Topic 605 - Service concession arrangements

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

IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements

SIC 29 Service Concession Arrangements: Disclosures

Other resources

  • IFRS At a Glance by standard 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
605.1 Scope and definitions
  • 605.1.1.1
  • 605.1.1.2
605.2 Treatment of operator's right over the infrastructure
605.3 Recognition and measurement of arrangement consideration
605.4 Construction or upgrade services - consideration given by the grantor to the operator
605.5 Operation services
  • 605.5.1.1
605.6 Accounting for a financial asset received by the operator
605.7 Accounting for an intangible asset received by the operator
605.8 Disclosure
605.9 Other issues
  • 605.9.1.1

 

FAQ#

Title

Text of FAQ

605.1.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Scope of IFRIC 12

July 2009 - The IFRIC received requests for guidance on the application of IFRIC 12. One request related to the requirement that the grantor control or regulate the price the operator can charge to users of the service provided by the infrastructure. The other requested guidance on the accounting for aspects of the arrangement other than the infrastructure.

The IFRIC noted that guidance in paragraphs AG2 and AG3 of IFRIC 12 on the requirement that the grantor controls or regulates the price of the service states that the grantor does not need to have complete control of the price. Rather, the IFRIC noted that any reviews or approvals by the grantor required by the agreement would generally be sufficient to meet this requirement, and it would be inappropriate to assume that they are perfunctory or ‘rubber stamps’ that can be disregarded.

The IFRIC also noted that in redeliberating the Interpretation it had decided to focus on the guidance on accounting for the infrastructure but had provided references to other IFRSs that apply to arrangements not within its scope. IFRIC 12 also refers to other IFRSs for accounting for aspects of the arrangement other than the infrastructure, such as repair and maintenance obligations and revenue recognition.

Given the guidance in IFRSs, the IFRIC concluded that any guidance it could provide would be in the nature of implementation guidance rather than an interpretation. The IFRIC therefore decided not to add the issues to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

605.1.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Service concession arrangements with leased infrastructure

September 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an operator accounts for a service concession arrangement in which the infrastructure is leased. In this arrangement, the operator is not required to provide any construction or upgrade services with respect to the infrastructure.

The submitter described an arrangement that involves three parties: a grantor, an operator and a lessor. The operator enters into an arrangement with the grantor to operate a public service. Some or all of the infrastructure in the arrangement is leased from the lessor. The lessor and the grantor may be controlled by the same governmental body. The operator is contractually required to pay the lessor for the lease of the infrastructure. The operator has an unconditional contractual right to receive cash from the grantor to reimburse those payments. In arrangements in which the lessor and the grantor are not controlled by the same governmental body, the grantor provides the lessor with a guarantee of the lease payments to be made during the lease term, and of any residual value at the end of the lease term. The grantor also has an option to renew the lease at the end of the initial non-cancellable period of the contract.

The submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to clarify whether the arrangement (including the leased infrastructure) is within the scope of IFRIC 12 (scope issue). If the arrangement (including the leased infrastructure) is determined to be within the scope of IFRIC 12, the submitter notes that the lease of the infrastructure is not within the scope of IFRS 16 Leases (IAS 17 Leases) for the operator. Consequently, the submitter also asked the Interpretations Committee to clarify how the operator accounts for any assets and liabilities arising from the arrangement with the lessor (recognition and presentation issues).

With respect to the scope issue, the Interpretations Committee observed that:

(a)

assessing whether the arrangement (including the leased infrastructure) is within the scope of IFRIC 12 requires consideration of the specific facts and circumstances. In particular, the operator assesses whether the control conditions in paragraph 5 of IFRIC 12 and the condition relating to the infrastructure in paragraph 7 of IFRIC 12 apply.

(b)

the operator is not required to provide construction or upgrade services with respect to the infrastructure for the arrangement to be within the scope of IFRIC 12.

With respect to the recognition and presentation issues, if the arrangement (including the leased infrastructure) described in the submission is determined to be within the scope of IFRIC 12, the Interpretations Committee observed that the grantor, rather than the operator, controls the right to use the infrastructure. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee observed that:

(a)

the operator assesses whether it is obliged to make payments to the lessor for the lease or whether the grantor has this obligation. This assessment requires consideration of the specific facts and circumstances. If the grantor is obliged to make payments to the lessor, then in that case the operator is collecting cash from the grantor that it remits to the lessor on the grantor’s behalf.

(b)

if the operator is obliged to make payments to the lessor as part of the service concession arrangement, then the operator recognises a liability for this obligation when it is committed to the service concession arrangement and the infrastructure is made available by the lessor. At the time the operator recognises the liability, it also recognises a financial asset because the operator has a contractual right to receive cash from the grantor to reimburse those payments.

(c)

the operator’s liability to the lessor described in b. above is a financial liability. Accordingly, the operator offsets the liability to make payments to the lessor against the corresponding receivable from the grantor only when the criteria for offsetting a financial asset and a financial liability in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation are met.

The Interpretations Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis to enable an entity to determine how to account for the arrangement.

In the light of the existing requirements in IFRS Standards, the Interpretations Committee determined 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

605.5.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - IAS 37 Obligations to repair/maintain another entity’s property, plant and equipment

August 2005 - The IFRIC considered a suggestion made during its project on service concessions that it should take onto its agenda a separate project to interpret the requirements of IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets in respect of obligations to repair or maintain another entity’s property, plant and equipment that the reporting entity uses.

 

The IFRIC decided not to add this topic to its agenda because, in practice, entities are recognising a provision for repairs as damage or usage occurs that the entity is obliged to make good. The IFRIC was not aware of evidence that significantly divergent interpretations were being reached in practice.

Back to sub-topic index

605.9.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Payments made by an operator to a grantor in a service concession arrangement

July 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an operator accounts for payments it makes to a grantor in a service concession arrangement within the scope of IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements.

The Interpretations Committee observed the following in circumstances other than those in which the operator is collecting amounts (for example, sales taxes) on behalf of, and remitting them to, the grantor:

(a)

if payments are for a right to a good or service that is separate from the service concession arrangement, then the operator accounts for those payments applying the applicable IFRS Standard(s);

(b)

if payments are for the right to use an asset that is separate from the infrastructure within the scope of IFRIC 12, then the operator assesses whether the arrangement contains a lease. If the arrangement contains a lease, the operator accounts for those payments applying IFRS 16 Leases (IAS 17 Leases);

(c)

if payments are not for the right to a separate good or service or a separate right-of-use that is a lease, then the operator accounts for those payments as follows:

(i)

if the service concession arrangement results in the operator having only a contractual right to receive cash from the grantor (ie the financial asset model applies as described in paragraph 16 of IFRIC 12), the operator accounts for those payments as a reduction of the transaction price, applying the requirements on consideration payable to a customer in paragraphs 70⁠–⁠72 of IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

(ii)

if the service concession arrangement results in the operator having only a right to charge users of the public service (ie the intangible asset model applies as described in paragraph 17 of IFRIC 12), the operator has received an intangible asset (ie the right to charge the users of the public service) in exchange for construction/upgrade services and the payments to be made to the grantor. Consequently, an entity accounts for those payments applying IAS 38 Intangible Assets; and

(iii)

if the operator has both a right to charge users of the public service and a contractual right to receive cash from the grantor (ie both the intangible asset model and the financial asset model apply as described in paragraph 18 of IFRIC 12), the operator considers whether those payments represent payments made for the intangible asset, or consideration payable to a customer, or both.

The Interpretations Committee observed that, when the intangible asset model in IFRIC 12 applies, the accounting for variable payments to be made by the operator in a service concession arrangement is linked to the broader issue of accounting for variable payments for asset purchases. However, the Interpretations Committee noted that it had determined in March 2016 [Refer: IFRS IC Agenda Decision referenced to the end of paragraph 27(a) of IAS 38] that the issue of accounting for variable payments for asset purchases is too broad for the Interpretations Committee to address within the confines of existing IFRS Standards and, consequently, decided not to add the issue to its agenda. Therefore, the Interpretations Committee concluded that addressing how an operator accounts for variable payments that it makes to a grantor when the intangible asset model in IFRIC 12 applies is too broad for the Interpretations Committee to address within the confines of existing IFRS Standards.

The Interpretations Committee also concluded that the requirements in existing IFRS Standards are sufficient to address the other aspects of how an operator accounts for payments that it makes to a grantor as described above. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee 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.