Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter  Follow us on LinkedIn
 

18 March 2016

EFRAG(欧州財務報告アドバイザリー・グループ)、財務報告の概念フレームワークにおける資産と負債の定義について、寄せられたコメントを公表


Default: Change to:


EFRAG published a summary of the responses received on the questionnaire on the definitions of an asset and of a liability proposed in the IASB ED/2015/3 Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.


The main issues identified by the questionnaire were:

- The term ‘present’ was interpreted differently by the respondents when the term was considered in relation to the definition of an asset.

- The respondents had different views of what and how many past events it was necessary to consider when assessing whether the control of an economic resource arose as result of past events.

- Respondents had different assessments about whether the economic resource related to a lottery ticket was controlled by the entity acquiring the lottery ticket. Some respondents noted that the entity did not have the present ability to deploy the ticket in order to win the prize.

- Respondents had different assessments about whether an improved market position had the potential to produce economic benefits. However, as most respondents did not consider that there was a right in relation to an improved market position, the different assessments did not affect the respondents’ assessment of whether an improved market position would meet the definition of an asset.

- Respondents had different assessments about whether an assembled workforce resulted in a right of an entity. Some respondents considered that the entity did not have a right as the employees could leave the entity.

- Respondents had different assessments about whether the costs of legal advisors related to a restructuring resulted in an obligation to transfer an economic resource. One the one hand, some respondents noted that the entity had no practical ability to avoid the transfer. On the other hand, some respondents noted that there was not obligation as the counterparty could not be identified and as the entity had not received any economic benefits.

- Although respondents generally thought that the economic resource related to a lease agreement was controlled by the entity, their arguments for this assessment were different. Some focused on the entity’s ability to sell the underlying assets while others focused on the cash flows that would result from the lease agreement.

- Respondents had different assessments about whether the deposit guarantee scheme resulted in an obligation to transfer an economic resource (for payments in future years). 

Full summary



© EFRAG - European Financial Reporting Advisory Group


< Next Previous >
Key
 Hover over the blue highlighted text to view the acronym meaning
Hover over these icons for more information



Add new comment