This IASB Update highlights preliminary decisions of the
International Accounting Standards Board (Board). The Board's final decisions on
IFRS® Standards, Amendments and
IFRIC® Interpretations are formally balloted as set forth in the
IFRS Foundation Due
Process Handbook.
The Board met on Wednesday
14 and Thursday 15 November 2018 at the IFRS Foundation's offices in
London.
The topics, in order of discussion, were:
The Board met on 14 November 2018 to discuss the implications of exploring amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts on:
Given plans to consider whether to explore amendments to IFRS 17, and given the criteria for assessing any such potential amendments, the Board tentatively decided that:
Next steps
The Board will continue its discussions at its December 2018 meeting.
The Board met on 14 November to discuss:
The Board tentatively decided not to require presentation of EBITDA in the statement(s) of financial performance, and not to require its disclosure in the notes. Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board asked staff to come back with a proposed description or definition of EBITDA with a view to adding EBITDA to the list of measures that are not considered to be management performance measures. The Board suggested that the description or definition of EBITDA could be based on the proposed operating profit subtotal, adjusted for the effect of depreciation and amortisation.
The Board tentatively decided:
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision. The Board noted that this list of entity types may need to be revised following further discussion of the application of the Board’s tentative decisions to financial entities.
The Board tentatively decided:
Next steps
The Board will continue discussing topics within the scope of the project at future Board meetings.
The Board met on 14 November 2018 to discuss its implementation and maintenance projects.
The Board discussed how to proceed with the project Property, Plant and Equipment—Proceeds before Intended Use, having considered the feedback on the proposed amendments to IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.
The proposed amendments would prohibit deducting from the cost of an item of property, plant and equipment any proceeds from selling items produced while bringing that asset to the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management.
The Board tentatively decided to proceed with the proposed amendments with some modifications. Those modifications might include:
Eleven of 14 Board members agreed and three disagreed with this decision.
Next steps
The Board will discuss the modifications to the proposed amendments at a future meeting.
The Board considered information provided by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) about how an entity might apply existing IFRS Standards to account for holdings of cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings.
The Board also considered the Committee’s advice on whether standard-setting is necessary for holdings of cryptocurrencies.
The Board decided not to add to its work plan a project on holdings of cryptocurrencies or initial coin offerings at this time. Instead, the Board decided to monitor the development of cryptoassets.
All 14 Board members agreed with this decision.
The Board also decided to ask the Committee to consider publishing an agenda decision that would explain how entities apply existing IFRS Standards to holdings of cryptocurrencies.
Seven of 14 Board members agreed and seven disagreed with this decision. The Chair used his additional casting vote, making the vote eight-seven in favour of the decision.
Next steps
The Committee will consider the Board’s request at a future Committee meeting.
The Board tentatively decided to permit early application of the proposed amendments to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.
All 14 Board members agreed with this decision.
Next steps
The Board plans to publish an exposure draft in December 2018.
The Board met on 14 November 2018 to discuss the objective of management commentary and guidance supporting the objective.
The staff recommended that the objective of management commentary should be to give context for the financial statements by providing primary users with historical financial and operational information and analysis that is useful in assessing the prospects for the entity’s future net cash inflows, and its management’s stewardship of the entity’s economic resources.
The Board did not formally vote at this meeting but agreed in broad terms with that objective, and with the staff’s recommendations for guidance to support it. However, the Board asked the staff to consider whether it is possible to provide further clarity on:
In its analysis and discussion, the Board considered the staff research presented in Agenda Paper 15B.
Next steps
The Board expects to discuss the application of materiality in management commentary and principles of management commentary in January 2019 and at subsequent Board meetings. The second meeting of the Management Commentary Consultative Group will take place on 11 January 2019. The Board will discuss feedback from that meeting at subsequent Board meetings.
The Board met on 15 November 2018 to continue its discussion of comments on the Exposure Draft Classification of Liabilities, which proposes amendments to paragraphs 69–76 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.
The Board tentatively decided that, as proposed in the Exposure Draft, IAS 1 should require an entity to classify a liability as current if the entity does not have a right at the end of the reporting period to defer settlement of the liability for at least 12 months after the reporting period.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided to add to IAS 1 a reminder that an entity’s right to defer settlement must have substance.
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided to clarify in IAS 1 that:
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board discussed differences between the requirements of IAS 1 and proposed requirements on the classification of debt being developed by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board and tentatively decided not to consider further amendments to IAS 1.
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. Two members were absent.
Next steps
The Board will discuss classification of liabilities with equity-settlement features at a future meeting.
Paragraph 11 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations refers to the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements issued by the International Accounting Standards Committee in 1989 and adopted by the Board in 2001.
The Board met on 15 November 2018 to decide whether and, if so, how to update IFRS 3 so that the Standard instead refers to the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, which the Board issued in March 2018.
The Board tentatively concluded that updating the reference without making any other amendments to IFRS 3 could create a conflict between the requirements of IFRS 3 and the requirements for identifying liabilities in IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IFRIC 21 Levies. But the update would not create any other significant conflicts in practice.
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this conclusion. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided to begin the updating process immediately, instead of waiting for a possible future project to amend IAS 37.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board also tentatively decided to develop proposals to avoid conflicts between IFRS 3 and IAS 37 (as interpreted by IFRIC 21) by updating the reference and adding an exception to the initial recognition requirements in IFRS 3. The exception would specify that levies within the scope of IFRIC 21 and other liabilities within the scope of IAS 37 should be recognised on acquisition only if they would be identified as liabilities applying IFRIC 21 or IAS 37 respectively.
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
Next steps
The Board will consider how proposals to amend IFRS 3 should be developed and whether transition arrangements are needed.
The Board met on 15 November 2018 to discuss the accounting model being developed for activities subject to ‘defined rate regulation’. Agenda Paper 9A provided a summary of the Board’s tentative decisions to date for information only.
The Board tentatively decided that the measurement requirements of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets and IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations should not be applied to regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board discussed aspects of the interaction between the model and IFRS 3 Business Combinations and asked the staff to conduct further analysis for discussion at a future meeting.
The Board tentatively decided that the model should include application guidance about its interaction with IAS 12Income Taxes, similar to the application guidance in paragraph B10 of IFRS 14 Regulatory Deferral Accounts. However, the Board tentatively decided against including an explicit statement—similar to that made in paragraph 16 of IFRS 14 in relation to regulatory deferral items—that other IFRS Standards apply to regulatory assets, regulatory liabilities, regulatory income and regulatory expense in the same way as they apply to other assets, liabilities, income and expenses.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with these decisions. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided that the model should not carry forward the presentation and disclosure requirements in IFRS 14 for an entity to isolate, using subtotals, regulatory items from the assets, liabilities and net income and expense recognised using other IFRS Standards.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided that any requirements and application guidance on interactions between the model and other IFRS Standards should be included in a future Standard on rate-regulated activities, rather than added to those other Standards.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board continued its discussions from July 2018 on presentation and disclosure requirements for the model.
The Board tentatively decided that an entity should:
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with these decisions. One member was absent.
The Board also tentatively decided that although offsetting would be permitted when the conditions in subparagraphs c(i)–(iii) are met, it should not be required.
Ten of 14 Board members agreed and three disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided that an entity should:
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with these decisions. One Board member was absent.
The Board also tentatively decided that an entity should include regulatory interest income and regulatory interest expense within the regulatory income or regulatory expense line item.
Twelve of 14 Board members agreed and one disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided not to prohibit an entity from disaggregating the required line items and presenting additional line items or subtotals in the primary financial statements when such presentation would be relevant to an understanding of the entity’s financial position and/or financial performance, as required by IAS 1.
Eleven of 14 Board members agreed and two disagreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided that:
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with this decision. One member was absent.
The Board tentatively decided that an entity should disclose:
The Board also tentatively decided that an entity should assess whether the information provided through the disclosure requirements in paragraphs a–d is sufficient to meet the overall disclosure objective. If not, the entity should disclose any additional information needed to meet that objective.
Thirteen of 14 Board members agreed with these decisions. One member was absent.
Next steps
The Board expects to continue its discussions on other aspects of the model at a future meeting.