Notes from the July 2010 IFRIC meeting

  • IFRS IC (IFRS Interpretations Committee) (blue) Image

09 Jul 2010

The IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) met at the IASB's offices in London on Thursday and Friday, 8-9 July 2010. Presented below are the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers at the meeting.

Notes from the Interpretations Committee Meeting 8-9 July 2010
gpeg.gif IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment – Accounting for Stripping Costs in the Production Phase

The Committee discussed the final draft of the proposed Interpretation on  accounting for stripping costs in the production phase. 

Description of a stripping campaign

The draft Interpretation describes a stripping campaign as that which "...will 
typically be planned in advance and form part of the mine plan.  It will have a 
defined start date and it will end when the entity has completed the waste 
removal activity necessary to access the ore to which the campaign is 

The Committee was asked to consider whether the proposed description was 
sufficient or whether additional wording should be added.  A Committee member  expressed his surprise and concern that the description of a stripping campaign  is considered at such a late stage of the project, seeing that the 
Interpretation on how to account for the stripping campaign costs is almost 
complete.  The Committee had a very long discussion on whether it was necessary  to include a description/definition of a stripping campaign in the 
Interpretation.  Those in favour of including the description noted that it was 
important to distinguish routine stripping from a stripping campaign as only the 
stripping campaign is in the scope of the Interpretation. 

Those not in favour of a description noted that the requirements relating to a 
defined start date are impracticable to apply in practice.  In their opinion, a 
stripping campaign would be clearly identifiable from the life of mine plan and 
that the industry has no problem in identifying what constitutes a stripping 
campaign. It was also noted that the Committee did not yet have a discussion on what routine stripping is.

After a rather prolonged discussion on it was generally agreed that a description of a stripping campaign should be included in the proposed Interpretation, but that the word typically' should be removed from the proposed description to limit the ability of entities to get around applying the Interpretation. The Chairman instructed the staff to revise the proposed description to take into consideration all the comments made and present the new description for consideration at a later session.

The staff presented two alternative descriptions of a stripping campaign following the concerns raised by the Committee at the previous day's meeting. Without much deliberation, the Committee agreed on including the following description of a stripping campaign in the draft Interpretation:

"A stripping campaign is a systematic process undertaken to gain access to a specific section of the ore base, that is a more aggressive process than routine waste clearing activities. This stripping campaign is planned in advance and forms part of the mine plan. It will have a defined start date and it will end when the entity has completed the waste removal activity necessary to access the ore to which the campaign is associated."

It was further agreed to ask a specific question in the draft Interpretation on whether this description is appropriate. The draft Interpretation will be exposed for a period of 90 days once clearance has been obtained at the July Board meeting.

Scope of Interpretation

The draft Interpretation limits the scope to waste removal costs that are incurred in surface mining activity during the production phase of the mine; the Committee unanimously agreed to with the proposed scope.

A Committee member questioned whether it was the Committee's intention to prohibit analogy to similar situations as was implied in the draft basis for conclusions. The Chairman responded that although the idea is not to prohibit analogy, the Interpretation addresses a very specific question from the extractive industry and that analogy to other 'similar' situations would not be practical. It was agreed that the basis for conclusions should explain why the Committee did not consider other similar situations and only focussed on the specific question asked.

Disclosure requirements

The Committee considered whether to include any specific disclosure requirements in the proposed Interpretation or ask constituents if there is specific information relating to the stripping campaign that would be useful if disclosed.

Several Committee members were not comfortable with asking an open question on which disclosures would be useful, as it will end up with a long list of disclosures. Also, should the Committee then consider some of these disclosures useful, it will have to exposure them for public comment to comply with due process.

Some Committee members were of the opinion that any relevant disclosures would already be required by IAS 1, IAS 2, IAS 16 and/or IAS 38 and that additional disclosures would overlap with existing disclosures.

The Committee agreed to rephrase the question to highlight the disclosures required by IAS 16 and ask whether there is any other information that is required in addition to that.


The Committee considered the proposed transitional provisions which require prospective application of the proposed Interpretation from the effective date and that the existing carrying amounts of assets are used as opening balances at that date.

A Committee member questioned whether this imply that an entity will retain any costs previously capitalised, even it would not be permitted in accordance with the Interpretation. A number of other Committee members echoed this concern and also questioned the period over which such an asset, calculated based on the stripping ratio method would be amortised.

Another Committee member also enquired whether an entity would be prohibited from retrospectively applying the Interpretation is all the relevant information is considered available. The Chairman responded that retrospective application would require the recalculation of amortisation from the beginning of the mine's life and that this will invariably involve the use of hindsight.

The majority of Committee members supported the proposal to require prospective application.


Subject to the changes required pertaining to the revised description of a stripping campaign and minor editorial amendments, the Committee aims to issue the draft Interpretation before the end of August for public comment.

gpeg.gif IFRS 2 Share-based Payment – Vesting Conditions

The Committee continued the deliberations on the distinction between vesting and non-vesting conditions and the Chairman reminded the Committee that the objective of the discussion will be to determine the next steps in the process and will not be based on decisions taken at previous meetings.

Definition of performance condition

The staff presented an analysis on the attributes of a performance condition, being:

  • the incentive exists only if the employee is able to influence whether the target will be met; and
  • the performance target is in the interest of the entity.

These attributes are broadly consistent with the definitions in US GAAP.

In considering the impact of these attributes on the current practices under IFRS 2, the staff applied the attributes to a number of illustrative examples, including save-as-you-earn (SAYE) schemes, IPOs and change in control provisions.

Some Committee members noted that although they agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the illustrative examples, they did not agree with the attributes. A Committee member thought that any share-based payment scheme would be in the interest of the entity, otherwise the entity would not have entered into it. This member was of the opinion that performance conditions should rather relate to the operations/actions of the entity and its achievement should be influenced by the entity rather than the employee.

A few Committee members did not feel that the proposed changes to the definitions would be an improvement on the existing guidance and that more problems are being created by continuing with the proposed direction of the project.

A Committee member noted that the same confusion and diversity in practice did not exist in the US and the US GAAP prepares are not experiencing the same difficulties in distinguishing performance conditions from market conditions.

The Chairman responded that taking on the definitions in US GAAP would be outside the mandate of the Committee and reluctantly acknowledged that in order to develop guidance that will provide clarification of principles to be applied, any steps to be taken should be within the mandate of the Committee as the Board is not likely to get to the matter before the end of 2011.

Several Committee members noted that the definition of a performance condition by reference to the operation or activities of the entity (as described in the questions to the Committee in the agenda paper) is closer to their understanding of a performance condition. They suggested eliminating any reference to the attributes identified by the staff.

Other Committee members responded that if the attributes are eliminated, the proposed definition works for IPOs and change in control provisions, but not for SAYE schemes. As the majority of Committee members agreed that the current practice of treating the saving requirement in a SAYE scheme as a non-vesting condition (similar to the payment of an option exercise price) results in the most appropriate treatment if employees decide not to continue saving, as long as the service condition is still met. The Committee agreed to remove SAYE schemes from any future discussions on this matter and focus only on IPOs, change in control provisions and other illustrative examples that represent problem areas.

On this basis, the majority of Committee members voted in favour of the proposed definition of a performance condition.

The Committee continued to deliberate the illustrative examples provided by the staff, but agreed to allow staff some time to consider any changes to the examples based on the earlier decision in relation to performance conditions. There was general disagreement between the Committee members on whether a performance target with a measurement period that is longer than the required service period is a performance condition or a non-vesting condition. Some members were of the opinion that under US GAAP these performance targets are being treated as performance conditions, whereas other Committee members and the staff were of the opinion that they were non-vesting conditions. The Chairman requested the staff to do more research on the matter and report back at the next meeting.

A Committee member noted that the Committee has not yet agreed on whether to proceed with the project as an annual improvement or an interpretation. The Chairman asked the Committee to allow the staff to finalise their analysis based on today's discussions and requested the staff to consider the criteria for annual improvements and interpretations and present an analysis at the September meeting with a recommendation on how best to proceed. Another Committee member also requested that the staff papers to be presented at the September meeting should highlight the original questions asked by constituents, as the Committee seems to have lost sight of what it was asked to clarify. The staff committed to do more research on the illustrative examples and present the revised examples and analysis at the next meeting.

gpeg.gif Put Options over Non-controlling Interests

The staff proposed that the Committee address initially two broad scoping questions: identifying which components of the accounting for put options written over non-controlling interests (NCI), and which put options written over NCI should be within the scope of the proposed interpretation.

For simplicity reasons, the staff suggested to exclude put options issued in a business combination from the analysis. Once the principles of the interpretation have been agreed, the scope of the interpretation will be broaden to include these as well. The Committee were supportive of the approach to be adopted by the staff and requested them to proceed with their analysis.

Initial Recognition

The Committee held a long and ultimately inconclusive debate on the initial recognition of puts written over non-controlling interests.

The Committee was asked to consider whether the credit entry should be to recognise a financial liability that is initially measured at fair value. The Committee unanimously agreed with the proposal, however, one member questioned whether the problem can be resolved by changing the requirements of IAS 32.23 (which requires gross recognition of the financial liability) can be amended as an annual improvement to exclude transactions between owners. The questions on what the debit and credit entries are can be avoided by accounting for the derivative on a net basis. Although this suggestion enticed a few nervous giggles from the Committee members, several members were sympathetic to the suggestion and could see the merit of the suggestion.

The Chairman again reminded the Committee that if they want to make progress on the matter, they should focus their efforts on solutions that are achievable within its mandate.

More divergent views were expressed when asked to consider where the debit entry should be recognised:

  • against NCI, as the put option provides the parent in substance with a present ownership interest in the shares held by the NCI shareholder (view A);
  • as a reclassification of NCI from equity to a financial liability, with NCI being reduced to zero and any difference recognised as an adjusting entry to the parent's equity (view B); and
  • as a reclassification of the financial liability to the NCI component of equity, up to the carrying amount of the NCI with any excess over the carrying amount recognised in the parent's equity. This will result in NCI continuing to be recognised but classified as a financial liability.

The Committee considered these alternatives in the context of two scenarios: (1) the parent, in substance, acquires present access to economic benefits associated with ownership, and (2) the parent does not, in substance, acquire present access to economic benefits.

With regards to the first scenario, the Committee unanimously agreed that NCI should be reduced to zero and no longer be recognised, with any difference being recognised in controlling interest equity.

The Committee was however split as to whether the debit entry in the second scenario should go to NCI or not.

A Committee member felt that IAS 27.BC11 leads to the derecognition of the NCI, but could accept the staff recommendation on recognising it in controlling interest equity. Another Committee member that reluctantly supported view C, noted that part of the debit entry relates to the price paid for the put option and that eliminating NCI in total does not seem the right thing to do.

Several Committee members were uncomfortable with double accounting as a consequence of the accounting mechanisms of the transactions.

There was some support for seeing the matter as a reclassification of NCI from equity to a financial liability. Supporters of this view believe that the nature of NCI has been changed as a result of the put and that parent has an obligation in respect of it. They concluded that the debit entry would always go to NCI.

Following a prolonged discussion on the matter, the Committee appeared to be unable to reach an agreement on the matter. The Chairman presented 2 approaches for consideration:

    1. exclude the initial recognition of the debit entry from the proposed interpretation; or
    2. consider the matter once more at the September meeting in order to give the staff more time to do more research and consider the comments made by the Committee so far.

Several Committee members indicated their support for reconsidering the matter at the September meeting. In their opinion, excluding the debit entry from the scope of the interpretation would result in a meaningless and of any use by constituents.

The Chairman requested the staff to continue their analysis and bring the matter back to the September meeting for further consideration.

Subsequent measurement — NCI put financial liability

Acknowledging that they had not concluded on the appropriate initial recognition, the Committee turned its attention to the subsequent measurement of the instrument. It assumed that, on initial recognition, a financial liability would be recognised for the fair value (present value of the redemption amount) of the NCI put and that this financial liability is reclassified from equity. The staff noted that constituents' views differed on how subsequent changes in the carrying amount of the NCI put financial liability should be recognised in the financial statements, however the staff was firmly of the view that, in common with most financial instruments, all changes in the carrying amount of the NCI put financial liability should be recognised in profit or loss.

A minority of the Committee preferred an equity view' because they considered that it was inappropriate to recognise changes in the carrying amount of the NCI put financial liability in profit or loss when the risks and rewards of ownership of the underlying shares have not transferred to the parent.

A majority of the Committee supported recognising all changes in carrying amount in profit and loss. Several of those Committee members supporting this view thought that this conclusion was unavoidable having classified the NCI put as a financial liability.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman asked how many of Committee would object to profit and loss treatment: two members were opposed.

A Committee member suggested that, in the event that the Committee was unable to conclude on the initial recognition issue, it might be possible to issue an Interpretation on this issue.

gpeg.gif IFRS 1 – Fixed Date in Derecognition Exception

At its May meeting, the Committee decided to delay the finalisation of the request to replace the fixed date of 1 January 2004 in IFRS 1.B2 with a more relevant date, pending the transition requirements specified in the exposure draft on Derecognition to be issued by the Board. Following the revised work plan issued by the Board and the decision not to issue an exposure draft on derecognition in the near future, the Board referred to matter back to the Committee for reconsideration.

Without much discussion on the matter, the Committee agreed with the staff recommendation to replace the fixed date with the phrase date of transition to IFRSs. The Committee also agreed with the proposal to recommend to the Board that the amendment to IFRS 1 not being done as part of the Annual Improvement Process, but rather as a separate amendment to IFRS 1 as this will result in a more expedient solution to those jurisdictions planning to adopt IFRSs in the near future.

gpeg.gif IFRS 1 – Repeat Application

The Committee received a request in March 2010 to clarify whether an entity can apply IFRS 1 more than once. The staff presented the proposed draft wording of an amendment to IFRS 1 to the Committee for consideration.

Following a short discussion on improving the wording the proposed amendment and the accompanying basis for conclusions, it was agreed that it should be clarified in the basis for conclusion that the requirement to apply IFRS 1 each time an entity prepares financial statements that meet the definition of its first IFRS financial statements, only apply when the entity has applied IFRSs in previous periods but not in its most recent financial statements.

The Committee unanimously agreed to amendment of the Standard as proposed.

gpeg.gif IAS 29 – Reporting in Accordance with IAS 29 after a Period of Chronic Hyperinflation

Issues related to the preparation of the separate financial statements of an entity with a functional currency that is no longer the currency of a hyperinflationary economy

The Committee reached a tentative conclusion at the meeting in May that IAS 29 should be amended to provide guidance on how an entity shall prepare and present an opening statement of financial position at the date when the entity's functional currency ceases to be a currency that is suffering from chronic hyperinflation.

The Committee presented the proposed amendments to IAS 29 presented by the staff. There were broad support in following the IFRS 3 methodology when initially recognising assets and liabilities on the start-up basis, however a couple of Committee members supported using the IFRS 1 methodology instead. Following the short deliberation of the matter, the majority of Committee members agreed to follow an IFRS 3 methodology.

Several Committee members noted that although this would be the preferred methodology to follow, it does raise quite a few questions on matters such as intangible assets (including goodwill) and leases.

Some Committee members supported recognising these at fair value at the date that the new accounting basis is applied, whereas others were supportive of allowing some practical expedients to fair value accounting for such items.

The Committee agreed that since IFRS 3 already includes some exceptions to fair value, any amendment to IAS 29 should refer to these instead of listing every instance where it may not be appropriate to apply full fair value accounting. It was also agreed to create an exception to limit the recognition of goodwill and other intangible assets to those that would have been recognised under IAS 38.

No objections were raised on the proposed wording of IAS 29 and the Committee approved the wording of the tentative agenda decision to be issued.

Issues related to the preparation and presentation of consolidated financial statements of a parent with an interest in an entity that ceases to have a functional currency that is the currency of a hyperinflationary economy

The Committee discussed a number of situations addressing the preparation by the parent of consolidated financial statements that include an interest in an entity with a functional currency that has just ceased to be that of a hyperinflationary economy. The agenda papers were prepared on the basis of whether the parent could or should apply IFRS 1 to its interest.

A majority of the Committee disagreed with the staff assessment, instead preferring an analogy to IAS 27, under which the parent would regard the entity emerging from hyperinflation as a new entity. In essence, the parent would dispose' of the existing interest in the entity at its carrying amount when it could no longer prepare IFRS-compliant financial statements and acquire' a new entity at the date IFRS-compliant financial statements could once again be prepared.

The Committee developed this approach, noting that it was similar to that for an acquisition under IFRS 3, except that the parent would be determining the fair value of the assets and liabilities in the entity rather than the fair value of the business.

The Committee agreed that any gain or loss arising as a result of this exercise would be recognised in profit or loss.

gpeg.gif IAS 21 – Repayment of Investment / Cumulative Translation Account

The Committee discussed an issue arising in IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates related to when the separate foreign currency equity reserve related to the retranslation of the net assets of an investor's net investment in a subsidiary (often referred to as CTA') should be recycled. The staff presented two alternatives, the proportionate reduction' approach and the absolute reduction' approach.

Under the proportionate reduction' approach, amounts recognised in CTA related to a foreign operation would be recycled only when there is a reduction in the entity's proportionate ownership interest in the foreign operation. Under the absolute reduction' approach, amounts recognised in CTA related to a foreign operation would be recycled any time there is a reduction in the entity's absolute ownership interest in the foreign operation.

The staff favoured the absolute reduction' approach and recommended that IAS 21 be clarified by an amendment included in the Annual Improvements Project in the next cycle.

Many Committee members did not support the staff recommendations. Some thought the recommendations were inconsistent with the 2008 amendments to IAS 21 (IAS 21 paragraphs 48A-48C refer). Other Committee members thought that more application guidance would be required to make the proposals operational. Other Committee members did not want to see any recycling at all.

As it became apparent that the staff recommendation did not have sufficient support among Committee members, the Chairman proposed that the Committee discontinue activity on the issue and remove it from the Committee's Agenda on the grounds that it was not probable that the Committee would be able to reach a consensus on the issue on a timely basis (Interpretations Committee Due Process Handbook, paragraph 24(e) refers).

A report will be made to the IASB on this issue.

gpeg.gif Annual Improvments — IAS 40 – Transfers from Investment Property

At the request of the IASB, the Committee discussed a number of issues related to the amendment to IAS 40 paragraphs 57-60, proposed in Exposure Draft ED/2009/11 Improvements to IFRS. The proposed amendments were (in summary):

  • Removing the requirement to transfer investment properties to IAS 2 Inventories at the commencement of development with a view to sale;
  • That investment properties held for sale should be displayed as a separate category in the statement of financial position; and
  • That investment properties held for sale should be subject to the same disclosures as non-financial assets held for sale in accordance with IFRS 5.

In March 2010, the comment letter analysis of respondents to the proposed changes highlighted the confusing array of interactions between IAS 40 and other IFRSs and the Committee recommended that the proposed amendment was not finalised. The staff noted that the IASB had asked the Committee to revisit the issue, noting that developments in IFRS since the Exposure Draft had clarified many of the conflicting interactions noted by constituents.


With little discussion after the staff introduction, the Committee agreed that the transfer to inventories required by IAS 40 is retained and that recognition of investment properties in accordance with different IFRSs, depending on intended use and stage of development, should continue as at present.

Measurement of investment properties

As a result of changes to the proposals in the IASB's Fair Value Measurement Guidance project, investment properties would be measured at fair value less costs to sell, consistent with other IFRS 5 assets. There was no issue for the Committee to address. The Committee agreed.

Investment properties held for sale displayed as a separate asset category

The Committee agreed that investment properties held for sale that do not satisfy the criteria of IFRS 5 should not be displayed as a separate asset category (this is contrary to the proposal in ED/2009/11).

Next steps

The Committee agreed that no further activities were necessary because the IASB's actions in other standard-setting projects had addressed other concerns raised by constituents. The Committee would recommend that the Board not do anything further.

gpeg.gif New Items for Initial Consideration

Annual Improvements Re-grouping and consistency of contingent consideration guidance

The Committee reviewed a staff analysis that highlighted inconsistencies and potential conflicts between IFRS 3' requirements on accounting for contingent consideration and other applicable IFRSs, and recommended that these inconsistencies be removed by deleting references to other IFRSs from the guidance on accounting for contingent consideration within IFRS 3.

Many Committee members supported the staff conclusions that it was desirable to remove inconsistencies and conflicts around contingent consideration and that IFRS 3 was the most logical place in which to house all the requirements. Those supporting the proposals thought that they were consistent with the intention of the IASB when it revised IFRS 3. However, some were concerned that the proposed changes could be more significant than would be within the scope of an Improvement'.

A Committee member was concerned that the transition requirement was potentially troublesome as drafted and asked the staff to clarify what prospective' meant in this circumstance (i.e. business combination transactions involving contingent consideration or contingent consideration re-measurements).

Accepting the need for this clarification, the Chairman asked whether there was consensus that an Improvement to IFRS 3 should be proposed removing references to other IFRSs in IFRS 3 paragraph 58 and improving clarity in paragraph 40. The staff would map the changes against the Improvements Project criteria and report their findings to the Committee and the Board.

The Committee agreed to this approach (one member opposed).

Annual Improvements — IAS 28: Purchases in stagesfair value as deemed cost

The Committee debated the issue of how to account for changes from available for sale (AFS) category to equity method for an associate purchased by stages. A question had been raised about how to account for an investment in an associate when the investment was purchased in more than one step. IAS 28 is silent on the accounting for an investment in an associate purchased in stages.

The Committee agreed that at the time the investment changes its nature from AFS to Associate should trigger a disposal of the AFS investment, with gains or losses reclassified from other comprehensive income to profit or loss and that the fair value of the total holding establishes the initial carrying amount for equity accounting purposes. This was thought to be consistent with the step acquisition principles in IFRS 3. However, a significant proportion of the Committee was concerned that such an amendment would represent a significant change in principle to IAS 28, one that was beyond the scope of the Improvements Project.

The Committee agreed to refer this issue to the IASB together with its recommendations.

New items carried over to the next meeting

The Committee did not address the following issues:

  • IAS 19 Employee Benefits: Accounting for statutory employee profit sharing arrangements
  • IAS 36 Impairment of Assets: Accounting for goodwill impairment testing when non-controlling interests are recognised
  • All IFRSs: Encouraged versus required disclosures

gpeg.gif Review of Tentative Agenda Decisions Published in May 2010 IFRIC Update

The Committee re-deliberated its tentative agenda decisions published in the May 2010 IFRIC Update.

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements – Going concern disclosure

The Agenda Decision was confirmed. The staff did not recommend any changes to the wording exposed in the May 2010 IFRIC Update.

IAS 12 Income Taxes – Recognition of deferred tax assets for unrealised losses on available-for-sale debt securities

The Committee had a longer debate on this Agenda Decision. A number of comment letters had been received, many of them opposing the Tentative Agenda Decision or, at best, suggesting modifications.

The Committee noted that a similar issue was under consideration, and a similar conclusion reached, in the FASB's recent Financial Instruments exposure draft. The FASB's position in the ED reflected the 'informal' position of the US Securities and Exchange Commission staff. Assuming that the Committee's Agenda Decision and the FASB's position as exposed in its ED were confirmed, there would be convergence on this issue.

While some Committee members would have preferred to address this via Annual Improvements, the Committee confirmed the Agenda Decision (two opposed), subject to amending the reasons along the lines suggested by one respondent as follows:

The Committee noted that the objectives of IAS 12 and the deferred tax recognition principle relating to deductible temporary differences are based on recovering or settling the carrying amount of the asset or liability at the reporting date. The Committee also noted that preventing losses from being realised is not the same as or similar to creating or increasing taxable income. Based on the requirement to recognise deferred tax assets only when it is probable that they will be realised, paragraph 30 of IAS 12 limits tax planning opportunities to actions of the entity that create or increase taxable income. Consequently, applying paragraph 29 of IAS 12 by analogy in the context of the fact pattern in the request, i.e. the entity's actions to hold the AFS debt securities until the unrealised losses reverse, to maturity, is unwarranted. In addition, the approach in paragraphs 24-31 of IAS 12 requires an entity to assess the probability of realising deferred tax assets on a combined basis that is consistent with the rules established by the taxation authorities.

Following from the previous day's discussion of the comments and objections received, the Committee decided not to finalise the tentative agenda decision at this meeting and to explain in the IFRIC Update that although the outcome of the Committee's deliberations has not changed, there seems to be alternative views to consider. The final decision will be published at a later date.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement – Impairment of financial assets reclassified from available-for sale to loans and receivables

The Agenda Decision was confirmed. The Committee spent some time considering the most appropriate reference in IAS 39 to use: whether IAS 39.50C or .50F (or another) should be highlighted. The Committee unanimously agreed to include reference to both paragraphs 50F and 54 in the tentative agenda decision.

gpeg.gif IFRIC Work in Progress

The Committee received a report from the Interpretations Committee staff of issues received by the staff but not yet presented to the Committee. There was no discussion.

This closed the public session of the IFRIC meeting.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the IFRIC meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

Related Topics

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.