Topic 403 - Joint arrangements

This topic includes FAQs relating to the following IFRS standards, IFRIC Interpretations and SIC Interpretations:

IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements

IFRIC 5 Rights to Interests arising from Decommissioning, Restoration and Environmental Rehabilitation Funds

Other resources

  • IFRS At a Glance by standard is available here
  • IFRS in Practice: IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements is available here

 

Sub-topic within this main topic are set out below, with links to IFRS Interpretation Committee agenda decisions and BDO IFRS FAQs relating to that sub-topic below each sub-topic:

Sub-topic Number Sub-topic and Related FAQ
403.1 Scope and definitions
  • 403.1.1.1
403.2 Joint control
403.3 Classification of joint arrangements: joint operation vs. joint venture
  • 403.3.1.1
  • 403.3.1.2
  • 403.3.1.3
403.4 Joint operations
  • 403.4.1.1
  • 403.4.1.2
  • 403.4.1.3
  • 403.4.1.4
  • 403.4.1.5
403.5 Joint ventures
403.6 Joint arrangements in separate financial statements
  • 403.6.1.1
403.7 Changes of interest and changes in status of joint arrangements
  • 403.7.1.1
403.8 Disclosure
403.9 Other issues
  • 403.9.1.1

 

FAQ#

Title

Text of FAQ

403.1.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting by the joint operation: accounting by the joint operation that is a separate vehicle in its financial statements

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed the issue of the accounting by a joint operation that is a separate vehicle in its financial statements. The recognition by joint operators in both consolidated and separate financial statements of their share of assets and liabilities held by the joint operation leads to the question of whether those same assets and liabilities should also be recognised in the financial statements of the joint operation itself.

The Interpretations Committee noted that IFRS 11 applies only to the accounting by the joint operators and not to the accounting by the separate vehicle that is a joint operation. The financial statements of the separate vehicle would therefore be prepared in accordance with applicable Standards.

Company law often requires a legal entity/separate vehicle to prepare financial statements. Consequently, the reporting entity for the financial statements would include the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of that legal entity/separate vehicle.

However, when identifying the assets and liabilities of the separate vehicle, it is necessary to understand the joint operators’ rights and obligations relating to those assets and liabilities and how those rights and obligations affect those assets and liabilities.

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.3.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Classification of joint arrangements: the assessment of "other facts and circumstances"

March 2015 - In May 2014, the Interpretations Committee published an agenda decision in the IFRIC Update with regard to an issue of how an assessment of ‘other facts and circumstances’ as noted in paragraph 17 of IFRS 11 should be performed.

The Interpretations Committee considered whether the assessment of other facts and circumstances should be undertaken with a view only towards whether those facts and circumstances create enforceable rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities, or whether that assessment should also consider the design and purpose of the joint arrangement, the entity’s business needs and the entity’s past practices.

The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 14 of IFRS 11 requires the classification of a joint arrangement as a joint operation or a joint venture to depend on each party’s rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities of the joint arrangement, and that the rights and obligations are enforceable.

The Interpretations Committee also noted that paragraph B30 of IFRS 11 explains that the assessment of other facts and circumstances would lead to the joint arrangement being classified as a joint operation when those other facts and circumstances give each party both rights to the assets, and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the arrangement.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee noted that the assessment of other facts and circumstances should focus on whether those facts and circumstances create enforceable rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities.

The Interpretations Committee also discussed how and why particular facts and circumstances create rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities. This discussion is described in the following paragraphs.

How and why particular facts and circumstances create rights and obligations

The Interpretations Committee discussed how and why particular facts and circumstances create rights and obligations that result in the joint arrangement being classified as a joint operation, when the joint arrangement is structured through a separate vehicle whose legal form causes the separate vehicle to be considered in its own right.

The Interpretations Committee noted that the assessment of other facts and circumstances is performed when there is no contractual arrangement to reverse or modify the rights and obligations conferred by the legal form of the separate vehicle through which the arrangement has been structured. The assessment of other facts and circumstances thus focuses on whether the other facts and circumstances establish, for each party to the joint arrangement, rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities relating to the joint arrangement.

The Interpretations Committee, referring to paragraphs B31⁠–⁠B32 of IFRS 11, observed that parties to the joint arrangement have rights to the assets of the joint arrangement through other facts and circumstances when they:

(a)

have rights to substantially all of the economic benefits (for example, ‘output’) of assets of the arrangement; and

(b)

have obligations to acquire those economic benefits and thus assume the risks relating to those economic benefits (for example, the risks relating to the output).

The Interpretations Committee, referring to paragraphs B14 and B32⁠–⁠B33 of IFRS 11, also observed that parties to the joint arrangement have obligations for liabilities of the joint arrangement through other facts and circumstances when:

(a)

as a consequence of their rights to, and obligations for, the assets of the joint arrangement, they provide cash flows that are used to settle liabilities of the joint arrangement; and

(b)

settlement of the liabilities of the joint arrangement occurs on a continuous basis.

On the basis of these observations, the Interpretations Committee noted that when each party to a joint arrangement meets the criteria and therefore has both rights to the assets of the joint arrangement and obligations for the liabilities of the joint arrangement through other facts and circumstances, a joint arrangement structured through a separate vehicle is a joint operation. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee observed that, in order to classify the joint arrangement as a joint operation as a result of assessing other facts and circumstances, it is necessary to demonstrate that:

(a)

each party to the joint arrangement has rights and obligations relating to economic benefits of the assets of the arrangement; and

(b)

each party is obliged to provide cash to the arrangement through enforceable obligations, which is used to settle the liabilities of the joint arrangement on a continuous basis.

Implication of ‘economic substance’

Some members of the Interpretations Committee observed that the concept of ‘economic substance’ may not be consistently understood or applied in practice with regard to the assessment of other facts and circumstances.

The Interpretations Committee confirmed that the assessment of other facts and circumstances should focus on whether each party to the joint arrangement has rights to the assets, and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the joint arrangement. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee, by referring to paragraph BC43 of IFRS 11, noted that the consideration of other facts and circumstances is not a test of whether each party to the joint arrangement is closely or fully involved with the operation of the separate vehicle, but is instead a test of whether other facts and circumstances override the rights and obligations conferred upon the party by the legal form of the separate vehicle.

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that the assessment of other facts and circumstances should be undertaken with a view towards whether those facts and circumstances create enforceable rights to assets and obligations for liabilities. That assessment is made in the light of the existing IFRS requirements. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee concluded that sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.3.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Classification of joint arrangements: application of "other facts and circumstances" to specific fact patterns

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed how ‘other facts and circumstances’ should be applied to some specific fact patterns. It identified four different cases and considered how particular features of those fact patterns would affect the classification of the joint arrangement when assessing other facts and circumstances. The observations from the discussions are as follows.

Output sold at a market price

The Interpretations Committee discussed whether the fact that the output from the joint arrangement is sold to the parties of the joint arrangement at a market price prevents the joint arrangement from being classified as a joint operation, when assessing other facts and circumstances.

The Interpretations Committee observed that the sale of output from the joint arrangement to the parties at market price, on its own, is not a determinative factor for the classification of the joint arrangement. It noted that the parties would need to consider, among other things, whether the cash flows provided to the joint arrangement through the parties’ purchase of the output from the joint arrangement at market price, along with any other funding that the parties are obliged to provide, would be sufficient to enable the joint arrangement to settle its liabilities on a continuous basis.

Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee noted that exercising judgement is needed in this situation in order to determine whether the arrangement is a joint operation based on other facts and circumstances.

Financing from a third party

The Interpretations Committee discussed whether financing from a third party prevents a joint arrangement from being classified as a joint operation.

The Interpretations Committee noted that if the cash flows to the joint arrangement from the sale of output to the parties, along with any other funding that the parties are obliged to provide, satisfy the joint arrangement’s liabilities, then third-party financing alone would not affect the classification of the joint arrangement, irrespective of whether the financing occurs at inception or during the course of the joint arrangement’s operations. The Interpretations Committee noted that in this situation, the joint arrangement will, or may, settle some of its liabilities using cash flows from third-party financing, but the resulting obligation to the third-party finance provider will, in due course, be settled using cash flows that the parties are obliged to provide.

Nature of output (ie fungible or bespoke output)

The Interpretations Committee discussed whether the nature of the output (ie fungible or bespoke output) produced by the joint arrangement determines the classification of a joint arrangement when assessing other facts and circumstances.

The Interpretations Committee noted that whether the output that is produced by the joint arrangement and purchased by the parties is fungible or bespoke is not a determinative factor for the classification of the joint arrangement. It also noted that the focus of ‘obligation for the liabilities’ in IFRS 11 is on the existence of cash flows flowing from the parties to satisfy the joint arrangement’s liabilities as a consequence of the parties’ rights to, and obligations for, the assets of the joint arrangement, regardless of the nature of the product (ie fungible or bespoke output).

Determining the basis for ‘substantially all of the output’

The Interpretations Committee discussed whether volumes or monetary values of output should be the basis for determining whether the parties to the joint arrangement are taking ‘substantially all of the output’ from the joint arrangement when assessing other facts and circumstances.

The Interpretations Committee, referring to paragraphs B31⁠–⁠B32 of IFRS 11, observed that parties to the joint arrangement have rights to the assets of the joint arrangement through other facts and circumstances when they:

(a)

have rights to substantially all of the economic benefits (for example, ‘output’) of the assets of the arrangement; and

(b)

have obligations to acquire those economic benefits and thus assume the risks relating to those economic benefits (for example, the risks relating to the output).

The Interpretations Committee also noted from paragraphs B31⁠–⁠B32 of IFRS 11 that in order to meet the criteria for classifying the joint arrangement as a joint operation through the assessment of other facts and circumstances:

(a)

the parties to the joint arrangement should have rights to substantially all the economic benefits of the assets of the joint arrangement; and

(b)

the joint arrangement should be able to settle its liabilities from the ‘cash flows’ received as a consequence of the parties’ rights to and obligations for the assets of the joint arrangement, along with any other funding that the parties are obliged to provide.

The Interpretations Committee therefore noted that the economic benefits of the assets of the joint arrangement would relate to the cash flows arising from the parties’ rights to, and obligations for, the assets. Consequently, it noted that the assessment is based on the monetary value of the output, instead of physical quantities.

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add these issues to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.3.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Classification of joint arrangements: consideration of two joint arrangements with similar features that are classified differently

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed a circumstance in which two joint arrangements would be classified differently when they have similar features, apart from the fact that one is structured through a separate vehicle and the other is not (in circumstances in which the legal form confers separation between the parties and the separate vehicle). Two such joint arrangements could be classified differently because:

(a)

the legal form of a joint arrangement structured through a separate vehicle must be overridden by other contractual arrangements or specific other facts and circumstances for the joint arrangement to be classified as a joint operation; but

(b)

a joint arrangement that is not structured through a separate vehicle is classified as a joint operation.

The Interpretations Committee noted that IFRS 11 could lead to two joint arrangements being classified differently if one is structured through a separate vehicle and the other is not, but in other respects they have apparently similar features. This is because the legal form of the separate vehicle could affect the rights and obligations of the parties to the joint arrangement. The Interpretations Committee noted that the legal form of the separate vehicle is relevant in assessing the type of joint arrangement, as noted, for example, in paragraphs B22 and BC43 of IFRS 11.

The Interpretations Committee thought that such different accounting would not conflict with the concept of economic substance. This is because, according to the approach adopted in IFRS 11, the concept of economic substance means that the classification of the joint arrangement should reflect the rights and obligations of the parties to the joint arrangement and the presence of a separate vehicle plays a significant role in determining the nature of those rights and obligations.

The Interpretations Committee noted that the requirements of IFRS 11 provide the principles necessary for determining the classification of joint arrangements, including assessing the impact of a separate vehicle. The assessment of the classification would depend on specific contractual terms and conditions and requires a full analysis of features involving the joint arrangement.

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.4.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting by the joint operator: recognition of revenue by a joint operator

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed whether a joint operator should recognise revenue in relation to the output purchased from the joint operation by the parties. This issue relates to the application of paragraph 20(d) of IFRS 11, which requires a joint operator to recognise its share of the revenue from the sale of the output by the joint operation.

Examining paragraph 20(d) of IFRS 11, the Interpretations Committee noted that if the joint arrangement is structured through a separate vehicle and the assessment of other facts and circumstances results in the joint arrangement being classified as a joint operation, in circumstances in which the parties take all the output of the joint arrangement in proportion to their rights to the output, the application of paragraph 20(d) of IFRS 11 would not result in the recognition of revenue by the parties. This is because, if the joint operators purchase all the output from the joint operation in proportion to their rights to the output, they would recognise ‘their revenue’ only when they sell the output to third parties.

In other words, the joint operators would not recognise any amount in relation to the ‘share of the revenue from the sale of the output by the joint operation’. This is because a joint operator that has an obligation to purchase the output from the joint operation has rights to the assets of the joint operation. Accordingly, the sale of the output by the joint operation to the joint operator would mean selling output to itself and, therefore, the joint operator would not recognise a share of the revenue from the sale of that output by the joint operation.

Consequently, paragraph 20(d) of IFRS 11 would result in the recognition of revenue by a joint operator only when the joint operation sells its output to third parties. For this purpose, third parties do not include other parties who have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities relating to the joint operation.

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.4.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decisions - Accounting by the joint operator: the accounting treatment when the joint operator’s share of output purchased differs from its share of ownership interest in the joint operation

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed the accounting in the circumstance in which the joint operator’s share of the output purchased differs from its share of ownership interest in the joint operation.

For the purposes of this discussion, the Interpretations Committee considered a fact pattern in which the joint arrangement is structured through a separate vehicle and for which the parties to the joint arrangement have committed themselves to purchase substantially all of the output produced at a price designed to achieve a break-even result. In this fact pattern, the parties to the joint arrangement would be considered to have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities. Such a joint arrangement is presented in Example 5 of the application guidance to IFRS 11 and is classified as a joint operation. A variation of such a fact pattern could (and does) arise in circumstances in which the parties’ percentage ownership interest in the separate vehicle differs from the percentage share of the output produced, which each party is obliged to purchase.

The Interpretations Committee, referring to paragraph 20 of IFRS 11, noted that the joint operators of such a joint operation would account for their assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses in accordance with the shares specified in the contractual arrangement. However, when an assessment of other facts and circumstances has concluded that the joint arrangement is a joint operation, and the joint arrangement agreement does not specify the allocation of assets, liabilities, revenues or expenses, the question arises about what share of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses each joint operator should recognise. Specifically, should the share of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses recognised reflect the percentage of ownership of the legal entity, or should it reflect the percentage of output purchased by each joint operator?

The Interpretations Committee noted that there could be many different scenarios in which the joint operator’s share of the output purchased differs from its share of ownership interest in the joint operation: for example, when the share of output purchased by each party varies over the life of the joint arrangement. A key issue that arises in this situation is over what time horizon should the share of output be considered.

The Interpretations Committee also noted that if the joint operators made a substantial investment in the joint operation that differed from their ownership interest, there may be other elements of the arrangements that could explain why there is a difference between the percentage of ownership interest and the percentage share of the output produced, which each party is obliged to purchase. It noted that the identification of the other elements may provide relevant information to determine how to account for the difference between the two.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee noted that it is important to understand why the share of the output purchased differs from the ownership interests in the joint operation. Judgement will therefore be needed to determine the appropriate accounting.

The Interpretations Committee noted that notwithstanding these observations, there remained concerns about the sufficiency of the guidance in IFRS 11 on the accounting by a joint operator in the circumstances described. The Interpretations Committee noted that to develop additional guidance for this issue would require a broader analysis than could be achieved by the Interpretations Committee.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add the issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.4.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Remeasurement of previously held interests

January 2016 - The Interpretations Committee discussed whether previously held interests in the assets and liabilities of a joint operation should be remeasured in the following transactions when the asset or group of assets involved in such transactions do not meet the definition of a business in accordance with IFRS 3 Business Combinations:

a.

obtaining control of a joint operation when the entity previously had joint control of, or was a party to, the joint operation before the transaction; and

b.

a change of interests resulting in a party to a joint operation obtaining joint control over the joint operation. The party to the joint operation had rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities relating to the joint operation before the transaction.

The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 2(b) of IFRS 3 explains the requirements for accounting for an asset acquisition in which the asset or group of assets do not meet the definition of a business. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 2(b) of IFRS 3 specifies that a cost-based approach should be used in accounting for an asset acquisition, and that in a cost-based approach the existing assets are generally not remeasured. The Interpretations Committee also observed that it was not aware of significant diversity in practice and, therefore, decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.4.1.4

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Liabilities in relation to a Joint Operator’s Interest in a Joint Operation

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about the recognition of liabilities by a joint operator in relation to its interest in a joint operation (as defined in IFRS 11). In the fact pattern described in the request, the joint operation is not structured through a separate vehicle. One of the joint operators, as the sole signatory, enters into a lease contract with a third-party lessor for an item of property, plant and equipment that will be operated jointly as part of the joint operation’s activities. The joint operator that signed the lease contract (hereafter, the operator) has the right to recover a share of the lease costs from the other joint operators in accordance with the contractual arrangement to the joint operation.

The request asked about the recognition of liabilities by the operator.

In relation to its interest in a joint operation, paragraph 20(b) of IFRS 11 requires a joint operator to recognise ‘its liabilities, including its share of any liabilities incurred jointly’. Accordingly, a joint operator identifies and recognises both (a) liabilities it incurs in relation to its interest in the joint operation; and (b) its share of any liabilities incurred jointly with other parties to the joint arrangement.

Identifying the liabilities that a joint operator incurs and those incurred jointly requires an assessment of the terms and conditions in all contractual agreements that relate to the joint operation, including consideration of the laws pertaining to those agreements.

The Committee observed that the liabilities a joint operator recognises include those for which it has primary responsibility.

The Committee highlighted the importance of disclosing information about joint operations that is sufficient for a user of financial statements to understand the activities of the joint operation and a joint operator’s interest in that operation. The Committee noted that, applying paragraph 20(a) of IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities, a joint operator is required to disclose information that enables users of its financial statements to evaluate the nature, extent and financial effects of its interests in a joint operation, including the nature and effects of its contractual relationship with the other investors with joint control of that joint operation.

 

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for the operator to identify and recognise its liabilities in relation to its interest in a joint operation. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.4.1.5

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Sale of Output by a Joint Operator

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about the recognition of revenue by a joint operator for output arising from a joint operation (as defined in IFRS 11) when the output it receives in a reporting period is different from the output to which it is entitled. In the fact pattern described in the request, the joint operator has the right to receive a fixed proportion of the output arising from the joint operation and is obliged to pay for a fixed proportion of the production costs incurred. For operational reasons, the output received by the joint operator and transferred to its customers in a particular reporting period is different from the output to which it is entitled. That difference will be settled through future deliveries of output arising from the joint operation—it cannot be settled in cash. Applying IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, the joint operator recognises revenue as a principal for the transfer of all the output to its customers.

 

The request asked whether, in the fact pattern described, the joint operator recognises revenue to depict the transfer of output to its customers in the reporting period or, instead, to depict its entitlement to a fixed proportion of the output produced from the joint operation’s activities in that period.

In relation to its interest in a joint operation, paragraph 20(c) of IFRS 11 requires a joint operator to recognise ‘its revenue from the sale of its share of the output arising from the joint operation’. Accordingly, the revenue recognised by a joint operator depicts the output it has received from the joint operation and sold, rather than for example the production of output. The joint operator accounts for the revenues relating to its interest in the joint operation applying the IFRS Standards applicable to the particular revenues (paragraph 21 of IFRS 11).

The Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the joint operator recognises revenue that depicts only the transfer of output to its customers in each reporting period, ie revenue recognised applying IFRS 15. This means, for example, the joint operator does not recognise revenue for the output to which it is entitled but which it has not received from the joint operation and sold.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a joint operator to determine its revenue from the sale of its share of output arising from a joint operation as described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.6.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting in separate financial statements: accounting by the joint operator in its separate financial statements

March 2015 - The Interpretations Committee discussed the issue of the accounting by a joint operator in its separate financial statements for its share of assets and liabilities of a joint operation when that joint operation is structured through a separate vehicle. The Interpretations Committee noted that IFRS 11 requires the joint operator to account for its rights and obligations in relation to the joint operation. It also noted that those rights and obligations, in respect of that interest, are the same regardless of whether separate or consolidated financial statements are prepared, by referring to paragraph 26 of IFRS 11. Consequently, the same accounting is required in the consolidated financial statements and in the separate financial statements of the joint operator.

The Interpretations Committee also noted that IFRS 11 requires the joint operator to account for its rights and obligations, which are its share of the assets held by the entity and its share of the liabilities incurred by it. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee observed that the joint operator would not additionally account in its separate or consolidated financial statements its shareholding in the separate vehicle, whether at cost in accordance with IAS 27 Separate Financial Statements or at fair value in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

 

On the basis of this analysis, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

403.7.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting for loss of control transactions

July 2016 - The Interpretations Committee discussed whether an entity should remeasure its retained interest in the assets and liabilities of a joint operation when the entity loses control of a business, or an asset or group of assets that is not a business. In the transaction discussed, the entity either retains joint control of a joint operation or is a party to a joint operation (with rights to assets and obligations for liabilities) after the transaction.

The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraphs B34⁠–⁠B35 of IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements specify that an entity recognises gains or losses on the sale or contribution of assets to a joint operation only to the extent of the other parties’ interests in the joint operation. The requirements in these paragraphs could be viewed as conflicting with the requirements in IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, which specify that an entity remeasures any retained interest when it loses control of a subsidiary.

 

The Interpretations Committee observed that the Board issued amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures in September 2014 to address the accounting for the sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture. Those amendments address a similar conflict that exists between the requirements in IFRS 10 and IAS 28. The Board decided to defer the effective date of the amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 and further consider a number of related issues at a later date. The Interpretations Committee observed that the Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 would provide the Board with an opportunity to consider loss of control transactions and a sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture.

 

Because of the similarity between the transaction discussed by the Interpretations Committee and a sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the accounting for the two transactions should be considered concurrently by the Board. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda but, instead, to recommend that the Board consider the issue at the same time the Board further considers the accounting for the sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture.

Back to sub-topic index

403.9.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Transition provisions in respect of impairment, foreign exchange and borrowing costs

November 2013 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the transition provisions of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements. The transition provisions of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 include exemptions from retrospective application in specific circumstances. However, the submitter observes that IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 do not provide specific exemptions from retrospective application in respect of the application of IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, IAS 23 Borrowing Costs or IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. The submitter thinks that retrospective application of these Standards could be problematic when first applying IFRS 10 and IFRS 11.

 

The Interpretations Committee noted that when IFRS 10 is applied for the first time, it must be applied retrospectively, except for the specific circumstances for which exemptions from retrospective application are given. It also noted that when IFRS 10 is applied retrospectively, there may be consequential accounting requirements arising from other Standards (such as IAS 21, IAS 23 and IAS 36). These requirements must also be applied retrospectively in order to measure the investee’s assets, liabilities and non-controlling interests, as described in paragraph C4 of IFRS 10, or the interest in the investee, as described in paragraph C5 of IFRS 10. The Interpretations Committee observed that if retrospective application of the requirements of IFRS 10 is impracticable because it is impracticable to apply retrospectively the requirements of other Standards, then IFRS 10 (paragraphs C4A and C5A) provides exemption from retrospective application.

The Interpretations Committee noted that although the meaning of the term ‘joint control’ as defined in IFRS 11 is different from its meaning in IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures (2003) because of the new definition of ‘control’ in IFRS 10, nevertheless the outcome of assessing whether control is held ‘jointly’ would in most cases be the same in accordance with IFRS 11 as it was in accordance with IAS 31. As a result, the Interpretations Committee observed that, typically, the changes resulting from the initial application of IFRS 11 would be to change from proportionate consolidation to equity accounting or from equity accounting to recognising a share of assets and a share of liabilities. In those situations, IFRS 11 already provides exemption from retrospective application. The Interpretations Committee concluded that in most cases the initial application of IFRS 11 should not raise issues in respect of the application of other Standards.

 

On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that the existing transition requirements of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 provide sufficient guidance or exemptions from retrospective application and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

 

This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

The BDO network (referred to as the ‘BDO network’ or the ‘Network’) is an international network of independent public accounting, tax and advisory firms which are members of BDO International Limited and perform professional services under the name and style of BDO (hereafter ‘BDO member firms’). BDO International Limited is a UK company limited by guarantee.  It is the governing entity of the BDO network. 
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

Service provision within the BDO network in connection with IFRS (comprising International Financial Reporting Standards, International Accounting Standards, and Interpretations developed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee), and other documents, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, is provided by BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. Service provision within the BDO network is coordinated by Brussels Worldwide Services BV, a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium.

Each of BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and the BDO member firms is a separate legal entity and has no liability for another entity’s acts or omissions. Nothing in the arrangements or rules of the BDO network shall constitute or imply an agency relationship or a partnership between BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and/or the BDO member firms. Neither BDO International Limited nor any other central entities of the BDO network provide services to clients.

BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.