IFRScommunity.com

Noted

The second option would constitute a change in group's accounting policy with all the IAS 8 implications like retrospective restatement. Also, IAS 40.31 states that switching from the fair value model to the cost model will rarely lead to a more relevant financial statement presentation. Right on a...

Yep exactly, and in this case I think we're going to have to adjust at a consolidated level, by way of a consolidation adjustment. Thanks for your input!

IAS 28.35 states that the entity's financial statements shall be prepared using uniform accounting policies for like transactions and events in similar circumstances. I've always taken this to me as follows: if the associate or joint venture holds investment property at fair value, whilst the group ...

Thanks Marek!

That's true I suppose! Thanks for your feedback

I think SIC32 just serves as a clarification of how IAS 38 applies, so all the same good stuff applies like in SIC32 para 8 as to how you'll demonstrate economic benefits, etc, whether internally capitalised or purchased.. So the PIRATE criteria should still appy then, whether internally developed ...

To continue on Marek's point, sayY lesaes out to Z under an operating lease, and it meets the definition of investment property under IAS 40 (e.g. earning rental income), classificaiton as investment property is mandatory, and not a choice.

Hi all. SIC-32 applies to website development - in most instances internal development costs on websites are expensed. It's not clear however (to me) whether if outsourced (i.e. external) development costs, where an entity pays a third party to develop the content of its website, also falls within s...

Some high level thoughts. (1,2) The impairment test is carried out if there is an indication of impairment, irrespective of the fact that you might get an off-setting gain in the next financial reporting period. Most probably, the impairment test would be carried out on the vacant ROUs. (3) Not sure...

Just an update in case anyone finds this when running a search - the conclusion was not to consolidate the PCC as control could not be demonstrated. The Insurer is the legal owner of the PCC, and also the one who controls it in terms of IFRS 10. Many of the activities were pre-defined on the onset o...

In general, one should be quite careful in using these sort of "blanket" provision proportions (see here for an even more extreme example: https://www.canadian-accountant.com/content/profession/pcaob-censures-ernst-young-canada-partner) Thanks for this link. I think I should start sending...

Undoubtedly - in fact we're going to delve deep into the matter. Just wanted to see if anyone met a similar situation in practice i.e. whether a sole policyholder would have control over the cell of another entity's PCC. Usually the control assessment is done by the entity owning the PCC, not by the...

I've got an interesting situation on hand. Client of mine insures its Customers (who sell products and require insurance) by entering into an insurance agreement with an Insurer, who in-turn reinsures the risk in the Insurer's own Protected Cell Company (PCC). As you may know, the PCC is actually pa...

Agreed 100% - that's what I proposed in fact. I also found guidance from Big4 where their view under IFRS 16 is to also apply IFRS 9 requirements.

Thanks a lot, glad we agree!

Hi all This question is in relation to the old standard (although since it's related to lessor accounting the outcome may not be substantially different from IFRS 16). - Let's say you have recognised a finance lease receivable (FLR) taking into account 5 years of minimum lease receipts without takin...

So i will adjust for ECL as at 31.12.2021 and this will reversed on 2022? The fact that we are doing the audit after the Company received all the due amounts is not a reason for not adjusting for ECL? This is an issue we faced for multiple clients (I work at a Big 4). From a technical standpoint, i...

Makes sense - thanks for replying!

Any other differing opinions are welcome, it's an interesting topic and unfortunately not much guidance is available.

Hi all In a situation where a Parent company P issued cash-settled shares based payments (P was and still is the settling entity) to employees of its Subsidiary S which fell under the scope of IFRS 2 (DR P/L, CR Equity reserve in S's books), and where subsequently P lost control of S but the share o...