Current status

The revised time table for the major projects is now as follows:

* Indicates a change since the previous work plan update on 24 July 2014.

The IASB expects to issue an exposure draft in the newly introduced 2014-2016 cycle of annual improvements in the second quarter of 2015.  This exposure draft will carry over the one amendment originally expected to be included in the now discontinued 2013-2015 cycle.  Apart from these changes to the annual improvements projects, there are no other changes in expected timing of the narrow-scope projects. 

In addition to the principles of disclosure research project noted above, the expected timing of board discussion has been deferred for the following research projects:

• Business combinations under common control
• Discount rates
• Equity method of accounting

Click for the IASB work plan dated 30 July 2014 (link to IASB website). We have updated our project pages to reflect the updated work plan and other known developments.

On 30 June 2014, the EFRAG, along with European standard setters (ANC, ASCG, FRC and OIC), launched a public consultation to obtain examples where contracts or transactions could qualify as leases under a single-model approach (IASB) or a dual-model approach (FASB), but are viewed by constituents as in-substance services. In addition, the EFRAG and European standard setters are seeking input on which of the two alternative approaches is preferred.

The outreach on 15 September 2014 will include discussions on the initial feedback gathered from the public consultation concerning the two lessees models, as well as possible improvements on how to identify a lease arrangement.

Registration for this outreach event is requested by 8 September 2014.

For more information, see the press release on the EFRAG’s website.

The IAASB issued an Exposure Draft for a revised International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 720 in November 2012.  The revised Exposure Draft responds to significant concerns raised in response to the IAASB's original proposals.

The FRC’s comment letter has been informed by comments received from respondents to its call for comments on the IAASB proposals in May 2014. 

Overall, conditional on a number of recommendations, the FRC are “very supportive” of the changes proposed in the IAASB’s revised Exposure Draft.

The key comments of the FRC are:

• That it supports “in principle” the introduction of the new requirements in paragraphs 14 and 15 and the related enhanced application material that clarify the auditor’s responsibilities with respect to other information.  However the FRC suggest a number of improvements to make it clearer as to the extent and nature of the work effort required.
• That the proposals do not communicate clearly that the auditor’s obligation does not extend to knowledge of matters identified in all other engagements performed by the firm.  In this respect the FRC recommend that the IAASB change the requirement in paragraph 14(b).
• That the FRC does not agree with the IAASB’s conclusion to require the auditor to read and consider other information only obtained after the date of the auditor’s report, but not to require identification of such other information in the auditor’s report or subsequent reporting on such other information.  The FRC comments that “we believe that considerable benefit would accrue to stakeholders from the identification of such other information” and that it “strongly” suggests that the IAASB enhance the requirements in paragraph 21 “Reporting” in respect of these areas.

Further comments and a full response to all questions raised in the invitation to comment are contained within the full comment letter on the FRC website.

Local authorities in the United Kingdom are required to keep their accounts in accordance with ‘proper practices’. They must comply with the terms of the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom prepared by the CIPFA/LASAAC Local Authority Accounting Code Board (CIPFA/LASAAC).

The exposure draft includes proposals to incorporate the requirements of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement to the measurement of property, plant and equipment in the public sector.  The exposure draft proposes that operational property, plant and equipment should be measured based on the service potential that the assets provide in support of the services of the authority.  The exposure draft proposes that such assets are measured at existing use valuation and where no market is in existence or assets are specialised, measured at depreciated replacement cost.  For these assets, the exposure draft notes that IFRS 13 “will be out of scope” as “these assets will not formally be valued at fair value”.  These measurement bases are the same as within the current 2014/15 Code and hence are not subject to change as part of the consultation.

The exposure draft proposes a change for property, plant and equipment that is not being used to supply goods and services and that do not meet the criteria of assets held for sale (i.e. surplus assets).  It is proposed that these assets are measured at fair value in accordance with IFRS 13 where they are currently measured by an existing use valuation based on their use before coming surplus.  This change will also require IFRS 13 disclosures for such assets.

Other significant amendments proposed in the exposure draft are in relation to:

• The impact of the Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010 – 2012 and 2011 – 2013 Cycles.
• The Impact of IFRIC 21 Levies
• The implications of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Irelandwith respect to:
  • Value Added Tax –no significant changes.
  • Heritage Assets.  The exposure draft proposes to retain the current valuation methods for heritage assets (i.e. that entities can select the most appropriate and relevant method according to their specific circumstances) and to retain the provision that depreciation need not be provided for heritage assets with indefinite lives.
  • Pension Funds.

A number of other minor and drafting amendments are also proposed.  Comments on the exposure draft are invited until 10 October 2014.

In addition, CIPFA/LASAAC are also consulting on proposals to simplify and streamline the presentation of local authority financial statements/statutory accounts to “better meet the needs of users” and to “remove unnecessary burdens from local authority accounts preparers” (“the consultation”).  The consultation follows an earlier consultation in July 2013 on simplifying and streamlining the presentation of local authority financial statements.  Based on the earlier consultation respondents’ key messages were:

agreement with the consultation that local authority accounts have a tendency to be too long and are often burdened with too much detail

it was difficult to identify traditional local authority measures of performance i.e. movements on General Fund and HRA balances, and

there were a number of challenges to the application of the segmental reporting requirements and some of the reporting requirements of the Service Reporting Code of Practice (SeRCOP).

Following these comments, CIPFA/LASAAC’s consultation focuses on the reporting of local authority performance (i.e. the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement and the Movement in Reserves Statement).  The consultation also focuses on the segmental reporting requirements specified in the Code and also considers narrative reporting requirements that accompany the financial statements.  The consultation seeks views from “interested parties and is encouraging respondents to be both creative and challenging in their responses”.

Comments on the consultation are invited until 19 September 2014.

Click for (all links to CIPFA website):

• The 2015/16 Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom - Invitation to comment and related links
• Simplifying and streamlining the presentation of Local Authority Financial Statements

The proposed Framework is split into four sections:

1. Identification of the purpose and scope.
2. Explanation of concepts in the IESs.
3. Description of the nature of the IESs and related IAESB publications.
4. Role of IFAC members related to the IESs.

The proposal is part of the IAESB’s initiative to improve the relevancy, clarity, and consistency of its standards by redrafting all eight IESs in accordance with its new drafting conventions. To date, IESs 1 to 6, as well as the redrafting of IES 7, have been completed. The IES 8 revision is expected in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Comments are requested by 27 October 2014.

For more information, see the press release and the revised framework on the IFAC’s website.

Both companies (16) and institutional investors (19) took part in the project.  Further input was received from “over 200” retail investors. 

The project report; ‘Accounting policies and integration of related financial information’ is part of the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC’s) programme  of work to support clear and concise reporting; a project which began with the publication of ‘Guidance on the Strategic Report’, in June 2014.

The project report provides a number of observations in the areas of accounting policies, notes to the financial statements and integration of financial review:

Accounting policies

The project report highlights a number of “clear messages” for companies in relation to improving the placement of significant accounting policies and enhancing the quality of their disclosures.  It highlights that institutional investors “consider that policies that are not significant are clutter” and were more concerned with the quality of disclosures rather than their placement. 

The project report notes that investors are “generally happy” for companies to make their own judgements as to what their significant accounting policies are.  However investors identified a number of attributes that, if taken alone or together, may indicate that a significant accounting policy would need to be disclosed:

materiality of transactions classes and amounts, and importance to the nature of the business;

policies for all distinct revenue streams;

where there is choice of policy under IFRS, or significant judgement in selecting the policy; and

where there is need for management to apply significant levels of estimation or judgement in applying the policy. 

The project report also identifies what “good quality” looks like for investors in relation to policy disclosures and highlights that “accounting policy disclosure should be company-specific” and avoid “boiler-plate” disclosures.

Investors identified that policies should:

be written using plain, understandable language;

describe any judgements made in selecting the policy applied, and the rationale for them;

describe the company’s application of accounting policies (not summarise the IFRS standard), including the estimation/judgements made and their significance to reported amounts; and

describe new IFRS requirements only if they significantly, or are likely to significantly, impact the financial statements; and present the impact of changes in tabular format.

Many companies currently disclose additional accounting policies (beyond those that are significant) and the project report indicates that there are “diverse views” among investors with “some” retail investors preferring a complete list of policies to be disclosed in the annual report and others, such as institutional investors, preferring that only significant accounting policies are disclosed.

Notes to the financial statements

The project report highlights that, among other things, consistency of note order across companies and time is “highly valued” by investors.  

Integration of financial review

The project report indicates that most investors “prefer the traditional approach of placing management commentary and financial statement information in separate sections of the annual report”.

A number of examples are provided in the project report of current good practice in these areas.

The press release and the full project report are available from the FRC website. A slide deck summarising the key findings of the report is also available to download from the FRC website.

In both cases, the EFRAG supports the adoption of the amendments and recommends that the European Commission endorses the amendments because it believes implementation that the benefits for preparers and users implementing the amendments outweigh the costs.

Concurrently, EFRAG has updated its report showing the status of endorsement to reflect the final EFRAG endorsement advices.

Click for the following information on the EFRAG website:

Current status

The revised time table for the major projects is now as follows:

Click for the IASB work plan dated 24 July 2014 (link to IASB website). We have updated our project pages to reflect the updated work plan and other known developments.