2011

Notes from the October IASB meeting

21 Oct, 2011

The IASB's regular monthly meeting was held on 19-20 October 2011 in Norwalk, CT, USA, part of it a joint meeting with the FASB.

We have posted Deloitte observer notes from most of the sessions held on the first day of the meeting (click through for direct access to the notes):

Wednesday, 19 October 2011 (other sessions)

  • Annual Improvements (IASB only)
    • IFRS 13 Fair value measurement — Short-term receivables and payables issue
    • IFRS 3 Business combinations — Contingent consideration guidance issue
  • Fair Value Measurement (IASB-FASB)
    • Proposed plan for developing educational material
    • Comments from members of the boards
  • Revenue Recognition (IASB-FASB)
    • Disclosures in Interim Reporting Periods

Notes from the session on Leases will be posted soon.

Click here to go to the preliminary and unofficial Notes Taken by Deloitte Observers for the entire meeting.

IPSASB requests comment on long-term sustainability of public sector finances proposals

21 Oct, 2011

The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) has published Exposure Draft (ED) 46 Recommended Practice Guideline, which is designed to provide good practice guidelines on reporting on the long-term fiscal sustainability of a public sector entity.

The IPSASB notes that the sovereign debt crisis has emphasised the significance of the fiscal condition of governments and other public sector entities to the global economy. There have been heightened concerns about the ability of governments to meet debt servicing obligations and the extent to which they can maintain current policies and meet current and future obligations related to entitlement programs, without raising taxes and contributions or increasing debt to unsustainable levels.

The exposure draft proposes the disclosure of projections of inflows and outflows of resources over the longer term, together with narrative explanations of the main risks facing governments and other public sector entities. This information is designed to permit users of general purpose financial reports of public sector entities to assess the extent to which current policies are sustainable, as complimentary information to the financial statements.

The Recommend Practice Guideline, if finalised, would not be an International Public Sector Accounting Standard (IPSAS) and therefore an entity would not required to comply with it in order to comply with IPSASs.

The ED is open for public comment until 29 February 2012. Click for IPSASB press release (link to IFAC website).

ESMA Activity Report on IFRS enforcement 2010

21 Oct, 2011

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published the second annual activity report on monitoring enforcement of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Europe.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published the second annual activity report on monitoring enforcement of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Europe.

European issuers of financial information have developed significant experience in IFRS accounting which is reflected in the quality of their financial reporting which has improved year on year. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. The report finds that even though the disclosure of the possible impact of risks and uncertainties faced by the issuers regarding judgements and estimates used in the preparation of financial information has gained importance in the current economic climate boiler-plate disclosures are still widely used.

Among the recurring issues identified by European enforcers are financial instruments, impairment of non-financial assets, operating segments, share-based payments, non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations, investments in associates, and revenue recognition.

The report is available on the ESMA website (PDF 128k); it is accompanied by a press release (PDF 32k).

EFRAG celebrates 10th anniversary

21 Oct, 2011

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2011. On 13 October, a seminar was held reflecting on past milestones, achievements and signalling future challenges that EFRAG is likely to face.

EFRAG has compiled a summary of the seminar – EFRAG: PAST - PRESENT - FUTURE (PDF 506k, link to EFRAG website) – offering insights about the genesis and history of EFRAG and the challenges EFRAG is facing in the coming years.

On IAS Plus, we also offer an Interview with Stig Enevoldsen, Chairman of EFRAG from 2004 until 2010, and a Robert Bruce column Ten Years of EFRAG Achievement.

EFRAG and OIC issue discussion paper on business combinations under common control

21 Oct, 2011

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Organismo Italiano di Contabilità (OIC) have published Discussion Paper 'Accounting for Business Combinations under Common Control'.

The discussion paper aims to start a debate on business combinations under common control (BCUCC) and how it should be reflected in financial statements. Currently, there are multiple methods used in applying BCUCC, the discussion paper takes the first step to analyse the issues from having multiple methods. The discussion paper also notes that "there is no 'ideal' accounting approach" but goes into three different ways of looking at the problem. Comments are due by 30 April 2012.

Click for:

 

Deloitte comment letter on exposure draft on the mandatory effective date of IFRS 9

21 Oct, 2011

Deloitte's IFRS Global Office has submitted a letter of comment to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on its Exposure Draft ED 2011/3 'Mandatory Effective Date of IFRS 9'.

In the comment letter, we agree with the views of the exposure draft that deferral of the mandatory effective date of IFRS 9 is necessary due to the level of uncertainty revolving around the IFRS 9 project's timeline. In addition, we agree that limited relief from restating comparatives for entities early applying in a period beginning before 1 January 2012 should not be extended. The following is an excerpt from the letter:

We support the restatement of comparative information whenever this is practicable and provides valuable information to users. However, we note that the basis for restating comparatives as described in IFRS 9(2010): 7.2.1 is limited retrospective application as it only restates those items that continue to be recognised at the date of initial application (being the start of the first reporting period in which the entity applies IFRS 9). This results in comparative information being a mix of IAS 39 (for items derecognised before the date of initial application) and IFRS 9 (for items still recognised at that date). In addition, we note that the transitional requirements of IFRS 1 are not aligned with those for existing IFRS preparers as they require the classification of a first time adopter’s financial items to be based on conditions existing at the date of transition to IFRSs.

We also question whether is its appropriate for many different versions of IFRS 9 to be applied well after the Standard has been updated. We prefer that an early adopter of IFRS 9 apply the latest version of the Standard issued at the beginning of its earliest comparative period, which we believe will reduce the confusion for users trying to determine which version of the Standard an entity should apply.

Click to Download our Comment Letter on Exposure Draft ED 2011/3 — Mandatory Effective Date of IFRS 9 (PDF 28k).

IASB publishes proposed amendment to IFRS 1 for government loans

19 Oct, 2011

The IASB has published Exposure Draft ED/2011/5 'Government Loans' (Proposed amendments to IFRS 1) for public comment.

The proposed amendment addresses how a first-time adopter would account for a government loan with a below-market rate of interest when transitioning to IFRSs. In addition, the proposed amendment adds an exception to the retrospective application of IFRS, which would then provide the same relief to first-time adopters granted to existing preparers of IFRS financial statements when the requirement was incorporated into IAS 20 in 2008. Comments are due by 5 January 2012.

Click for:

 

The Bruce Column – The route for the largest US corporates

19 Oct, 2011

You could not have had a more persuasive group of senior corporate accountants than the panel at the Deloitte IFRS Summit in New York this week.

The Chairman of the IASB, Hans Hoogervorst, and his Vice-Chairman, Ian Mackintosh, were there to add their views on the virtues of International Financial Reporting Standards, (IFRS), and allay the fears of sceptics. But it was hearing the views from some of the most revered and respected corporations in the US which was the clincher. Ford, IBM, Cisco Systems and the Sara Lee Corporation were very clear in what they had to say.

As everyone awaits the next stage in the lengthy process of the US regulatory body, the SEC, coming to a decision which could align the US with the financial reporting system which is pretty much used by everyone else around the world, some of the largest companies are obviously finding that their patience is wearing thin. Increasingly, subsidiaries of US companies around the world are using IFRS as a basis for their local reporting, while their parent companies back home use US GAAP. It makes less and less sense and it costs them money.

The SEC has long targeted a decision by the end of the year. But Bob Kueppers, Deputy CEO, Regulatory Affairs, and Vice-Chairman of Deloitte LLP cast some doubt on a final decision by then. While he said he expected an SEC staff recommendation before the end of the year, he thinks that would then be subject to a comment period, which would mean a bit more delay. In any case, a decision by the SEC to move forward with incorporation of IFRS into US GAAP — as was suggested in their staff paper in May — may not include a voluntary use option that would allow the largest companies to choose to move swiftly to IFRS while others could take more time to adjust.

Aaron Anderson, Director IFRS Policy & Implementation at IBM, summed it up. Referring to the SEC paper issued earlier in the year he said: 'I have read the SEC proposal but I still don't know what it says', suggesting that the devil would likely be in the details of a long-term path to incorporation of IFRS into the US reporting framework. For the largest companies all this means delay. And delay at a time when corporate US is not having the best of times is hardly helpful for those companies that see the benefits of IFRS adoption.

Anderson talked of the winds of change. He talked about the creation of a centralised team. He talked of consistent adoption of IFRS with 'access all countries', the ability for executives to have access to information freely and easily. He talked of 'eliminating local flavours' and spoke of a focus on the here and now'. IFRS was at the heart of all of this.

Susan Callahan, Manager, Global Accounting Policy and Special Studies at the Ford Motor Company, pointed out that the company was 'a strong advocate of early adoption' and of how they had strong support from senior executives.

This is the story from the senior level of large companies in the US. Meanwhile the US markets are in decline. Companies around the world are increasingly raising money on stock markets other than those of the US, traditionally the largest and strongest in the world. But as Susan Callahan pointed out, US GAAP knowledge is no longer useful in other countries. Large US companies which need to raise serious money on the stock markets find that because they cannot produce accounts in a universally accepted form they cannot raise money from a wide enough pool.

This is why Hans Hoogervorst was in New York speaking at the Summit. He accepted that it was a difficult decision for the SEC. US GAAP had served the US well, he said. But the enthusiasm of the rest of the world for IFRS meant that change was needed. IFRS 'has spread like wildfire', he said. And for US investors looking to emerging markets it was a huge benefit. And he soothed those who felt that the US would be losing influence by following the rest of the world to IFRS. 'I am sure US influence will remain very strong', he said.

So it was back to the leading corporates. 'The benefits of moving to IFRS far exceeds the cost', said Susan Callahan. And Aaron Anderson pointed out the obvious 'structural benefits of having a single set of accounting standards around the world', giving one specific example of the value of a central goodwill and impairment testing model within the company.

The Summit provided an opportunity for an overall review and assessment of where the issue of IFRS in the US is at present. Everyone awaits news from the SEC, especially, it seems, some of the large multinationals, that can see a tangible benefit.

Robert Bruce October 2011

 

IASB issues new Interpretation on waste removal costs in surface mining

18 Oct, 2011

The IASB has issued IFRIC Interpretation 20 'Stripping Costs in the Production Phase of a Surface Mine' (IFRIC 20).

The Interpretation clarifies the requirements for accounting for stripping costs associated with waste removal in surface mining, including when production stripping costs should be recognised as an asset, how the asset is initially recognised, and subsequent measurement.

Key requirements of IFRIC 20 include:

  • Stripping activity costs which provide improved access to ore are recognised as a non-current 'stripping activity asset' when certain criteria are met. This means an entity cannot immediately expense stripping costs, nor adopt a standard costing approach (sometimes referred to as a 'stripping ratio' approach) based on total expected costs to be incurred over the life of the mine
  • Normal ongoing operational stripping activities are accounted for in accordance with IAS 2 Inventories
  • When the costs of the stripping activity asset and the inventory produced are not separately identifiable, production stripping costs are allocated between the inventory produced and the stripping activity asset by using an allocation basis that is based on a relevant production measure
  • The stripping activity asset is accounted for as an addition to, or as an enhancement of, an existing asset and classified as tangible or intangible according to the nature of the existing asset of which it forms part
  • The stripping activity asset is initially measured at cost and subsequently carried at cost or its revalued amount less depreciation or amortisation and impairment losses
  • A stripping activity asset is depreciated or amortised on a systematic basis, over the expected useful life of the identified component of the ore body that becomes more accessible as a result of the stripping activity. The units of production method is used unless another method is more appropriate.

Entities will need to consider carefully the identification of the ore body or component of ore body to which capitalised costs relate as this will determine how the asset is depreciated.

IFRIC 20 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013, with early application permitted.

Click for:

IFRS Foundation's translations update

18 Oct, 2011

The IFRS Foundation has announced the publication of the following translations: Albanian translation of the IFRS for SMEs Basis for Conclusions, Illustrative Financial Statements, Presentation and Disclosure Checklist.

The translations can be accessed via the IASB's IFRS for SMEs webpage. You will need to be a registered user to access the translation. Registration is free of charge.
  • French translation of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and IAS 19 Employee Benefits as issued in English by the IASB in May and June 2011 respectively. The French translations are available on the French New and Revised Standards page (eIFRS subscribers only).
  • Spanish translation of the Basis for Conclusions and Illustrative Examples for IFRS 11 and IFRS 12, as issued in English by the IASB in May 2011. The Spanish translations are available on the Spanish New and Revised Standards page (eIFRS subscribers only).
  •  

    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.