IFRScommunity.com

See https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... uity-swaps

Depending on the specific circumstances, lease modifications can either be accounted for as a new lease or an adjustment to the pre-existing lease. See https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... fications/

Children and spouses are close family members under IAS 24.9

Can you provide more details on the nature of the arrangement and recharged expenses, Nowim?

Do either of you know if AIM is regarded as an active market? I.e. 'a market in which transactions for the asset take place with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.'

The best resource IMO: https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/p ... r-2020.pdf

Hi Hassen, looking forward to your contributions to the community

These companies are related, because Mr Y controls B and his close family member is a member of the key management personnel of A (IAS 24.9(b)(vii)).

yes:
https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... -buildings

PS. Please use more descriptive topic titles, 'IAS 40' was too generic!

... and of our knowledge base?

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... ated-party

How do you think the parent will realise the DTA arising on its investment in the subsidiary?

The FICE ED aims to address this types of scenarios:
https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/p ... df#page=14

It seems that you're confusing realisation of deferred tax assets (DTA) by the subsidiary and the parent. It's the *parent* that potentially recognises DTA for the temporary difference arising on the investment, so you should be looking at: - availability of taxable income of the *parent*, and - whe...

I find the scenario confusing to be honest. B acquires A, but we don't know from whom. And as part of consideration, A (the acquiree!) provides services to B (the acquirer)...

For this transaction to be in scope of IFRS 15, there also must be a customer which is defined as a party that enters into a contract with an entity to obtain goods or services resulting from the entity’s ordinary activities, in return for a consideration (IFRS 15.6).

Just had a quick look, but please have a look at the section below, does it answer the question?

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... rangements

IAS 16 for sure, you're running a golf course business

Moving to appropriate forum

It is a change in accounting policy but its impact must be immaterial by definition and hence applied prospectively. If the impact isn't immaterial, then you shouldn't have this policy in the first place because IAS 16 / IAS 38 don't have any practical expedient regading capitalisation threshold.

Not really

Which solution worked best for you then?

When applying this exception, Level 3 disclosures aren't necessary since there's no fair value measurement recognised at the reporting date. Regarding the convertible instruments you're considering, would it be reasonable to assume that their cost approximates their fair value even after 12 months?

I'm not saying that this isn't the commonly accepted practice. In the case of public companies, it's different because their final results are deemed market-sensitive information. My focus was more on the audits of privately owned companies.

For sure there is an automatic solution. But I'm not entirely clear on your question. Could you elaborate a bit more? Using example terms like 'customer' and 'outstanding balance' would help clarify your request.

@ramica - please start a new topic, describe the scenario, and explain what you're trying to achieve

I don't think specific disclosure requirements exist for such cases. Making up these disclosures wouldn't make sense. Instead, I'd disclose that you used cost as an approximation of fair value and provide the rationale behind this decision.

I guess it's better to identify any issues during the brief period when the financial statements are 'frozen', rather than missing them entirely. Just to clarify, I'm not thinking about edge cases where the auditor is involved only after the financial statements are authorised. I'm talking about a s...

This could stem from practices before implementation of IFRS 9. Under IAS 39 there was a clear exception allowing equity investments whose fair value couldn't be reliably measured to be carried at cost. IFRS 9 is stricter, but still offers a bit of flexibility (see IFRS 9.B5.2.3-B5.2.6)

In terms of adjusting events, or errors in the financial statements?

Provide more details about the transaction, please