At the meeting, the AcSB and the ASBJ both introduced their respective financial reporting frameworks and activities, and exchanged views on the opportunities for cooperation. They also discussed specific technical topics in which both Boards have interest, including insurance, revenue recognition and leases. The two standard-setters plan to continue to exchange views.

Review the press release on the ASBJ's website.

The AcSB would like input from Canadian respondents on the following additional question regarding the proposed amendments:

• The IASB has developed the proposed amendments in accordance with its due process for application around the world. Assuming the Exposure Draft proposals are finalized and approved by the IASB in accordance with its due process, do you think that the proposals are appropriate for application in Canada? If not, please specify which aspects of the proposals, and what circumstances, make the accounting requirements proposed in the Exposure Draft inappropriate.

Review the press release and exposure draft on the AcSB's website.

The new EFRAG TEG members are Jens Berger (Leader of Deloitte Germany's IFRS Centre of Excellence), Erlend Kvaal (academic, Norway), David Procházka (at large, Czech Republic) and Christoph Schauerte (industry, Germany). The appointments of Mr. Berger, Mr. Kvall and Mr. Schauerte are effective January 1, 2020, while Mr. Procházka will begin his term on April 1, 2020.

EFRAG TEG Vice-Chair Nicklas Grip has been reappointed, along with Ana Rosa Cortez, Geert Ewalts, Emmanuelle Guyomard, Ambrogio Virgilio and Jed Wrigley. Their reappointments are effective from April 1, 2020.

Review the press release on the EFRAG's website.

Mr Dombrovskis said that later this year he would present a renewed sustainable finance strategy, which would include a revision of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive. This would require companies to increase disclosure on their sustainable activities and give adequate reliable information on sustainability risks and opportunities. However, he said, not every detail can - or should - be fixed in law. There was also a need for clear reporting standards for companies to apply. Mr Dombrovskis went on to say:

So today, I can tell you that the European Commission will support a process to develop European non-financial reporting standards. I will soon invite the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group [EFRAG] to begin preparatory work for these standards as quickly as possible. The many overlapping international reporting standards and set-ups confuse companies and investors. They also find it expensive. The EU is well placed to address this situation – and show leadership in building consensus for a set of standards that can be widely accepted.

Mr Dombrovskis conceded that the European Commission cannot do this alone. Therefore, he stated, the best and most widely accepted elements of what exists today will be the starting point and expert assistance from those organisations and individuals who can best contribute to the process will be used. 

Review the Mr. Dombrovskis' speech on the European Commission's website.

The Q&As are compiled from previously issued educational materials and address the following topics:

• Scope
• Step 1 — Identifying the contract
• Step 2 — Identifying the performance obligation
• Step 3 — Determining the transaction price
• Step 4 — Allocating the price to the performance obligation
• Step 5 — Recognizing revenue
• Licensing
• Presentation
• Contract costs

Review the Q&A document on the FASB's website.

The Lab’s report provides practical guidance and examples on how companies can provide improved information to investors. It encourages companies to think of the workforce as a strategic asset and explain how it is invested in. Alongside the report, the Lab also published a summary of the report covering questions companies should ask themselves about their reporting on workforce matters.

Review the following additional information on the FRC's website:

• Press release
• Financial Reporting Council Workforce-related corporate reporting — Where to next?

The report follows on the consultation paper Recommendations for SDG Disclosures and considers feedback from the consultation. The recommendations for SDG Disclosure are designed to be both used in conjunction with existing reporting frameworks and neutral with respect to them. The recommendations are also SDG specific, recognising the complexity and interconnectedness of the sustainable development issues that the SDGs address.

Review the following information on the IIRC's website:

• Joint press release
• Final report Sustainable Development Goals Disclosure (SDGD) Recommendations
• Feedback report Sustainable Development Goals Disclosure (SDGD) Recommendations: Feedback on the consultation

The IPTF's discussion document for the November 19, 2019 meeting is now available and states the following view of the Task Force:

Countries with three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100%:

• Argentina
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Venezuela
• Zimbabwe

Countries with projected three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100%:

• Islamic Republic of Iran

Countries where the three-year cumulative inflation rates had exceeded 100% in recent years:

There are no countries in this category for this period.

Countries with recent three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100% after a spike in inflation in a discrete period:

• Angola
• Suriname

Countries with projected three-year cumulative inflation rates between 70% and 100% or with a significant (25% or more) increase in inflation during the current period

• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Liberia
• Yemen

The IPTF also notes that there may be additional countries with three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100% or that should be monitored which are not included in the analysis as the necessary data is not available. An example cited is Syria.

The full list, including exact numbers, detailed explanations of the calculation of the numbers, and observations of the Task Force is available on the CAQ website. We also offer the overview of the IPTF's assessment of hyperinflationary jurisdictions at the end of our summary of IAS 29.

Background

The issue was originally addressed as part of the annual improvements project 2010 -2012 cycle. Exposure Draft ED/2012/1 Annual Improvements to IFRSs (2010—2012 Cycle), published in May 2012, proposed amendments to IAS 1.73 to clarify that a liability is classified as non-current if an entity expects, and has the discretion, to refinance or roll over an obligation for at least twelve months after the reporting period under an existing loan facility with the same lender, on the same or similar terms. During 2013, however, the IASB decided not to finalise the amendment, but instead pursue a narrow-scope project to refine the existing guidance in IAS 1 on when liabilities should be classified as current.

In February 2015, the Board published its proposals in the Exposure Draft  ED/2015/1 Classification of Liabilities (Proposed amendments to IAS 1). The Board discussed feedback on the ED from December 2015 to September 2019, pausing the project between 2016 and 2018 while it finalised revisions to the definition of a liability in the Conceptual Framework. As a result of these discussions, the Board made no fundamental changes to the proposed amendments but decided to clarify some aspects of them.

Amendments

The amendments in Classification of Liabilities as Current or Non-Current (Amendments to IAS 1) affect only the presentation of liabilities in the statement of financial position — not the amount or timing of recognition of any asset, liability income or expenses, or the information that entities disclose about those items. They:

• clarify that the classification of liabilities as current or non-current should be based on rights that are in existence at the end of the reporting period and align the wording in all affected paragraphs to refer to the "right" to defer settlement by at least twelve months and make explicit that only rights in place "at the end of the reporting period" should affect the classification of a liability;
• clarify that classification is unaffected by expectations about whether an entity will exercise its right to defer settlement of a liability; and
• make clear that settlement refers to the transfer to the counterparty of cash, equity instruments, other assets or services.

Effective date and transition

The amendments are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2022 and are to be applied retrospectively. Earlier application is permitted.

Additional information

Review the press release on the IASB's website.

IFRS for SMEs was first issued in July 2009. A first comprehensive review of the standard took place between 2012 and 2014. The IASB has now launched a second review with the objective of seeking views on whether and how to align the IFRS for SMEs with full IFRSs.

The Request for Information is divided into three parts:

• Part A contains strategic and general questions.
• Part B contains questions on specific sections of the IFRS for SMEs and their alignment with the full IFRSs; and
• Part C contains questions on new topics and other matters related to the IFRS for SMEs.

A summary of the questions asked in each Part is set out in the table at the bottom of the article.

The SMEIG is expected to review comments on the request for information and make recommendations to the IASB on possible amendments.

Click for:

• Press release (link to IASB website)
• Request for information: Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard
• Snapshot overview of the request for information on the IASB website