Annual improvements – 2010-2012 cycle

Background

The IASB's annual improvements project provides a streamlined process for dealing efficiently with a collection of amendments to IFRSs. The primary objective of the process is to enhance the quality of standards, by amending existing IFRSs to clarify guidance and wording, or to correct for relatively minor unintended consequences, conflicts or oversights. Amendments are made through the annual improvements process when the amendment is considered non-urgent but necessary.

Each year the IASB discusses and decides upon proposed improvements to IFRSs as they have arisen throughout the year. Issues dealt with in this process arise from matters raised by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and suggestions from staff or practitioners.

In order to be included in the annual improvements process, the proposed amendments must meet all of the following criteria (summarised), as published in the Due Process Handbook (revised in February 2011):

  • The proposed amendment either clarifies existing standards, or corrects conflicts or oversights, but does not propose a new principle or a change to an existing principle
  • The proposed amendment is well defined and sufficiently narrow in scope such that the consequences of the proposed change have been considered
  • It is probable that the IASB will reach conclusion on the issue on a timely basis
  • If a proposed amendment would amend IFRSs that are subject of a current or planned IASB project, there must be a need to make the amendment sooner than the project would.

Once this assessment is made, the proposed amendments follow the same due process as other IASB projects. Proposals are generally published in the third quarter of the year with a comment period of 90 days.

From January 2010, the IFRS Interpretations Committee has taken on the additional roe of reviewing proposed amendments within the annual improvements process and making recommendations to the IASB.

 

Current status of the project

The IASB published Exposure Draft ED/2012/1 Annual Improvements to IFRSs (2010—2012 Cycle) on 3 May 2012, with comments due by 5 September 2012.

 

Project milestones

DateDevelopmentComments
3 May 2012 Exposure Draft ED/2012/1 Annual Improvements to IFRSs (2010—2012 Cycle) published Comment deadline 5 September 2012

Related Discussions

  • Annual improvements

  • Nov 15, 2011

  • The IASB discussed four issues for potential inclusion in the next Improvements to IFRSs exposure draft: IFRS 8 (aggregation criteria and identification of the CODM), IAS 7 (classification of interest paid that is capitalised), IAS 16 (meaning of receivable), and IAS 24 (key management personnel).

  • Annual improvements

  • Oct 19, 2011

  • The IASB considered improvements to IFRS 13 (short-term receivables and payables) and IFRS 3 (contingent consideration guidance).

  • Annual Improvements to IFRSs – 2010-2012

  • Sep 22, 2011

  • The IASB considered annual improvements to IAS 16 (revaluation model and proportionate restatement), IAS 24 (key management personnel), IFRS 2 (vesting and non-vesting conditions), IFRS 8 (reconciliation of segment assets), IAS 7 (capitalised interest), IAS 36 (disclosure of recoverable amount), IAS 1 (current/non-current classification of debt), and IAS 12 (unrealised losses on AFS debt securities). The Board also considered a number of other issues where an annual improvement was rejected (IFRS 2, IAS 27 and IAS 28).

  • Annual improvements – 2009-2011 and 2010-2012 cycles

  • May 19, 2011

  • The IASB considered reassessed the items included in the 2010-2012 cycle of annual improvements against the revised criteria developed by the Trustees and added an additional item in relation to IAS 1, and as part of the 2010-2012 cycle, agreed not to propose amendments on five issues related to IFRS 3, IAS 8, IAS 36 and IAS 41.

  • IFRS 3 — Regrouping and consistency of contingent consideration guidance

  • Jul 09, 2010

  • The IFRS Interpretations 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.

All Related