This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. 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, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

IFRS for SMEs

Date recorded:

Michelle Fisher introduced the discussion:

  • She reviewed progress towards revising the IFRS-SME.  An exposure draft is expected in September 2013 and a revised standard in mid-2014.
  • The Council was being asked its views on three specific areas:
    • Scope
    • Revision period
    • Ability to amend IFRS-SME for recently-issued IFRSs.

Report-back on IFRS-SMEs

Group 1

Q1: significant minority view to remove barrier to using IFRS-SME.  IASB should set the standard, but up to national jurisdiction to permit use for some or all publicly-accountable entities.  However, there were concerns over the IFRS brand.  A Public listing sets the bar.  The majority view supports the status quo.

Q2: Aligning IFRS-SME to full IFRS would remove the stability inherent in the Standard.

Q3: Diverse views – some supported 3 years, others wanted 5 years.

Group 2

Q1: Majority view supported status quo, because of the public accountability issue.

Q2: Majority view supported a balance between stability and responsiveness to IFRS changes.  Make it easier to transition to IFRS and maintain the quality of financial statements.

Q3: Minimum of 2-3 years is ok.  But allow faster update if relevant.

Group 3

Q1: Majority view was status quo on the basis of quality.  If a jurisdiction wanted to permit it for junior issuers, they could not be described as ‘in accordance with IFRS-SME’.

Q2 The group preferred stability.

Q3: 3-5 years was a suitable revision window.

Group 4

Q1: Status quo for quality and brand

Q2: Case-by-case on the basis of need of users (and desire of preparers)

Q3: Review timetable ok.

The AC Chair noted that these conclusions were reasonably consistent with what he has heard in other settings.  Mr Mackintosh noted that the feedback reflected where the sense of the IASB was at present.

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.