The staff said that IFRIC must decide whether a project on compliance costs for REACH (European Commission Regulation Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) should be added to IFRIC's agenda.

Following the March IFRIC meeting, to identify whether there is currently divergence in practice, the staff asked the IFRIC members and a national standard setter to provide information about experience in their own organisations and country networks. From the responses received (not available to observers) the staff concluded that divergence does not seem to exist.

Most companies expense REACH costs as incurred and do not capitalise. Some based this decision on materiality, and this conclusion may change in the future if the costs increase. Other types of registration costs seem to be expensed because they are not material. Entities are using judgement to determine whether costs should be expensed or capitalised in accordance with IAS 38.

The staff view is that IAS 38 provides a sufficiently clear intangible asset definition and recognition criteria to apply to costs incurred in relation to the REACH regulation, and meeting these criteria, including the requirement to demonstrate future economic benefits, is a matter of judgement.

One IFRIC member did not fully agree with not taking the issue onto the agenda on the basis of materiality reasons. Overall, the costs of compliance with REACH are huge. The IFRIC member thought that the IFRIC should develop some guidance, or alternatively be more specific in the rejection notice as this member did not believe that IAS 38 is clear. The Chairman noted that just because something is not material now doesn't mean that IFRIC wouldn't deal with the issue.

Another IFRIC member agreed that IAS 38 was not completely clear, and the rejection notice should include appropriate references so that people could understand why it is clear. Another IFRIC member supported this, stating that the IFRIC should be more specific in the rejection notice.

The staff responded by stating that agenda decisions should not provide guidance. To that end, they would not want to provide paragraph numbers; however, they agreed that the word 'clear' could be omitted from the agenda decision.

Another IFRIC member suggested that IFRIC should take the issue onto the agenda, as IAS 38 does not help distinguish internally generated versus existing physical assets and costs associated with these. As a result they thought divergence in practice would result.

Another IFRIC member then noted that paragraph 34 of the staff paper was making a big point. The paragraph states that:

'The staff is of the view that the registration costs for existing substances would also meet the asset recognition criterion when taking any of the views above, that is even if taking view 1, the costs do not have to be expensed as incurred.'

The IFRIC member said that this paragraph is making a leap because paragraph 20 of IAS 38 allows such capitalisation only 'rarely'. We are effectively obtaining a licence to do what we are already doing. The IFRIC member queried how has 'rare' been achieved? That is, if paragraph 20 is the correct paragraph to be referring to.

Another IFRIC member then asked how can the IFRIC say that IAS 38 is clear when we have spent months deciding if it is?

Other IFRIC members supported not taking the issue on to the agenda because it would be in the form of implementation guidance, rather than saying in the agenda decision that it is 'clear'. They suggested removing the words sufficient and clear. Others agreed with this suggestion. Another IFRIC member added that the notion that people would have to apply judgement to each circumstance should also be added to the agenda decision.

The Chairman asked for a vote as to whether anyone objected to not putting the issue on the agenda. Only two IFRIC members did.

It was noted that the staff paper was very well written and provided excellent background for the issue of how to account for REACH costs. It was noted that REACH may be an issue for the educational division for producing guidance. This would not affect the IFRIC's agenda decision, however.

Revised agenda decision wording will be circulated after the meeting.

The staff said that the issue being addressed was whether, at the consolidated financial statement level, the use of the scope exemption in paragraph 1 of IAS 28 Investments in Associates for a portion of an investment in an associate is appropriate.

The request received by IFRIC noted that current practice is divided between two views:

• View A - Identify all direct and indirect interests held in the associate by either the parent or any of its subsidiaries and apply IAS 28 to the entire investment in the associate.
• View B - Identify all direct and indirect interests held in the associate, but use the scope criteria in IAS 28 to determine the allowed accounting treatments for the investment (or a portion of the investment).

The staff believes that existing IFRS are not clear regarding whether View A or View B is appropriate and guidance exists to support both views. The staff recommended that the IFRIC not add the issue to the agenda. Rather the staff recommended that the staff present the issue to the Board for its deliberation and potential inclusion in the exposure draft of Proposed Improvements to IFRSs to be published in August 2009.

A number of IFRIC members agreed with the staff recommendation. The Chairman noted that the question is really can the parent use the scope exemption, or does it have to account for it all using a consistent accounting policy.

Only one IFRIC member felt this issue should be added to the agenda.

One IFRIC member suggested that IAS 28 should be abolished.

On the assumption that IAS 28 will be opened up as a larger project by the Board, the IFRIC did not think that it should provide any recommendations for the Board in its rejection notice.

At its March meeting the IFRIC agreed that units of money market funds and other readily redeemable funds do not qualify as cash equivalents. This is because they are essentially equity instruments that have no maturity.

Consequently, the IFRIC decided that it needed to consider whether units in money market funds should be in-substance cash equivalents. The IFRIC also decided that the criterion in the definition that cash equivalents must be convertible to known amounts of cash means that the amount of cash that will be received must be known at the time of the initial investment. That is, the units cannot be considered cash equivalents simply because they can be converted to cash at any time at the then market price. This would not necessarily satisfy the criterion that they be subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value.

The staff introduced the paper by stating that the objective of the paper is to provide the additional analysis requested by the IFRIC on the issue and make a recommendation on whether the IFRIC should add the issue to the agenda.

At the March meeting, the IFRIC concluded that it would not add the issue to its agenda but requested the staff to bring back wither proposed wording for a tentative agenda decision or proposed wording for an amendment to IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows. As a result of the analysis in the staff paper, the staff did not believe that an amendment to IAS 7 was required as the essential criteria are clear in the standard. The staff proposed wording for a tentative agenda decision.

After the March meeting, the IFRIC received a further request for guidance in relation to IAS 7, which the staff included as an addendum to the staff paper. That request related to the classification as cash equivalents of fixed deposits or similar instruments with an original term of longer than three months. The instruments bear interest at a fixed rate determined at the date of deposit, are redeemable on demand but are subject to a penalty on early redemption. The amount of the penalty decreases depending on the period the instrument is outstanding. The submission clearly stated that the principal amount is always redeemed in full.

The staff recommendation was that redeemable fixed-term deposits are cash equivalents because they meet the critical criteria in the definition:

1. readily convertible to a known amount of cash throughout their term
2. subject to an insignificant risk of change in value assessed against the amount at inception.

One IFRIC member did not believe that the agenda decision covers the addendum facts. A number of IFRIC members said that the key was that the instrument was redeemable on demand.

Another IFRIC member said that the only amount of cash equivalent is the par amount. Any interest receivable should be accounted for separately. Another IFRIC member said that if an instrument is puttable within three months, it can still be a cash equivalent even if maturity is longer.

The staff then added that a key point to being a cash equivalent is that you get back what you put in, not only part of it. For example, if you put in 100 and can only get 50 back at any time, it would not be a cash equivalent.

Another IFRIC member suggested that management intent is important. For example, if an investment is intended to be held for 5 years it would not be considered to be a cash equivalent.

It was then suggested that perhaps wording could be added to the agenda decision along the lines of 'as long as there is an insignificant risk of change in the carrying value at reporting date it could be a cash equivalent'. Some had concerns around this. If the entity intends to leave the amount invested it is not a cash equivalent.

The Chairman then asked the IFRIC if they agreed with the decision not to add the issue to the agenda. The IFRIC members agreed.

The Chairman then asked the IFRIC to consider each of the fact patterns in turn.

In relation to the original fact pattern, the IFRIC discussed variation in cash flows, and agreed to modify the agenda decision to add in wording that reflects the first sentence of IAS 7 paragraph 7 that the purpose must be to meet the short-term cash commitments rather than for investment or other purposes.

In relation to the addendum, the IFRIC agreed that in light of the change to the agenda decision, the specific fact pattern does not need to be separately addressed.

IAS 12 Income Taxes — Classification of tonnage taxes

The IFRIC confirmed their decision not to add this issue to the agenda. The IFRIC did not agree with the changes the staff had made to the proposed agenda decision and preferred the original wording of the agenda decision. Some IFRIC members were concerned that adding the additional sentences proposed may confuse the principle. The staff agreed to amend the agenda decision wording to focus only on those taxes that are not income taxes. Subject to receiving the final wording, the IFRIC agreed.

IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment — Disclosure of idle assets and construction in progress

The IFRIC agreed to finalise its tentative agenda decision not to add the issue to its agenda.

IAS 38 Intangible Assets — Accounting for selling costs of real estate projects

The IFRIC received four comment letters from respondents; two respondents explicitly supported the IFRIC's decision not to add the issue to its agenda; the other two did not suggest adding it to the agenda. All four suggested changes to the IFRIC's proposed wording. The IFRIC confirmed its decision not to add the issue to its agenda, but agreed that they needed to clarify the wording. Final wording to be circulated to the IFRIC members for approval.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement — Participation rights and calculation of the effective interest rate

The IFRIC confirmed its decision not to add the issue to its agenda.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement — Classification of failed loan syndications

The IFRIC confirmed its decision not to add the issue to its agenda.

IAS 41 Agriculture — Discount rate assumptions used in fair value calculations

The IFRIC confirmed its decision not to add the issue to its agenda. Final wording to be circulated to the IFRIC members for final approval.

IFRIC 14 IAS 19 - The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction — Voluntary prepaid contributions under a minimum funding requirement

The IFRIC confirmed its decision not to add the issue to its agenda.

The staff introduced the first issues relating to IFRS 3 Business Combinations (2008) by noting that the IFRIC has received requests to clarify the treatment of acquisition-related costs that the acquirer incurred before the application of IFRS 3 (2008) that relate to a business combination that is accounted for according to the revised standard. Some constituents believe that IFRS 3 (2008) is not clear on whether those acquisition-related costs should be capitalised or expensed, and asked the IFRIC to clarify the transition requirements.

The staff noted that a number of views have developed in practice. These were outlined in the staff paper as follows:

• View A: The acquisition-related costs should be expensed. Supporters of View A argue that IFRS 3 (2008) is applicable because the acquisition-related costs were incurred in respect to a business combination for which the acquisition date falls after the effective date of the revised standard.
• View B1: The acquisition-related costs incurred in the reporting periods before adoption of the revised standard should be capitalised and those incurred after the revised standard is adopted should be expensed. Therefore, supporters of View B1 would first apply the requirements of IFRS 3 (2004) and then upon adoption of IFRS 3 (2008) apply those requirements.
• View B2: The acquisition-related costs incurred in the reporting periods before adoption of the revised standard should be capitalised. Upon adoption of the new standard, acquisition-related costs should be expensed retrospectively and comparative periods are restated. Supporters of View B2 argue that the adoption of IFRS 3 (2008) is a change in accounting principle and that therefore the requirements in IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors should be applied.
• View B3: The acquisition-related costs incurred in the reporting periods before adoption of the revised standard should be capitalised. However, upon adoption of IFRS 3 (2008), the acquirer adjusts the opening balance of retained earnings without restatement of the comparative periods.

The staff believe that the treatment of acquisition-related costs that (a) relate to a business combination that is accounted for in accordance with IFRS 3 (2008) and (b) the acquirer incurred before adoption of the revised standard can be determined with sufficient clarity from the withdrawal of IFRS 3 (2004) and the explanations in IFRS 3 (2008). They therefore recommended that the IFRIC does not add the issue to its agenda.

One IFRIC member stated that this issue had been addressed in the US in relation to SFAS 141R, where it was concluded that View A, B2 and B4 (not included within the IFRIC staff paper – this view is to capitalise and then expense in the first period of adoption through profit or loss) would all be acceptable answers.

A number of IFRIC members thought that View A would not be in compliance with IFRS 3 (2004) at the end of the reporting period, and would therefore be unhappy with saying that View A is the only method of accounting for such costs (as is effectively being recommended by the staff). Another IFRIC member added that most US companies decided to expense their acquisition-related costs.

The IFRIC agreed not to add the issue to the agenda. However, the proposed wording of the agenda decision would be amended to say that there are multiple ways of accounting for such acquisition-related costs. Entities would need to disclose how they had accounted for such costs if material. The IFRIC asked the staff to rewrite the agenda decision accordingly.

The transition requirement in paragraph 64 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations (2008) permits an entity to apply the revised standard before 1 July 2009. However, it restricts early application as follows: 'this IFRS shall be applied only at the beginning of an annual reporting period that begins on or after 30 June 2007'. Some constituents asked the IFRIC to clarify:

1. whether IFRS 3 (2008) can be applied early only from the beginning of an annual period or from any time during the annual period; and
2. if the revised standard can be adopted early at any time during the annual period, whether an entity must restate prior business combinations that occurred in the same annual period.

The staff recommended that the IFRIC not add this issue to its agenda. The staff believe that the wording in IFRS 3.64 clearly requires application of the revised standard for the whole annual period if it is applied early. Therefore, the staff do not expect divergence in practice.

The IFRIC agreed with the staff analysis, but suggested that the wording of the proposed agenda decision be clarified.

The IFRIC has been asked to clarify the treatment of transaction costs relating to acquisitions and disposals of non-controlling interests (NCI) that do not result in a loss of control of the entity. Paragraph 30 of IAS 27 (2008) requires those transactions to be accounted for as equity transactions. However, the standard does not contain explicit requirements for transaction costs incurred in relation to the acquisition or disposal of NCI. Therefore, some constituents have asked the IFRIC to clarify whether an entity should either expense those transaction costs or deduct them from equity.

The staff recommended that the IFRIC not add a project to its agenda to clarify how an entity should account for transaction costs that it incurs in a transaction with NCI that does not result in the loss of control of a subsidiary. The staff believes that relevant guidance already exists in IFRSs. Directly attributable transaction costs that are incurred in an acquisition or disposal of NCI that does not result in the loss of control of an entity should be deducted from equity.

The IFRIC agreed with the staff; however, one IFRIC member said that the rationale for supporting the rejection should be IAS 1.106(d)(iii). The other IFRIC members agreed, and the staff were requested to amend the agenda decision accordingly.

By way of background, in November 2008, the IFRIC asked the staff to carry out additional research and analysis on the two additional issues:

• Issue 1 – How the initial carrying value of an equity method investment should be determined; and
• Issue 3 – How an equity method investee's issue of shares should be accounted for.

At IFRIC's March 2009 meeting, the staff updated the IFRIC that a broader review of the potential effect of IFRS 3R was being performed by the staff and would be deliberated by the Board in the future. Issues 1 and 3 were included in this review. Further, issues 1 and 3 are being included in the staff analysis of the comments received on the exposure draft ED 10 Consolidated Financial Statements issued in December 2008.

In relation to issue 1, the staff view is that other IFRSs provide consistent guidance on the treatment of costs. When assets are:

1. measured at fair value through profit or loss, the only cost allowed to be capitalised is the fair value of the asset itself with all other costs expensed as incurred; or
2. measured on a basis other than fair value through profit or loss (that is, historical unamortised cost, amortised cost, available-for-sale assets, etc), all costs required to obtain the asset are included in the measurement of the asset on initial recognition.

In relation to issue 3, the staff view is that if an investor's ownership interest in an associate is reduced through the equity method investee's issuance of shares rather than by the sale of the investor's holdings, the investor would recognise a gain or loss, including the amounts described in paragraph 19A of IAS 28*. As a result, in the staff's opinion, the accounting for the equity method investee's issuance of shares should be consistent with the guidance provided in paragraph 19A of IAS 28 and as expanded throughout other IFRSs.

The IFRIC agreed with the staff conclusion in relation to issue 1; however, one staff member suggested that the agenda decision be amended to describe the two questions being addressed, and also not address the EITFs directly. The other IFRIC members agreed. Another IFRIC member thought that it was inconsistent to say that they did not expect divergence in practice, and at the same time note that the Board is currently considering the issue. It was agreed to take out the last paragraph of the rejection.

In relation to issue 3, some IFRIC members were not convinced that 19A requires the answer provided, although they liked the accounting. Overall, the IFRIC agreed with the staff recommendation.

* Paragraph 19A of IAS 28 states (relevant section underlined):
If an investor loses significant influence over an associate, the investor shall account for all amounts recognised in other comprehensive income in relation to that associate on the same basis as would be required if the associate had directly disposed of the related assets or liabilities. Therefore, if a gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income by an associate would be reclassified to profit or loss on the disposal of the related assets or liabilities, the investor reclassifies the gain or loss from equity to profit or loss (as a reclassification adjustment) when it loses significant influence over the associate. For example, if an associate has available-for-sale financial assets and the investor loses significant influence over the associate, the investor shall reclassify to profit or loss the gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income in relation to those assets. If an investor's ownership interest in an associate is reduced, but the investment continues to be an associate, the investor shall reclassify to profit or loss only a proportionate amount of the gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income.

In March 2009, the IFRIC received a request to address the potentially conflicting guidance in IAS 28 Investments in Associates, IAS 36 Impairment of Assets and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement when performing an impairment test of investments in associates. The request noted different impairment models (IAS 36 vs IAS 39) are used for impairment testing of investments in associates in the consolidated financial statements vs the separate financial statements of the investor.

In the staff's opinion, given the different purposes of consolidated financial statements and separate financial statements (as detailed by the Board in BC66 of IAS 27), different impairment models (IAS 36 and IAS 39) are appropriate. Based on the explicit guidance provided in IAS 28 and other IFRSs, in the staff's opinion, IFRSs already provide relevant guidance and the staff does not expect divergent interpretations in practice. Therefore, the staff recommended that the IFRIC not add this issue to its agenda.

The IFRIC members were asked if they agreed with the staff recommendation. One IFRIC member did not agree. That member thought that the two amounts should be the same, and it would be difficult to explain to the market why they are different.

Another IFRIC member queried whether the cross-exemptions also apply in the separate financial statement for investments held at cost – or is it only if they are equity-accounted? The staff responded by saying that it is not clear.

An IFRIC member stated that you could argue that the IAS 39 exemptions apply whether the investment is held at cost or equity-accounted. Another thought it is clear the equity method investments are excluded from IAS 39, but it is not clear for those held at cost.

Another IFRIC member pointed out that IAS 39 permits the use of cost only when the entity is unable to get a reliable measurement. It does not incorporate cost and fair value as the staff are implying.

The staff also said that because different measurement models apply, it would also seem appropriate to use different impairment models.

Another IFRIC member disagreed with the staff analysis, stating that consolidation of subsidiaries is not the same as equity accounting. Equity accounting is a valuation method, not a consolidation, and this member disagrees with the analogy to consolidation.

The staff also noted that the requirements for separate financial statements are in IAS 27, not IAS 28. One IFRIC member said that this was debatable as IAS 28 does refer to separate financial statements (by referring you back into IAS 27).

Another IFRIC member thought the issue should be referred to the Board and dealt with via the annual improvements process. The IFRIC agreed to refer the issue to the Board.

The IFRIC received a request to provide guidance on whether fair value disclosures are required for interim reporting periods in accordance with IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting.

The Board discussed fair value disclosures in interim financial reports at its April 2009 meeting. The Board decided to include in its exposure draft on fair value measurement the requirement to disclose, in interim periods, the same information required by IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures.

The Board asked the IFRIC to clarify whether IAS 34 currently provides sufficient guidance to enable entities to decide whether fair value disclosures would be required in interim financial reports.

In the staff's view, interim disclosures for fair value measurements are required if:

1. the annual report provides a disclosure;
2. the information it contains changes significantly; and
3. those changes significantly affect a reader's understanding of the changes in financial position and performance of the entity since the end of the last annual reporting period.

Following discussion, the IFRIC agreed with the staff view not to add the issue to IFRIC's agenda, subject to wording changes.

In March 2009 the IFRIC received a request for guidance on how to apply IAS 39 Guidance on Implementing F.2.1 Whether a derivative can be designated as a hedged item (IAS 39 IG F.2.1.) when an entity issues fixed interest rate foreign currency debt and then swaps it into floating interest rate local currency debt using a cross currency interest rate swap (CCIRS). The entity also enters into a local currency pay-fixed, receive-variable interest rate swap (IRS), which has a shorter duration than that of the cross currency interest rate swap.

In the staff's view, the real question in the case is whether the combination of the two derivatives (i.e. the CCIRS and the IRS) as the hedging instrument satisfy the hedge effectiveness test (as required by IAS 39 including paragraph 88) for one hedged item (eg the US debt) for the risks (US$/AUD FX risk and fixed/float interest risk). In the staff's view:

1. the CCIRS and the IRS in combination are eligible for joint designation as the hedging instrument in a hedging relationship with the fixed rate US$ debt as the hedged item;
2. the challenge of such a designation is the hedge effectiveness testing (as pointed out by supporters of View B - see paragraph 9 above);
3. if the prospective hedge effectiveness test (paragraphs 88(b) and AG105(a) of IAS 39) fails because of the challenge associated with this hedging relationship then the hedging relationship would not qualify for hedge accounting from the outset, ie commencement of the initial IRS covering the first five years (notwithstanding the eligibility for designation).

In the staff's opinion, IAS 39 provides clear guidance for the cases of combining the two derivatives as a single hedging instrument and its hedge effectiveness test (including the submitter's case). Therefore, in the staff's view, development of an interpretation would result in providing implementation guidance on paragraphs 77 and 88, rather than an interpretation.

One IFRIC member asked if there was really diversity in practice. Another responded by saying yes there was. The staff were requested to remove the wording from the agenda decision which stated that the IFRIC had not identified any significant diversity in practice.

The IFRIC agreed with the staff recommendation not to add the issue to IFRIC's agenda, subject to the drafting change noted above.

In March 2009 the IFRIC received a request to add an item to its agenda to provide guidance on the conceptual meaning of 'significant or prolonged' in the context of recognising impairment on available-for-sale equity securities in accordance with IAS 39.

The staff expressed concern about the timing of any response from IFRIC given the board's project on financial instruments, and would recommend not adding the issue to the agenda. They did note, however, that there is clear diversity in practice.

Some IFRIC members thought that this issue should be one of judgement, although they had seen in practice 'rules' which interpreted the requirements of IAS 39 as being 9 months and 20%. This was considered to be moving away from judgement. Another IFRIC member supported the introduction of 'bright lines' on the basis that this would solve the issue quickly and provide comparability.

Other IFRIC members noted that the view of some people is that markets always recover and therefore the one the question is whether the entity will be able to hold the investment for long enough for the market to recover. Another IFRIC member asked if the same entity was in the market buying equity investments? At least this would support their view. The response was no.

It was noted by another IFRIC member that recovery is not considered in IFRSs. Another IFRIC member noted that the reason for the problem is that the impairments cannot be reversed. Could the IFRIC recommend to the Board to change that requirement? The Chairman noted that this depends on what measurement basis the board decides in the new exposure draft, and this is yet to be decided. Impairment may not be needed at all.

The IFRIC agreed not to take the issue on to the agenda.

The IFRIC were then asked if they would like to highlight inappropriate practices in the agenda decision. The IFRIC agreed, but noted that it should be made clear that whatever is included within the agenda decision are only examples. The IFRIC did not discuss exactly which examples to include within the agenda decision.

The Chairman also suggested that the IFRIC could issue the agenda decision not only in the IFRIC update, but also as a separate paper (including the same wording) and request all national standard setters to comment on the issue. The objective would be to gain as much publicity for the issue as possible. They may also consider issuing a special press release. The staff noted that it is important to receive both positive and negative feedback on this issue.

In March and April 2009 the IFRIC received two requests for guidance on the application of IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements. One focuses on one of the criteria for determining whether an arrangement is within the scope of the Interpretation. The other requests guidance on the application of the Interpretation to other features of the arrangement.

In the staff's view, the issues raised in the submissions are already sufficiently addressed in the Interpretation to prevent divergence from emerging in practice. In addition, the staff is of the opinion that the issues raised call for implementation guidance rather interpretation.

All IFRIC members except one agreed with the staff recommendation.

In March 2009, the staff received a request to add to the IFRIC agenda an issue regarding the applicability to customers of IFRIC 18 Transfers of Assets from Customers.

In the staff's opinion, IFRIC 18 is explicit that it does not apply to the customer's accounting for the transfer of assets. The IFRIC members agreed.

Based on the explicit scope of IFRIC 18, principles explained throughout IFRIC 18 including its Basis for Conclusions, and guidance in other IFRSs, in the staff's opinion, divergent interpretations are not expected in practice. Therefore the staff recommends that the IFRIC not add this issue to its agenda. The IFRIC agreed, subject to minor wording changes.