We have reservations about the IFRIC's approach to this issue. The Interpretation does not clearly establish the principles on which it is based and, accordingly, the appropriate application of the proposed Interpretation is not always clear. In the absence of such clear principles, there is a danger that the Interpretation may be applied as a set of arbitrary rules, and may lead to practices which conflict with the principles of IAS 18.

For this reason, as explained in more detail below, we believe that it is best for the IFRIC not to proceed with the Interpretation but to address this issue for the time being in an Agenda Decision.

It appears to us that the IFRIC initially intended to address, in situations in which an entity receives a specific item of property, plant and equipment that must be used to provide access to a supply of goods or services, whether the recipient should recognise such an asset at fair value and how to account for the resulting credit. The IFRIC later extended this to circumstances where an entity receives cash to fund the acquisition or construction of that specific asset.

However, we believe that the Interpretation as currently drafted has a much wider scope without providing robust principles for all situations that may fall in that scope.