19-22 June 2007, London

Tuesday 19 June 2007 (afternoon only)

• Financial Statement Presentation
• Leases
• Business Combinations II

Wednesday 20 June 2007

• Technical plan
• Post-employment Benefits
• IFRIC – Approval of Interpretations:
  • IFRIC X Customer Loyalty Programmes The Board will be asked to ratify an Interpretation of IAS 18 Revenue addressing accounting by entities that grant customer loyalty awards to their customers. The Interpretation was approved by the IFRIC at its May meeting.
  • IFRIC X IAS 19 - The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction The Board will also be asked to ratify an Interpretation of IAS 19 Employee Benefits addressing the limit on the recognition of an asset for a surplus in a defined benefit plan, minimum funding requirements and their interaction.
• Proposed amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - Identification of exposures qualifying for hedge accounting
• Conceptual Framework – Objectives and Qualitative Characteristics

Thursday 21 June 2007 (afternoon only)

• IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards Cost of an Investment in a Subsidiary
• Joint Ventures
• Annual Improvements Process– Discussion of the following issues:
  • 1. Should IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements be amended to clarify whether derivatives that are not used for hedging be classified as current or non-current in the balance sheet?
  • 2. Should IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment be amended to require that the sale of assets that were previously held for rental be presented on a gross basis in the income statement in certain circumstances?
  • 3. Should the apparent inconsistency between IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement be amended to clarify whether interest should be imputed to nil or low interest loans received from a government?
  • 4. Should IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement be amended to make clear under what circumstances it is appropriate to classify financial instruments into or out of the category of financial asset or financial liability at fair value through profit or loss?
  • 5. Should IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement be clarified to explain whether the revised or the original effective interest rate of a debt instrument should be applied in the remeasurement of the instrument's carrying amount on the cessation of fair value hedge accounting?
  • 6. Should IAS 41 Agriculture be amended to require a post-tax discount rate to be used for calculating the fair value of biological assets?
  • 7. Should the additional impairment test required by IAS 28 Associates be preformed in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets or IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement?
  • 8. Should IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement be amended to classify prepayment penalties that are charged to a borrower as closely related to the underlying loan where the penalty only compensates the lender for the changes in the interest rate?
  • 9. Should IAS 41 Agriculture be amended to address an issue identified with the accounting for replanting obligations?
  • 10. Should IAS 41 Agriculture be amended to identify 'felled trees' as an example of agricultural produce rather than 'logs'?
  • The Board will also be asked to consider proposed wording to reflect the decisions it took at the May Board meeting in respect of advertising and promotions costs.

Friday 22 June 2007 (morning only)

• Extractive Activities Research Project
• Financial Instruments Puttable at Fair Value and Obligations Arising on Liquidation – Re-deliberations of Exposure Draft: sweep issues.

FASB Developments

• FASB Clarifies Settlement of a Tax Position in an Interpretation 48 FSP
• Interpretation 46(R) FSP Issued for Investment Companies
• Hedge Accounting Project Added to Agenda

AICPA Developments

• Employee Benefit Plan Technical Practice Aids Issued
• Framework for AICPA Code of Professional Conduct Exposure Draft
• Proposed Revisions to Peer Review Standards
• Discussion Paper on Improving Clarity of ASB Standards

SEC Developments

• Management Guidance Provided on Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404
• Rule Changes Proposed on Capital Raising and Disclosure Requirements for Smaller Companies
• Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Broker-Dealer Rules
• SEC Provides Research Guides for Securities Laws and Public Companies
• Auditor Independence Brochure Made Available
• SEC Staff Warns Securities Industry Firms of Imposters

PCAOB Developments

• Auditing Standard Approved
• PCAOB Holds International Auditor Regulatory Institute

GASB Developments

• Statement on Pension Disclosures Issued

FASAB Developments

• Exposure Draft on Accounting for Federal Oil and Gas Resources

International Developments

• IASB Preliminary Views on Accounting for Insurance Contracts
• US and European Union Agree to Work to Eliminate Financial Reporting Reconciliation

Other Developments

• OMB Issues 2007 A-133 Compliance Supplement
• Treasury Department Announces Initiatives to Improve Financial Reporting and Auditing Profession

• The national standard setter (and/or another suitable public body) in a country seeking equivalent status should assess whether that country's required disclosures, measurement and recognition principles, and financial statement presentation are materially the same as IFRSs and where they are not, assess the differences.
• If there are no significant differences between the third country GAAP and IFRSs, such GAAP may be deemed equivalent without the need for additional rectification disclosures.
• Even if significant differences exist, the third country GAAP may be considered equivalent to IFRSs if those differences identified can be rectified at company level by non-complex disclosures. Those additional non-complex disclosures should be subject to audit.
• Prior to giving any advice to the Commission on whether to accept an equivalence assessment, CESR would seek reactions from market users regarding the third country GAAP and the proposed rectifications via public consultation.
• Once all other steps have been fulfilled, and using the definition of equivalence CESR has already provided, an 'overall' assessment of equivalence should be made in the final instance by the European Commission via a comitology process.
• For the purposes of establishing equivalence, CESR assumes that third country GAAPs are properly applied including the provision of any rectifying disclosures necessary. CESR further assumes that the necessary filters for ensuring market confidence are in place for third country issuers using or participating in the EU capital markets.
• Finally, CESR considers that an assessment of the reliability of the audit conducted on the financial statements of issuers using an equivalent GAAP should be a step in the mechanism.