10/16/2021 0 Comments Could Not Locate Or Download Iasl
IAS 12 – Impact of an internal reorganisation on deferred tax IAS 37 – Measurement of liabilities under IAS 37 within the context of emission trading schemes IAS 12 – Threshold of recognition of an asset on uncertain tax position IAS 12 – Recognition of deferred tax assets for unrealised losses IFRS 2 – Price differences in an initial public offering IFRS 11 – Classification of joint arrangements IAS 1 – Issues related to the application of IAS 1 IAS 16 – Disclosure of carrying amount information for assets stated at revalued amounts IAS 32 – Classification of an instrument that is mandatorily convertible into a variable number of shares, subject to a cap and a floor IAS 19 – Employee benefit plans with a guaranteed return on contributions or notional contributions She further noted that she disagreed with the statement that IAS 1 was clear that additional information could not be presented, and noted that the IASB had never clearly explained the extent to which additional information could be included in the financial statements. She noted the reference to operating income that had been added to the agenda decision, and questioned what message would be conveyed by including this reference, and whether it would be suggesting that entities should be presenting operating income. IAS 19 – Remeasurement at a plan amendment or curtailmentIn January 2014 the Committee published a tentative agenda decision not to add to its agenda a request to clarify the application of some of the presentation requirements in IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.The purpose of the paper is to provide an analysis of the comments received on the tentative agenda decision, and set out the wording for the final agenda decision.A Committee member noted she had several concerns with the proposed wording for the agenda decision.He noted that what was hypothetical in this situation was not the existence of the transaction but the period of the financial information. He firstly described the situation where a business combination had taken place during the year, and in which the entity wanted to report results as if the business combination had taken place on the first day of the preceding year in order to present the results of two years on a comparative basis. He observed that there were two different situations in which hypothetical information could arise. He noted that IAS 1 carried forward that principle, and accordingly, if an entity wanted to present a column in the income statement showing net income without advertising, he did not believe that IAS 1 would allow this.An IASB member present commented with respect to the term ‘hypothetical’. She further added that in the meantime, the Committee could not go as far as it was intending to go in the agenda decision.The Chairman noted that the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting defined assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses, and that if an item was not one of those, it should not be included in a financial statement.
![]() He noted that IFRS 3 clearly acknowledged that pro forma information presented as if a business combination had been effected at the beginning of the year was useful information, and that it could be argued that this was hypothetical information (because the business combination did not actually occur on that date). With respect to hypothetical information, he noted that he shared the views expressed by the IASB member. He noted that adding a comment in the agenda decision that this was a subtotal that was commonly used, without any guidance with respect to what was included in the amount concerned him. In relation to the reference to operating income in the agenda decision, he noted that there was some guidance around this in BC56 to IAS 1 and questioned whether the comments in the agenda decision somehow superseded that guidance, or if BC56 would still apply, and noted that a reference should be made to BC56.Another Committee member also expressed concerns with respect to the reference to operating income in the agenda decision, and noted that regulators in North America were concerned with the inclusion of such a measure because there was no common definition as to what was and what was not included in such a measure. He added that based on the usefulness criteria, he was not sure that all situations of additional information could be precluded.Another Committee member noted that he believed the Committee was on the right track with respect to the agenda decision, and noted that he did share a couple of the concerns already expressed. With respect to pro forma information presented based on the first situation, he questioned whether the Committee would preclude or prohibit such information being presented, and noted that he would make this assessment based on the usefulness of the information to users of the financial statements. Free mobile forensic toolsHe highlighted the fact that the Disclosure Initiative project was currently in progress, and questioned why the agenda decision did not just state that the reason for the Committee not taking this issue onto its agenda was because the IASB has a Disclosure Initiative project in progress that was dealing with the issues, further noting that the agenda decision was not saying anything particularly useful, or adding anything that could not be understood from a reading of IAS 1.The Chairman questioned the Senior Director, Technical activities, as to whether the work being performed in the Disclosure Initiative extended to the face of the financial statements.The Senior Director, Technical Activities responded, and confirmed that the Disclosure Initiative covered both the face of the financial statements and the notes. He noted his overall concern was that he was not sure that the agenda decision said anything that was not already included in IAS 1. He also expressed concerns with ‘what if’ accounting being included on the face of the statement of financial performance, and noted his preference for such information, if included, to be included in the notes.Another Committee member noted that hypothetical information was not always irrelevant, noting that IAS 1 says that it is a judgement as to whether information would be considered relevant or not.Another Committee member noted that he did not believe hypothetical information belonged on the face of the financial statements, or even in the notes unless required by an accounting standard to be disclosed. He noted that he agreed with several other Committee members that there was nothing in IAS 1 that precluded an additional statement, and added that in certain jurisdictions (for example, Brazil), entities were actually required to include other statements in a set of IFRS compliant financial statements, and therefore, noted that he would be concerned with the Committee stating that entities could not have an additional statement included in the financial statements. However, he noted that he did not see the addition of the reference to operating income as helpful, and added that it may create further confusion, and would be better left out. With respect to presentation of additional statements, he questioned whether this would actually be precluded by IAS 1, and expressed concern that the agenda decision was going beyond stating the principles in the Standard.Another Committee member noted that he thought the Committee was moving in the right direction with respect to emphasising principles in the agenda decision. She further noted that she believed that the inclusion of other information in financial statements also diminished the credibility of IFRS and its usefulness, if the additional information was required in order to make financial statements ‘useful’. She noted that she thought it was fine to reiterate the notion with respect to the usage of subtotals, but expressed concerns at including other information in the financial statements, noting that trained accountants might understand what the information meant, and the level of assurance over such information, but that other users may not. She noted that she was troubled by the fact that the agenda decision referred to operating income as there was no clear understanding as to what was actually meant by the term, and what should be included in operating income.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAntonio ArchivesCategories |