this issue is widespread and that diversity in practice exists based on outreach performed. However, the Committee also observed that the issue regarding the accounting for these transactions is too broad to be addressed by an interpretation and that the IASB has planned to address similar transactions in a separate project.
Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda. Multiple Committee members requested that the agenda decision highlight that the IASB should consider the business combinations under common control project to be a priority given significant questions arising in practice, but as Committee members are not necessarily aware of other competing priorities of the IASB, it was decided that no emphasis would be placed on one particular project at this stage.
For issue (b), the staff presented analysis indicating that the transaction should be accounted for considering the facts that have occurred as of the date of transfer and not the facts that have not yet happened (e.g., an imminent IPO). In the specific circumstances provided, the staff noted that control is not "transitory" as outlined in paragraph B1 of IFRS 3, but acknowledged the implications of a business combination under common control which has not yet been addressed by the IASB.
Consistent with decision reached for issue (a), above, the Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda based on the scope of the issue in the context of the IASB project on business combinations under common control.
For issue (c), the staff outlined analysis which concluded that an acquirer in a reverse acquisition does not need to be a "legal entity" as long as the "business" is a "reporting entity" based on guidance in paragraphs 7, and B19 of IFRS 3, as well as paragraph 8 of The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (replaced by the first edition of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting).
The Committee observed that this issue is not widespread or known to have particular practical relevance based on outreach performed, and consequently, the Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee received a request for clarification on how entities that are established as new intermediate parents within a group determine the cost of their investments in subsidiaries when they account for these investments in their separate financial statements at cost under IAS 27.
The Committee received a request for clarification on how entities that are established as new intermediate parents within a group determine the cost of their investments in subsidiaries when they account for these investments in their separate financial statements at cost in accordance with paragraph 38(a) of IAS 27Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements (amended 2008) or paragraph 10(a) of IAS 27Separate Financial Statements (revised 2011). The nature of this request serves to address reorganisations of groups that result in the new intermediate parent having more than one subsidiary.
The staff noted that the guidance in paragraphs 38B and 38C of IAS 27 (amended 2008) or paragraphs 13 and 14 of IAS 27 (revised 2011) cannot be applied directly to reorganisations of groups that result in the new intermediate parent having more than one subsidiary because the assets and the liabilities of the new group and the original entity or the original group are not the same immediately before and after the reorganisation.
Multiple Committee members supported the analysis performed by the staff and noted the clarity in current guidance. These Committee members expressed a desire to follow the guidance as written and not provide any interpretation. Other Committee members expressed a desire to consider common control guidance. While these Committee members acknowledged that the particular submission was not indicative of a business combination under common control, as discussed in the above project submissions, they noted that this is a common control transaction. Therefore, these Committee members expressed a preference to highlight consideration to IFRS 3 in addition to the IAS 27 guidance set forth above in providing any agenda decision.
Ultimately, given available and applicable guidance in IAS 27, the Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda in noting the strict interpretation of IAS 27.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered a request for clarification on whether an asset with relatively simple associated processes meets the definition of a business in accordance with IFRS 3 'Business Combinations'.
The Committee received a request for clarification on whether an asset with relatively simple associated processes meets the definition of a business in accordance with IFRS 3Business Combinations.
In particular, the submission questioned whether the acquisition of a contract to provide services alongside the acquisition of an asset constitutes a business combination. The particular submission highlighted diversity in practice in acquisitions of a single investment property with lease agreements with multiple tenants over varying periods and associated processes, such as cleaning, maintenance and administrative services (e.g., rent collection). The submission noted that while some consider the acquisition of such an investment property together with an obligation to render services to be a business combination as defined in IFRS 3, others believe that it is the acquisition of only a single investment property.
The staff presented an analysis as to whether the acquisition is indicative of a business or a single asset which considered whether: the contract to provide ongoing services and the related asset give rise to a business; services underlying the asset are part of an integrated set of activities / assets; and services alongside the customer's rights to use the asset are significant.
A majority of the Committee expressed strong concerns with the analysis prepared by the staff, in which they noted the assessment did not consider IAS 40Investment Property in analysing the fact pattern given. These Committee members requested analysis by the staff as to distinguishing characteristics of the scope of IAS 40 as compared to IFRS 3 in this and similar circumstances.
Other Committee members noted that the scope of the submission was limited to the acquisition of an investment property which was considered part of the acquisition of a business, and likewise, noted that in their view, IAS 40 and IFRS 3 were not mutually exclusive.
Given concerns raised by a majority of the Committee regarding the analysis performed by the staff, the Committee asked the staff to perform further analysis on the following general questions:
Is IFRS 3 mutually exclusive of IAS 40?
How should scope application of IFRS 3 and IAS 40 be determined? Committee members highlighted the importance of services linked to the property, and their relative significance (e.g., are services other than ancillary, as outlined in IAS 40), in this determination.
Is this particular submission, and others like it, indicative of a purchase of a business or property?
The staff will perform further analysis considering the above questions for deliberation in a future Committee meeting.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered a request to clarify the accounting by venturers for the acquisition of interests in joint operations when the activities and assets underlying the jointly controlled operations or assets, or the joint operation, constitute a business.
The Committee received a request to clarify the accounting by venturers for the acquisition of interests in jointly controlled operations or assets as specified in IAS 31Interests in Joint Ventures, superseded by the recently issued IFRS 11Joint Arrangements, and the accounting by joint operators for the acquisition of interests in joint operations as defined in IFRS 11 when the activities and assets underlying the jointly controlled operations or assets, or the joint operation, constitute a business.
The staff presented analysis noting that paragraph 21 of IFRS 11 requires joint operators to account for the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses relating to its interest in a joint operation in accordance with the IFRSs applicable to the particular assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. The staff also noted that IFRS 3Business Combinations is the applicable IFRS for the recognition of goodwill.
In addition, the staff noted that IAS 31 does not give guidance on the accounting by venturers for acquisitions of interests in jointly controlled operations or assets. However, any amendment to IAS 31 or interpretation on this issue that the Committee might develop to clarify the accounting in accordance with IAS 31would not become effective before 1 January 2013 when IFRS 11 replaces IAS 31.
The majority of the Committee also expressed concern over the clarity of paragraph 21 of IFRS 11. Specifically, and similar to yesterday's discussion regarding defining a business under IFRS 3, Committee members questioned whether paragraph 21 of IFRS 11 indicated that the acquisition of an interest in a joint venture could also be considered a business acquisition in accordance with IFRS 3 (i.e., is the unit of account to be considered in evaluating paragraph 21 the activity of the jointly controlled operations and related assets, or the acquired interest controlled by the joint operator). IFRS 11, in the Committee's view, seems to indicate accounting for the business combination under a joint arrangement as if you own 100% of the related assets and liabilities and appears to leave open the question of how to account for items which would otherwise be accounted for as goodwill in a business combination. Following the goodwill component further, multiple Committee members questioned whether goodwill could be "attached" to a portion of assets / interests (under a joint arrangement), and if so, how would this goodwill value be sustained for impairment testing in the future (although other Committee members discussed historic practice where goodwill may be present in acquisition of a portion of assets based on synergies or other fact patterns).
Based on this discussion, the Committee asked that the staff bring back a proposal to provide clarity to paragraph 21 of IFRS 11 as part of the Annual Improvements Project so that the Committee could best consider an appropriate way forward on this issue.
The IASB asked the IFRS Interpretations Committee to review a submission received requesting minor improvements to IFRS 8 'Operating Segments', regarding application of the aggregation criteria and the identification of the chief operating decision maker (CODM).
The IASB asked the Committee to review a submission received requesting minor improvements to IFRS 8Operating Segments, regarding application of the aggregation criteria and the identification of the chief operating decision maker (CODM). More specifically, the submitter generally sought that disclosure be provided of both the operating segments that have been aggregated and the economic indicators that have been assessed to conclude that operating segments have "similar economic characteristics" in accordance with paragraph 12 of IFRS 8, while also requesting further clarification on the function of the CODM.
Committee members expressed concern for adding disclosure regarding judgements in applying aggregation criteria as they did not identify this area as a significant need to users of the financial statements. One Committee member noted that IFRS 1First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards and the Conceptual Framework require disclosure of those matters which would materially affect users of the financial statements, and thus, where considered necessary, relevant disclosure should be provided absent any amendment to IFRS 8 disclosure requirements.
The Committee decided that this was not an issue to be resolved through disclosure, which the Committee intends to communicate as a recommendation to the IASB.
As part of this discussion, the Committee also considered the function of the CODM, and whether operational and strategic roles should or can be segregated in determining the CODM.
Multiple Committee members highlighted that strategic roles are commonly the role of board members (including non-executive directors), but noted that IFRS 8 generally refers to "management" in characterising the CODM; specifically, paragraph 7 of IFRS 8 notes the CODM is "often the chief operating decision maker of an entity or its chief executive officer or chief operating officer but, for example, ... [it] may be a group of executive directors or others."
While certain Committee members had seen boards identified as the CODM, many had not, and thus, the Committee decided to take this issue to the IASB to see if they would like the Committee to evaluate further if the CODM could be a board (inclusive of non-executive directors).
The IFRS Interpretations Committee reviewed its work in progress, including forthcoming issues on IAS 12/IAS 40 and IFRIC 15, and also considered a summary of its activity over the past three and a half years.
Committee work in progress
The staff is currently researching one agenda issue received by the Committee but not yet discussed as part of a Committee meeting. This issue relates to a clarification of circumstances in which the presumption of manner of recovery of investment property can be rebutted in accordance with paragraph 51C of IAS 12Income Taxes (Revised 2010). Specifically, IAS 12 notes that if a deferred tax asset or liability arises from investment property that is measured using the fair value model in IAS 40Investment Property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the carrying amount of the investment property will be recovered through sale. A request was made for further clarification as to how to interpret the rebuttable presumption. The staff expect to bring this submission issue to a future meeting.
The Committee also intends to review the IASB's revenue recognition re-exposure draft as soon as it is available for purposes of considering the exposure document in light of clarification requests as to the meaning of "continuous transfer" under IFRIC 15Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate. IFRIC 15 was discussed during the May 2011 Committee meeting and deferred as a results of the IASB's revenue recognition project.
The Committee had no additional questions or comments for the staff on these items.
Review of statistics of the Committee's activity
The staff provided the Committee with an overview of the Committee's activity over the last three and a half years, including quantitative details of issues addressed in the following categories:
(a) interpretations and implementation activities, including areas where no authoritative guidance or interpretation has been given; and
(b) work performed on behalf of the IASB, including issues addressed through the Annual Improvements Project and stand-alone projects.
The review highlighted an increasing number of issues addressed by the Committee from 2008 to 2010, with a significant level of 2010 issues resulting from Annual Improvements Project considerations.
The Committee requested similar activity assessment on an annual basis, while requesting the staff further bifurcate topics addressed (e.g., IFRS 3 issues considered) and conclusions reached. Multiple Committee members also cited a desire to re-consider projects deferred to the IASB which the IASB subsequently elected not to add to its agenda. The scope of re-consideration would be developed in consultation with the IASB.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
IAS Plus Full SiteView page in Full SiteThe page you are trying to view is currently not supported by our mobile site. Please click below to view this page in our Full Site.