IFRScommunity Forum

yes, as a part of "impairment losses (including reversals of impairment losses or impairment gains) determined in accordance with Section 5.5 of IFRS 9"
(IAS 1. 82(ba))

if there was no contract modification, then there's no modification gain/loss, to me it's just a change in ECL charge (impairment in P&L)

what's CAEIR?

see this example:

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... justed-eir

oh, so I misunderstood the scenario, I thought that a 'good leaver' is only someone who is let go by the company
now it's clear to me that the vesting period is 2 years and the good leaver criterion is a non-vesting condition

To me, the 2-year condition is rather irrelevant. An employee still needs to be employed beyond that period, otherwise they won't be able to become a good leaver. I still think that the vesting period is 5 years, before that the shares are forfeited if employee decides to leave

GT wants to obscure material information with this BS!

pub_acco wrote: ↑07 Apr 2021, 13:24 I do have experience to rebut an auditor's comment using the "obscuring" provision.

that's something!

no, you must use the vesting period, I thought that we would treat the 5-year period as the vesting period

for example, if an employee hands a notice after eg 4.5 years, then his shares are forfeited, right?

I see it differently, all employees will render services for which they will be eligible to receive shares, but only some of them will satisfy the good leaver condition. But satisfying or not the good leaver condition does not impact the services rendered by employees. That's why I see the good leav...

interesting case and great outline of fact pattern, once a question popped up while reading, it found an answer in the sentence that followed :) To me, the good leaver condition is more like a non-vesting condition: https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/ifrs-2-share-based-payment/#link-non-vestin...

true, such enforcement decision would speed up the change of mindset a lot

@JRSB - and this is hard to change, there was an additional amendment to IAS 1 and IAS 8 in 2018, where obscuring material information is also considered to be a material misstatement: New definition: Information is material if omitting, misstating or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to inf...

I do hope that this is an important step in decluttering disclosures of accounting polices, but the change in mindset is needed as well. "Material" is a much higher threshold than "significant" and this amendment is a 'weapon' against those who prefer 'checklist approach'

then it is not covered by IFRS, you should develop your own accounting policy as described here: https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/ias-8-accounting-policies-estimates-errors/#link-events-not-covered-by-ifrs I would develop identical policy as under IAS 40 for investment property: https://ifrs...

they are physical items like any other, so the business purpose is important here, why do you buy them?

All available exemptions are summarised below:

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... of-ifrs-10

I see, how's the business going? Is it profitable? You mentioned low unitary value. There is no provision in IFRS that would allow immediate recognition of an asset as an expense in P&L. It is often allowed under tax law, but you can follow the same approach for IFRS reporting only if the overall im...

is this a commercial library? does it report under IFRS?

Generally speaking, assets held for rental are PP&E under IAS 16
https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... isclosure/

DJP, IMO the fact that you can determine fair value of an item is irrelevant for distinguishing between monetary and non-monetary items, hm?

Specially I am interested in how to revalue an OTC FX Forward, to my mind it would be monetary, but I am told it is non-monetary Do you know the line of thought behind the statement above? FX forward seems like a perfect example of a monetary item as there is a determinable number of currency units...

and now I'm lost, what is the link between a piece of software and complying with the health and safety law (i.e. CE mark)?

sorry I don't get what you mean JRSB

marea wrote: ↑23 Mar 2021, 21:38 the entity can prevent others to use the mark

I'm pretty sure that lots of entities use this mark

don't know what you're aiming at with the theoretical scenario, separability/identifiability is not the issue here (internally generated brand also satisfies the separability/identifiability criterion) re. if the certificate is required for the product to be sold - more details are needed, it can si...

for example:

1. Their cash flows were much better than expected / budgeted this year, so they prepaid all of the liability to improve cash flows in the coming years (KPI management)
2. Negative interest rates are more and more common and corporates often have to pay to hold cash

paying upfront was just a way to extinguish/settle the lease liability, it had nothing to do with the RoU asset, so it makes perfect sense to me to recognise the difference (10 in your example) in P/L

I think I now understand what IFRS 3 means in IE18. It refers to the owner of the certification, i.e. the entity that grants the certification mark. This is what can be recognised as intangible asset acquired through business combination, because it is similar to brand. I still think that on the rec...

As I understand, there's no other intangible asset. You routinely sell some physical product or perform a service, and hire a third party to certify that your product/ service meets the specs

well, now I'm thinking that it wouldn't make sense to treat them differently (i.e. acquired through business combination vs acquired separately) I'll admit that my opinion is not so strong after giving it a second thought, but I still think that this is not a stand-alone intangible asset. The only b...