IASB / FASB JOINT MEETING MAY 2013
IASB issues May 2013 joint IASB / FASB meeting highlights
|
Key issues At the May 2013 joint IASB / FASB meeting the following issues were discussed:
|
All decisions reached at IASB meetings are tentative and may be changed or modified at future meetings. Board decisions become final only after completion of a formal ballot to issue a Standard or Interpretation or to publish an Exposure Draft.
The International Accounting Standards Board has issued an IASB Update, which summarizes the joint IASB / FASB meeting that was held on May 21-24, 2013. The IASB met alone for certain sessions.
Highlights of the meeting are discussed below.
Comprehensive review of the IFRS for SMEs
The IASB continued their discussion on issues from the IASB's 2012 Request for Information, Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs ("RFI").
New and revised Standards
The IASB continued its discussion on whether the IFRS for SMEs should be updated for new and revised IFRS that have been issued since the IFRS for SMEs was first issued. At its April 2013 meeting the IASB considered the six new or revised Standards that the staff believed had the potential to result in the most significant changes for the guidance for SMEs. At this meeting the IASB considered the other new and revised Standards.
The IASB tentatively decided that the main changes in the following new and revised IFRS and annual improvements would be considered for incorporation in the IFRS for SMEs:
- IAS 1, Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income (2011 amendment)
- IAS 32, Classification of Rights Issues (2009 amendment)
- IFRIC 19, Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments
- Two amendments to IFRS 1, First-time Adoption of International
Financial Reporting Standards:
- Severe Hyperinflation and Removal of Fixed Dates for First-time Adopters (2010)
- Government Loans (2012)
- Annual improvements issued in 2010:
- Revaluation basis as deemed cost (IFRS 1)
- Use of deemed cost for operations subject to rate regulation (IFRS 1)
- Clarification of statement of changes in equity (IAS 1)
- Annual improvements issued in 2012:
- Repeated application of IFRS 1
- Classification of servicing equipment (IAS 16)
- Tax effect of distributions to holders of equity instruments (IAS 32)
Additional issues
As well as asking questions on known issues, the RFI also asked respondents to raise their own issues on specific requirements in the IFRS for SMEs and any other general issues relating to the IFRS for SMEs. At this meeting the IASB considered additional issues raised by respondents and made the following tentative decisions to amend the IFRS for SMEs to address some of those issues:
- To incorporate guidance to help SMEs apply the "undue cost or effort" exemption based on Q&A 2012/01 Application of "undue cost or effort" issued by the SME Implementation Group in 2012
- To add an "undue cost or effort" exemption
- To the requirement to recognize intangible assets separately in a business combination; and
- From measurement of investments in equity instruments at fair value in Section 11, Basic Financial Instruments and Section 12, Other Financial Instruments Issues
- To add additional guidance in paragraph 9.16 on the preparation of consolidated financial statements if group entities have different reporting dates, but continue to require uniform reporting dates to be used unless it is impracticable to do so
- To amend the criteria in paragraph 11.9 to clarify that loans payable in a foreign currency and loans with standard loan covenants will usually be basic financial instruments accounted for at amortized cost in accordance with Section 11
- To add specific guidance in paragraph 19.14 for the measurement of employee benefit arrangements and deferred taxes when allocating the cost of a business combination
- To add an exemption in paragraph 22.8 for equity instruments issued as part of a business combination of entities or businesses under common control
- To add an exemption in paragraph 22.17 for distributions of a non-cash asset ultimately controlled by the same parties before and after distribution
- To revise the definition of "related party" to be consistent with IAS 24, Related Party Disclosures (2009) and add the definition "close members of the family of a person"
- To clarify the accounting requirements for entities involved in extractive activities
Next steps
The IASB has now completed its discussions on the main issues from the RFI and at the next meeting will discuss a few additional issues identified by the staff and will then proceed to drafting the Exposure Draft of proposed amendments.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
Conceptual Framework
The IASB discussed the due process procedures for the Discussion Paper on the Conceptual Framework. The IASB decided that the comment period for the Conceptual Framework Discussion Paper would be 180 days. The Board also stated that it is satisfied that it has completed all of the necessary steps to ensure that the Conceptual Framework Discussion Paper is likely to meet its purpose and asked the staff to prepare for ballot a draft of the Discussion Paper.
The IASB plans to issue the Discussion Paper on the Conceptual Framework in July 2013.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
Fair value measurement
The IASB continued their discussion regarding questions raised about the unit of account for financial assets that are investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates, measured at fair value. The IASB had previously tentatively decided:
- The unit of account for investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates is the investment as a whole
- The fair value measurement of an investment in financial instruments quoted in an active market is the product of the quoted price multiplied by the quantity of investments held
At this meeting, the IASB discussed in addition to amending IFRS 13, whether to also amend IFRS 10, Consolidated Financial Statements; IAS 27, Separate Financial Statements; and IAS 28, Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures, to address the previous tentative decisions noted above and whether additional disclosure requirements are necessary. The IASB also discussed the transition provisions and effective date of the proposed amendments to IFRS.
The IASB tentatively decided that the clarification about the fair value measurement of quoted investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates would be made to all of the IFRS noted. The IASB also tentatively decided that the proposed clarification did not necessitate additional disclosure requirements.
The IASB did not make a decision on the transition provisions. It will consider this topic again after considering any further amendments to the Exposure Draft that may arise from its consideration of a portfolio exception issue that was raised by the IFRS Interpretations Committee.
Next steps
The IASB expects to discuss a related portfolio issue identified by the IFRS Interpretations Committee at a future meeting. The staff will also draft an exposure draft clarifying the fair value measurement of quoted investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates (together with any other clarifications arising from consideration of the related portfolio issue) during the third quarter of 2013.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
Financial instruments: accounting for macro hedging
The IASB continued its previous discussions on the proposed revaluation approach for accounting for macro hedging activity. The IASB discussed the dynamic risk management of interest rate risk in the banking sector, because it is a well-known example of where the application of accounting for macro hedging activity is necessary.
Income statement and balance sheet presentation
At this meeting the IASB discussed the possible geography of the accounting entries within both the income statement and the statement of financial position, under the portfolio revaluation approach for accounting for macro hedging activity.
The IASB discussed two alternatives for income statement presentation, including the:
- Stable net interest income approach; and
- Actual net interest income approach
The IASB also discussed three presentation alternatives for the statement of financial position:
- Line-by-line gross-up
- Separate lines for aggregate gross adjustments to assets and liabilities
- Single net line item
The IASB discussed all the alternatives, in particular considering the usefulness of the information provided by each presentation.
What the model should apply to
The IASB also discussed the scope of the guidance for accounting for macro hedging, including what portfolios are to be revalued when an entity applies this approach and whether the application of the accounting for macro hedging should be mandatory or optional.
The IASB discussed a holistic view, which would result in applying the macro hedge accounting guidance to the whole portfolio to which dynamic risk management was undertaken, including both hedged and intentionally unhedged positions within that portfolio. Another view discussed focused more on hedging activity.
No decisions were made by the IASB at this meeting.
Next steps
The staff will continue drafting the Discussion Paper, which will incorporate the alternatives discussed by the IASB at this meeting.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
Financial instruments: classification and measurement
The staff presented to the IASB and the FASB a summary of the main points received in the comment letters and the outreach activities on the IASB's Exposure Draft ED/2012/4, Classification and Measurement: Limited Amendments to IFRS 9 (Proposed amendments to IFRS 9 (2010)). No decisions were made at this meeting.
The IASB and the FASB expect to continue their discussions at future meetings.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
IFRS 3, Business Combinations ‒ mandatory purchases of noncontrolling interests in business combinations
The IFRS Interpretations Committee (the Committee) was asked to address the accounting for the mandatory purchases of noncontrolling interests in a sequence of transactions that begins with the acquirer gaining control over another entity. Shortly thereafter, the acquirer purchases an additional ownership interest as a result of a regulatory requirement to offer to purchase the additional interest. The submitter noted that IFRS 3, Business Combinations, does not specifically address the accounting in this situation.
The Committee considered the following questions regarding this issue:
- Should the initial acquisition of the controlling interest and the subsequent mandatory tender offer be treated as separate transactions or as a single acquisition (linked transactions)? In November 2012, the Committee tentatively agreed that the initial acquisition of the controlling interest and the subsequent mandatory tender offer would be treated as a single acquisition. To make that assessment, the Committee tentatively agreed that entities would apply the guidance in IFRS 10, Consolidated Financial Statements, for determining whether the disposal of a subsidiary achieved in stages should be accounted for as one or more transactions. The Committee also tentatively decided to ask the IASB to amend IFRS 3 through Annual Improvements to reflect this issue.
- Should a liability be recognized for the mandatory tender offer
at the date the acquirer obtains control of the acquiree? In
November 2012, the Committee noted that IAS 37, Provisions,
Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, excludes
contracts that are executory in nature from its scope.
Therefore, the Committee tentatively concluded that a liability would not be recognized for the mandatory tender offer. The Committee continued to discuss this issue in March 2013. At that meeting, some members thought a liability would be recognized in a manner that is consistent with IAS 32, Financial Instruments: Presentation. Other members did not believe that the mandatory tender offer is within the scope of IAS 32 and therefore a liability would not be recognized. The Committee decided to ask the staff to report its views on whether a liability should be recognized for the mandatory tender offer to the Board. The Committee noted that the IASB could address this issue as part of its post-implementation review of IFRS 3.
In May 2013, the IASB discussed the Committee's views and recommendations on this issue. On the first question, the IASB tentatively agreed with the Committee that the initial acquisition of the controlling stake and the subsequent mandatory tender offer would be treated as a single acquisition. In its discussion of the second question, the IASB noted that in March 2013 it tentatively decided to reconsider the measurement requirements in paragraph 23 of IAS 32, including whether all or particular put options and forward contracts written on an entity's own equity should be measured on a net basis at fair value. Since a mandatory tender offer is economically similar to a put option written on a noncontrolling interest, IASB members expressed the view that the accounting for those items should be considered at the same time.
The IASB tentatively decided to discuss this issue when it discusses the measurement of put options written on noncontrolling interests.
IFRS 3, Business Combinations ‒ contingent consideration
The IASB discussed the proposed amendment to IFRS 3, Business Combinations, and consequential amendments to IFRS 9, Financial Instruments, regarding the accounting for contingent consideration in a business combination that was included in the May 2012 Exposure Draft, Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010–2012 Cycle. The IASB considered the recommendations of the IFRS Interpretations Committee on the proposed amendment and tentatively agreed with the following recommendations:
- The wording of the requirement on the subsequent measurement of nonequity contingent consideration in paragraph 58(b) of IFRS 3 would be amended so that it does not imply that contingent consideration can give rise only to a financial instrument.
- The amendment proposed in paragraph 4.1.2 of IFRS 9 would not be made.
- All contingent consideration that is a liability would be subsequently measured at fair value through profit or loss.
The IASB also tentatively decided that all nonequity contingent consideration in a business combination would be subsequently measured at fair value through profit or loss and that consequential amendments would also be made to IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
The IASB tentatively decided to approve the revised, proposed amendments to IFRS 3 and the consequential amendments to IFRS 9 and IAS 39 for inclusion in the final Annual Improvements to IFRSs, subject to review of the drafting. The IASB plans to issue the amendments in the third quarter of 2013.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
IAS 27, Separate Financial Statements ‒ equity method
In May 2012, the IASB tentatively decided to add a narrow-scope project to its agenda to restore the option to use the equity method of accounting in separate financial statements.
In May 2013, the IASB tentatively decided to amend paragraph 10 of IAS 27, Separate Financial Statements, to permit an entity to account for investments in subsidiaries, associates, and joint ventures using the equity method in its separate financial statements.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement ‒ novation of derivatives and continuation of hedge accounting
The IASB analyzed comment letters received on the Exposure Draft ED/2013/2, Novation of Derivatives and Continuation of Hedge Accounting (Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 and IFRS 9), issued in February 2013.
The IASB had received a request to clarify whether an entity is required to discontinue hedge accounting for hedging relationships in which a derivative that has been designated as a hedging instrument in accordance with IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement is novated. The derivative is transferred to a central counterparty (CCP) following the introduction of a new law or regulation. The IASB concluded that an entity is required to discontinue the hedge accounting for a derivative that has been designated as a hedging instrument in the existing hedging relationship if the derivative is novated to a CCP. The new derivatives, with a counterparty being the CCP, would be recognized at the time of the novation.
The IASB, however, was concerned with the financial reporting effects, specifically the discontinuation of hedge accounting that would arise as a result of the novation that occurs as a result of new laws or regulations. Some jurisdictions have instituted new laws or regulations as a result of a G20 commitment to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way. The amendments proposed in the Exposure Draft provided relief from discontinuing hedge accounting when the novation to a CCP meets three criteria: (1) novation is required by laws or regulations; (2) novation results in a central counterparty becoming the new counterparty to each of the parties to the novated derivatives; and (3) only specified (limited) changes are made to the terms of the novated derivative.
A majority of respondents to the Exposure Draft requested that the IASB expand the scope of the amendments to include voluntary novation to a CCP and instances where an entity accesses a CCP indirectly, for example by novating to a clearing member of a CCP.
The IASB tentatively decided to expand the scope of the amendments to also provide relief from discontinuing hedge accounting for (1) voluntary novation to a CCP associated with a legislative or regulatory change and (2) novation that provides the entity with indirect access to a CCP. The IASB also tentatively decided to clarify some of the drafting in the final amendments and that the amendment would be applied retrospectively. In addition, the IASB also tentatively decided that amendments would also be made to IFRS 9, Financial Instruments and that no additional disclosure requirements were necessary.
The IASB tentatively decided that re-exposure is not necessary and that the mandatory effective date of the amendments would be January 1, 2014. The IASB directed the staff to begin the balloting process.
The IASB expects to issue the amendments to IAS 39 and IFRS 9 in June 2013.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
IAS 41, Agriculture and IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement ‒ valuation of biological assets
The IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) received a request on clarification of the guidance in paragraph 25 of IAS 41, Agriculture. The guidance relates to the use of a residual method as an example of a possible valuation technique to measure the fair value of biological assets that are physically attached to land, if the biological assets have no separate market but an active market does exist for the combined assets as a group.
The concern raised is how the valuation of the biological assets is linked to the valuation of the land on which they are situated, when an entity has concluded that the valuation premise of the biological assets is to use them in combination with other assets (such as land) and any of those other assets has a highest and best use that differs from its current use.
The Committee believes that question also applies to circumstances when the fair value of a non- biological asset (e.g. a building) is linked to the value of the land on which it is located. The Committee decided not to take this issue onto its agenda because it is too broad for the Committee to address.
The IASB, in its discussions noted that IAS 41 does not require the use of the residual method. It further noted that IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement encourages the use of multiple valuation techniques where appropriate.
The IASB noted that the result of outreach activities indicates that this issue is not currently widespread and thus tentatively decided that, depending on how practice develops in this area, this matter may be considered for review in the post-implementation review of IFRS 13.
Revenue recognition
IASB-only
On May 23, 2013, the IASB discussed the following topics related to the revised Exposure Draft, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (the 2011 ED):
- Exemptions for transition for first-time adopters
- Transition disclosures in IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors
- Due process
The IASB tentatively decided not to amend IFRS 1, First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, to permit first-time adopters of IFRS to use the alternative cumulative catch-up transition method. Instead, the IASB tentatively decided to amend IFRS 1 to provide an optional exemption for first-time adopters for contracts completed before the earliest period presented. Under this exemption, a first-time adopter would not be required to restate all of its contracts for which it has recognized all of its revenue in accordance with its legacy revenue requirements before the earliest period presented.
The Board also tentatively decided that when an entity applies the retrospective transition method, the entity is not required to provide the amount of adjustments in the current period as required by paragraph 28(f) of IAS 8.
The IASB discussed a summary of the mandatory and nonmandatory due process steps that have been completed in developing the revenue recognition standard and concluded that it had met its due process requirements and that sufficient consultation and analysis had been undertaken. Therefore, the IASB decided not to re-expose the revenue recognition standard and agreed that the staff could begin the balloting process. None of the IASB members present at the meeting indicated that they would dissent from issuing the final standard on revenue recognition.
IASB and FASB
On May 24, 2013, the IASB and the FASB met to discuss the application of the revenue model to credit card reward programs. The specific issue is whether the accounting illustrated in Example 24 in the 2011 ED would always apply to award credits in a credit card reward program.
The Boards tentatively decided to amend the introductory paragraph to Example 24 in the 2011 ED to clarify that the existence of a "customer loyalty programme" and the promise to transfer award credits does not automatically give rise to a performance obligation. The Boards noted that in all arrangements, even those in which there are more than two parties to the arrangement, the entities in the arrangement would consider all the facts and circumstances in applying the revenue model to determine whether the promise to transfer award credits gives rise to a performance obligation.
Next steps
The staff has started to draft the final standard and will bring any sweep issues that arise to a future Board meeting.
See the IASB project summary for more information on this project.
Work plan
The work plan as of June 21, 2013, reflecting decisions made at the May 2013 meeting is available on the IASB website.
See the IASB work plan for additional information.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
