International Financial Reporting Standard 10 Consolidated Financial Statements (IFRS 10) is set out in paragraphs 1–33 and Appendices A–D. All the paragraphs have equal authority. Paragraphs in bold type state the main principles. Terms defined in Appendix A are in italics the first time they appear in the Standard. Definitions of other terms are given in the Glossary for International Financial Reporting Standards. IFRS 10 should be read in the context of its objective and the Basis for Conclusions, the Preface to IFRS Standards and the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors provides a basis for selecting and applying accounting policies in the absence of explicit guidance. [Refer:IAS 8 paragraphs 10–12]
1 | The objective of this IFRS is to establish principles for the presentation and preparation of consolidated financial statements when an entity controls one or more other entities. [Refer:
Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC29 Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC7 and IFRS 12 for disclosure requirements for interests in subsidiaries] |
2 | To meet the objective in paragraph 1, this IFRS:
|
3 | This IFRS does not deal with the accounting requirements for business combinations and their effect on consolidation, including goodwill arising on a business combination (see IFRS 3 Business Combinations). |
| E1 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2010, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements—Combined financial statements and redefining the reporting entity’ The IFRIC received a request for guidance on whether a reporting entity may, in accordance with IFRSs, present financial statements that include a selection of entities that are under common control, rather than being restricted to a parent/subsidiary relationship as defined by IAS 27. The IFRIC noted that the ability to include entities within a set of IFRS financial statements depends on the interpretation of ‘reporting entity’ in the context of common control. The IFRIC noted that in December 2007 the Board added a project to its research agenda to examine the definition of common control and the methods of accounting for business combinations under common control in the acquirer’s consolidated and separate financial statements. The IFRIC also noted that describing the reporting entity is the objective of Phase D of the Board’s Conceptual Framework project. The IFRIC also received a request for guidance on whether a reporting entity may, in accordance with IFRSs, be redefined to exclude from comparative periods entities/businesses that have been carved out of a group. The IFRIC noted that the Board’s common control project referred to above will also consider the accounting for demergers, such as the spin‑off of a subsidiary or business. Therefore, the IFRIC decided not to add these issues to its agenda.] |
4 | An entity that is a parent shall present consolidated financial statements. This IFRS applies to all entities, except as follows: [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BCZ12–BCZ18]
|
4A | This IFRS does not apply to post-employment benefit plans or other long-term employee benefit plans to which IAS 19 Employee Benefits applies. |
4B | A parent that is an investment entity shall not present consolidated financial statements if it is required, in accordance with paragraph 31 of this IFRS, to measure all of its subsidiaries at fair value through profit or loss. [Link toBasis for Conclusions paragraphs BCZ19–BCZ21 for the reasons why the IASB did not provide further exemptions from consolidation]
|
5 |
| E2 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 3 Business Combinations—identification of the acquirer in accordance with IFRS 3 and the parent in accordance with IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements in a stapling arrangement’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the interaction of the requirements in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) for identifying an acquirer with the requirements in IFRS 10 for deciding whether control exists. More specifically, the submitter is seeking clarification of whether an acquirer identified for the purpose of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) is a parent for the purpose of IFRS 10 in circumstances in which a business combination is achieved by contract alone, such as a stapling arrangement, with no combining entity obtaining control of the other combining entities. IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) defines a business combination as “a transaction or other event in which an acquirer obtains control of one or more businesses”. In addition, IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) refers to IFRS 10 for the meaning of the term ‘control’. IFRS 10 states that an investor controls an investee when it is exposed, or has rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee and has the ability to affect those returns through its power over the investee. Hence, the Interpretations Committee observed that an investment is not needed in order for an entity to control another entity. The definition of a business combination in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) includes transactions in which an acquirer obtains control of one or more businesses. It also includes transactions that are sometimes referred to as ‘true mergers’ or ‘mergers of equals’. In other words, it includes transactions in which none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities. The Interpretations Committee discussed a stapling arrangement and noted that if the stapling arrangement combines separate entities and businesses by the unification of ownership and voting interests in the combining entities, then such a transaction is a business combination as defined by IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008). Notwithstanding the fact that IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) includes business combinations in which none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities, the Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 6 of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) requires that one of the combining entities in a business combination must be identified as the acquirer. Paragraphs B14–B18 of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) provide additional guidance for identifying the acquirer if the guidance in IFRS 10 does not clearly indicate which combining entity is the acquirer. The Interpretations Committee also noted that paragraph B15(a) of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) provides guidance on identifying the acquirer by assessing the relative voting rights in the combined entity after the combination—this guidance explains that the acquirer is usually the combining entity whose owners, as a group, receive the largest portion of the voting rights in the combined entity. This guidance is consistent with the Interpretations Committee’s observation that the definition of a business combination includes transactions in which none of the combining entities or businesses are identified as having control of the other combining entities. The Interpretations Committee thought that this guidance would be relevant to identifying which of the combining entities is the acquirer in the stapling transaction considered. The Interpretations Committee noted that the IASB stated in the IASB Update for September 2004 that the intended interaction between IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) and IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements is that an entity that is identified as the ‘acquirer’ of another entity in accordance with IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) is a ‘parent’ for the purposes of IAS 27. The Interpretations Committee noted that the meaning of the term ‘acquirer’ has not changed since 2004 and that the term ‘control’ is used consistently between IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. It also noted that the notion in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) that a business combination could occur even if none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities has not changed from IFRS 3 (issued in 2004). Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee observed that the IASB’s statement on the interaction between IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) and IAS 27 remains valid in respect of the interaction between IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee observed that the combining entity in the stapling arrangement that is identified as the acquirer for the purpose of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) should prepare consolidated financial statements of the combined entity in accordance with IFRS 10. The Interpretations Committee noted that there is little diversity in practice for the accounting for business combinations achieved by contract alone. It further noted that it does not expect diversity to emerge in the future on the basis of the analysis on the requirements and guidance in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
6 |
7 | Thus, an investor controls an investee if and only if the investor has all the following:
|
8 | An investor shall consider all facts and circumstances when assessing whether it controls an investee. The investor shall reassess whether it controls an investee if facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control listed in paragraph 7 (see paragraphs B80–B85).E3 |
| E3 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Effect of protective rights on an assessment of control’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the guidance in IFRS 10. The query relates to protective rights and the effect of those rights on the power over the investee. More specifically, the submitter asked whether the assessment of control should be reassessed when facts and circumstances change in such a way that rights, previously determined to be protective, change (for example upon the breach of a covenant in a borrowing arrangement that causes the borrower to be in default) or whether, instead, such rights are never included in the reassessment of control upon a change in facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee observed that paragraph 8 of IFRS 10 requires an investor to reassess whether it controls an investee if facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. The Interpretations Committee also observed that a breach of a covenant that results in rights becoming exercisable constitutes such a change. It noted that the Standard does not include an exemption for any rights from this need for reassessment. The Interpretations Committee also discussed the IASB's redeliberations of this topic during the development of IFRS 10 and concluded that the IASB's intention was that rights initially determined to be protective should be included in a reassessment of control whenever facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee noted that the conclusion about which party controlled the investee would need to be reassessed after the breach occurred. It also noted that the reassessment may or may not result in a change to the outcome of the assessment of control, depending on the individual facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee also concluded that it did not expect significant diversity in practice to develop following the implementation of the Standard. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
9 | Two or more investors collectively control an investee when they must act together to direct the relevant activities. In such cases, because no investor can direct the activities without the co-operation of the others, no investor individually controls the investee. Each investor would account for its interest in the investee in accordance with the relevant IFRSs, such as IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements, IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures or IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. |
paragraphs 7(a), 8 and B9–B54
Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC42–BC59 and BC93–BC124]
10 | An investor has power over an investee when the investor has existing rights that give it the current ability to direct the relevant activities, ie the activities that significantly affect the investee’s returns.E4 |
| E4 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2015, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Single-asset, single lessee lease vehicles’ The Interpretations Committee received two requests for clarification about the interaction of IFRS 10 and IAS 17 Leases. In both examples, a structured entity (SE) is created to lease a single asset to a single lessee. In one submission the lease is an operating lease; in the other it is a finance lease. In the case of the operating lease, the question was whether the lessee should consolidate the SE. In the case of the finance lease, the question was whether the lender should consolidate the SE. In both examples, the consolidation decision would be based on an assessment of whether the entity controls the SE. In particular, the submitters asked whether the lessee’s use of the leased asset is a relevant activity of the SE when assessing power over the SE. The Interpretations Committee noted that an entity has power over an investee when it has rights that give it the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the entity, ie the activities that significantly affect the investee’s returns. On entering into a lease, regardless of whether it is a finance lease or an operating lease, the SE (the lessor) would have two rights—a right to receive lease payments and a right to the residual value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Consequently, the activities that would affect the SE’s returns would relate to managing the returns derived from these rights; for example, managing the credit risk associated with the lease payments and any other guaranteed payments or managing the leased asset at the end of the lease term (for example, managing its sale or re-leasing). How the decision-making relating to these activities would significantly affect the SE’s returns would depend on the particular facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee was of the view that the lessee’s right to use the leased asset for a period of time would not, in isolation, typically give the lessee decision-making rights over these relevant activities of the SE and hence would not typically be a relevant activity of the SE. However, it noted that this conclusion does not mean that a lessee can never control the lessor. For example, a parent that controls another entity for other reasons can lease an asset from that entity. It also noted that, in assessing control, an entity would consider all of the rights that it has in relation to the investee to determine whether it has power over the investee. This would include rights in contractual arrangements other than the lease contract, such as contractual arrangements for loans made to the lessor, as well as rights included within the lease contract, including those that go beyond simply providing the lessee with the right to use the asset. As a result of its discussions, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the principles and guidance within IFRS 10 would enable a determination of control to be made in a specific scenario based on the relevant facts and circumstances of that scenario. The Interpretations Committee also noted that it is not its practice to give case-by-case advice on individual fact patterns. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee thought that neither an Interpretation of nor an amendment to a Standard is required and decided not to add these issues to its agenda.] |
11 | Power arises from rights. Sometimes assessing power is straightforward, such as when power over an investee is obtained directly and solely from the voting rights granted by equity instruments such as shares, and can be assessed by considering the voting rights from those shareholdings. In other cases, the assessment will be more complex and require more than one factor to be considered, for example when power results from one or more contractual arrangements. |
12 | An investor with the current ability to direct the relevant activities has power even if its rights to direct have yet to be exercised. Evidence that the investor has been directing relevant activities can help determine whether the investor has power, but such evidence is not, in itself, conclusive in determining whether the investor has power over an investee. |
13 | If two or more investors each have existing rights that give them the unilateral ability to direct different relevant activities, the investor that has the current ability to direct the activities that most significantly affect the returns of the investee has power over the investee. |
14 | An investor can have power over an investee even if other entities have existing rights that give them the current ability to participate in the direction of the relevant activities, for example when another entity has significant influence. However, an investor that holds only protective rights does not have power over an investee (see paragraphs B26–B28), and consequently does not control the investee. |
15 | An investor is exposed, or has rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee when the investor’s returns from its involvement have the potential to vary as a result of the investee’s performance. The investor’s returns can be only positive, only negative or both positive and negative. |
16 | Although only one investor can control an investee, more than one party can share in the returns of an investee. For example, holders of non-controlling interests can share in the profits or distributions of an investee. |
17 |
18 | Thus, an investor with decision-making rights shall determine whether it is a principal or an agent. An investor that is an agent in accordance with paragraphs B58–B72 does not control an investee when it exercises decision-making rights delegated to it. |
19 | A parent shall prepare consolidated financial statements using uniform accounting policies for like transactions and other events in similar circumstances. [Refer:paragraph B87]
|
20 | Consolidation of an investee shall begin from the date the investor obtains control of the investee and cease when the investor loses control of the investee. [Refer:paragraph B88]
|
21 | Paragraphs B86–B93 set out guidance for the preparation of consolidated financial statements. |
22 | A parent shall present non-controlling interests in the consolidated statement of financial position within equity, separately from the equity of the owners of the parent.E5
|
| E5 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Classification of puttable instruments that are non-controlling interests’ The Interpretations Committee discussed a request for guidance on the classification, in the consolidated financial statements of a group, of puttable instruments that are issued by a subsidiary but that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The submitter asked about puttable instruments classified as equity instruments in the financial statements of the subsidiary in accordance with paragraphs 16A–16B of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation (‘puttable instruments’) that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The question asked was whether these instruments should be classified as equity or liability in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The submitter claims that paragraph 22 of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements is not consistent with paragraph AG29A of IAS 32, because:
The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraphs 16A–16D of IAS 32 state that puttable instruments and instruments that impose on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation meet the definition of a financial liability. These instruments are classified as equity in the financial statements of the subsidiary as an exception to the definition of a financial liability if all relevant requirements are met. Paragraph AG29A clarifies that this exception applies only to the financial statements of the subsidiary and does not extend to the parent’s consolidated financial statements. Consequently, these financial instruments should be classified as financial liabilities in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The Interpretations Committee therefore concluded that in the light of the existing guidance in IAS 32, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
23 | Changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that do not result in the parent losing control of the subsidiary are equity transactions (ie transactions with owners in their capacity as owners). |
24 | Paragraphs B94–B96 set out guidance for the accounting for non-controlling interests in consolidated financial statements.E6 |
| E6 | [IFRIC® Update, July 2009, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements—Transaction costs for non-controlling interest’ The IFRIC received a request to clarify the guidance in IAS 27 (as amended in 2008) for accounting for transaction costs incurred in the acquisition or disposal of non-controlling interest (NCI) that does not result in the loss of control of an entity. The IFRIC noted that the amended IAS 27 requires transactions with NCI to be treated as equity transactions. Paragraphs 106(d)(iii) and 109 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements state that changes in equity resulting from transactions with owners in their capacity as owners (such as equity contributions, reacquisitions of the entity’s own equity instruments and dividends) and transaction costs directly related to such transactions are not part of the income and expense generated by the entity’s activities during that period. Accordingly, the IFRIC concluded that relevant guidance exists in IFRSs applicable to such transactions. Because it did not expect significant divergence in practice given the existing guidance, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
25 | If a parent loses control of a subsidiary, the parent:E7
|
| E7 | [IFRIC® Update, July 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Accounting for loss of control transactions’ 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.] |
26 | Paragraphs B97–B99A set out guidance for the accounting for the loss of control of a subsidiary. |
27 | A parent shall determine whether it is an investment entity. An investment entity is an entity thatE8:
Paragraphs B85A–B85M provide related application guidance. |
| E8 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2017, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Investment entities and subsidiaries’ The Committee received a request regarding the investment entity requirements in IFRS 10, including how an entity applies the requirements in paragraphs 27 and 28 of IFRS 10, and how an investment entity assesses whether it consolidates a subsidiary applying paragraph 32 of IFRS 10 in specified circumstances. The Committee discussed the following questions:
Question a Paragraph 27 of IFRS 10 lists the three elements an entity must possess to qualify as an investment entity. Paragraph B85A of IFRS 10 emphasises the importance of considering all facts and circumstances when assessing whether an entity is an investment entity, and notes that an entity that possesses the three elements of the definition of an investment entity in paragraph 27 is an investment entity. Paragraphs B85B-B85M then describe the elements of the definition in more detail. Paragraph 28 of IFRS 10 lists typical characteristics that an entity considers in assessing whether it possesses all three elements in paragraph 27, and says that the absence of any of these characteristics does not necessarily disqualify an entity from being an investment entity. Paragraph B85N of IFRS 10 clarifies that the absence of one or more of the typical characteristics of an investment entity listed in paragraph 28 of IFRS 10 indicates that additional judgement is required in determining whether the entity is an investment entity. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an entity that possesses all three elements of the definition of an investment entity in paragraph 27 of IFRS 10 is an investment entity. This is the case even if that entity does not have one or more of the typical characteristics of an investment entity listed in paragraph 28 of IFRS 10. Question b Paragraph 27(a) of IFRS 10 requires an investment entity to provide investors with investment management services. IFRS 10 does not specify how the investment entity must provide these services, and does not preclude it from outsourcing the performance of these services to a third party. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity responsible for providing investment management services to its investors can engage another party to perform some or all of these services on its behalf (ie it can outsource the performance of some or all of these services). Question c Paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 10 requires that the business purpose of an investment entity is to invest solely for capital appreciation, investment income, or both. Paragraph B85C of IFRS 10 says that an investment entity may provide investment-related services, either directly or through a subsidiary, to third parties as well as to its investors (even if those activities are substantial to the entity), subject to the entity continuing to meet the definition of an investment entity. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity may provide investment-related services to third parties, either directly or through a subsidiary, as long as those services are ancillary to its core investing activities and thus do not change the business purpose of the investment entity. The Committee observed that an investment entity assesses whether the investment management services provided by a subsidiary, including those provided to third parties, relate to the investment entity’s investment activities. If so, the investment entity includes these services when assessing whether the investment entity itself possesses the element of the investment entity definition in paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 10. The Committee also noted that, applying paragraph 32 of IFRS 10, an investment entity consolidates any non-investment entity subsidiaries whose main purpose and activities are providing services that relate to the investment entity’s investment activities. Question d The Committee observed that it had previously discussed a question similar to Question d. At its meeting in March 2014, the Committee issued an agenda decision noting its conclusion that a subsidiary does not provide investment-related services or activities if the subsidiary holds investments for tax optimisation purposes and there is no activity within the subsidiary. Similarly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity does not consider the holding of investments by a subsidiary as beneficial owner (and recognised in the subsidiary’s financial statements) to be a service that relates to the parent investment entity’s investment activities (as specified in paragraph 32 of IFRS 10). For all four questions (ie Questions a–d), the Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the appropriate accounting in each of the specified circumstances. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
28 | In assessing whether it meets the definition described in paragraph 27, an entity shall consider whether it has the following typical characteristics of an investment entity:
The absence of any of these typical characteristics does not necessarily disqualify an entity from being classified as an investment entity [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC255]. An investment entity that does not have all of these typical characteristics provides additional disclosure required by paragraph 9A of IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities [Refer:IFRS 12 Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC61E]. |
29 | If facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements that make up the definition of an investment entity [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC255–BC267], as described in paragraph 27, or the typical characteristics of an investment entity, as described in paragraph 28, a parent shall reassess whether it is an investment entity. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC269] |
30 | A parent that either ceases to be an investment entity or becomes an investment entity shall account for the change in its status prospectively from the date at which the change in status occurred (see paragraphs B100–B101). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC270–BC271] |
31 | Except as described in paragraph 32, an investment entity shall not consolidate its subsidiaries or apply IFRS 3 when it obtains control of another entity. Instead, an investment entity shall measure an investment in a subsidiary at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9.1 [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC215–BC227]
|
32 | Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraph 31, if an investment entity has a subsidiary that is not itself an investment entity and whose main purpose and activities are providing services that relate to the investment entity’s investment activities (see paragraphs B85C–B85E), it shall consolidate that subsidiary in accordance with paragraphs 19–26 of this IFRS and apply the requirements of IFRS 3 to the acquisition of any such subsidiary.E9,E10 |
| E9 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements: Investment Entities Amendments—the definition of investment-related services or activities’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the definition of ‘investment-related services or activities’ as it relates to subsidiaries that act as intermediate holding companies ('intermediate subsidiaries') and are established for ‘tax optimisation’ purposes. An investment entity is permitted to provide investment-related services or activities, either directly or through a subsidiary. If an investment entity provides investment-related services or activities through a subsidiary, the investment entity shall consolidate that subsidiary. Some investment entities establish wholly-owned intermediate subsidiaries in some jurisdictions, which own all or part of the portfolio of investments in the group structure. The sole purpose of the intermediate subsidiaries is to minimise the tax paid by investors in the ‘parent’ investment entity. There is no activity within the subsidiaries and the tax advantage comes about because of returns being channelled through the jurisdiction of the intermediate subsidiary. The submitter asked whether the ‘tax optimisation’ described should be considered investment-related services or activities. The Interpretations Committee noted that, according to paragraph BC272 of IFRS 10, the IASB thinks that fair value measurement of all of an investment entity’s subsidiaries would provide the most useful information, except for subsidiaries providing investment-related services or activities. In addition, the Interpretations Committee noted that the IASB had considered requiring an investment entity to consolidate investment entity subsidiaries that are formed for tax purposes, but had decided against this. The Interpretations Committee noted that one of the characteristics of ‘tax optimisation’ subsidiaries described in the submission is “that there is no activity within the subsidiary”. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee considers that the parent should not consolidate such subsidiaries, because they do not provide investment-related services or activities, and do not meet the requirements to be consolidated in accordance with paragraph 32 of IFRS 10. The parent should therefore account for such an intermediate subsidiary at fair value. On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
| E10 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2017, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Investment entities and subsidiaries’ The Committee received a request regarding the investment entity requirements in IFRS 10, including how an entity applies the requirements in paragraphs 27 and 28 of IFRS 10, and how an investment entity assesses whether it consolidates a subsidiary applying paragraph 32 of IFRS 10 in specified circumstances. The Committee discussed the following questions:
Question a …[see the education footnote to para 27 of IFRS 10] Question b ...[see the education footnote to para 27 of IFRS 10] Question c …[see the education footnote to para 27 of IFRS 10] Question d The Committee observed that it had previously discussed a question similar to Question d. At its meeting in March 2014, the Committee issued an agenda decision noting its conclusion that a subsidiary does not provide investment-related services or activities if the subsidiary holds investments for tax optimisation purposes and there is no activity within the subsidiary. Similarly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity does not consider the holding of investments by a subsidiary as beneficial owner (and recognised in the subsidiary’s financial statements) to be a service that relates to the parent investment entity’s investment activities (as specified in paragraph 32 of IFRS 10). For all four questions (ie Questions a–d), the Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the appropriate accounting in each of the specified circumstances. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
33 | A parent of an investment entity shall consolidate all entities that it controls, including those controlled through an investment entity subsidiary, unless the parent itself is an investment entity. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC272–BC283] |
This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS.
The financial statements of a group in which the assets, liabilities, equity, income, expenses and cash flows of the parent and its subsidiaries are presented as those of a single economic entity.
An investor controls an investee when the investor is exposed, or has rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee and has the ability to affect those returns through its power over the investee.E11
| E11 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2007, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement and IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements—Financial Instruments puttable at an amount other than Fair Value’ The IFRIC received a submission regarding the classification in the financial statements of the holders of financial instruments puttable at the option of the holders at an amount other than fair value (the puttable instruments). The submission noted that the issuer’s contractual obligation to deliver cash requires the issuer to recognise financial liabilities in its financial statements in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The issues are:
Regarding the first issue, ... Regarding the second issue, the IFRIC noted that the control of a subsidiary, and the resulting requirement for a parent to present consolidated financial statements in accordance with IAS 27 [These requirements are now in IFRS 10] (including the requirement to recognise goodwill in accordance with IFRS 3) does not necessarily depend on the parent’s owning equity instruments of the subsidiary. The IFRIC, therefore, decided not to take the second issue onto the agenda.] |
An entity with decision-making rights that is either a principal or an agent for other parties.
A parent and its subsidiaries.
An entity that:
(a) | obtains funds from one or more investors for the purpose of providing those investor(s) with investment management services; |
(b) | commits to its investor(s) that its business purpose is to invest funds solely for returns from capital appreciation, investment income, or both; and |
(c) | measures and evaluates the performance of substantially all of its investments on a fair value basis. |
Equity in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to a parent.
An entity that controls one or more entities.
Existing rights that give the current ability to direct the relevant activities.
Rights designed to protect the interest of the party holding those rights without giving that party power over the entity to which those rights relate.
For the purpose of this IFRS, relevant activities are activities of the investee that significantly affect the investee’s returns.
Rights to deprive the decision maker of its decision-making authority.
An entity that is controlled by another entity.
The following terms are defined in IFRS 11, IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities, IAS 28 (as amended in 2011) or IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures and are used in this IFRS with the meanings specified in those IFRSs:
associate [Refer:IAS 28 paragraph 3]
joint venture [Refer:IAS 28 paragraph 3]
related party [Refer:IAS 24 paragraph 9]
significant influence. [Refer:IAS 28 paragraph 3]
This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS. It describes the application of paragraphs 1–33 and has the same authority as the other parts of the IFRS.
B1 | The examples in this appendix portray hypothetical situations. Although some aspects of the examples may be present in actual fact patterns, all facts and circumstances of a particular fact pattern would need to be evaluated when applying IFRS 10. |
B2 | To determine whether it controls an investee an investor shall assess whether it has all the following:
|
B3 | Consideration of the following factors may assist in making that determination:
|
B4 | When assessing control of an investee, an investor shall consider the nature of its relationship with other parties (see paragraphs B73–B75). |
B5 | When assessing control of an investee, an investor shall consider the purpose and design of the investee in order to identify the relevant activities, how decisions about the relevant activities are made, who has the current ability to direct those activities and who receives returns from those activities. |
B6 | When an investee’s purpose and design are considered, it may be clear that an investee is controlled by means of equity instruments that give the holder proportionate voting rights, such as ordinary shares in the investee. In this case, in the absence of any additional arrangements that alter decision-making, the assessment of control focuses on which party, if any, is able to exercise voting rights sufficient to determine the investee’s operating and financing policies (see paragraphs B34–B50). In the most straightforward case, the investor that holds a majority of those voting rights, in the absence of any other factors, controls the investee. |
B7 | To determine whether an investor controls an investee in more complex cases, it may be necessary to consider some or all of the other factors in paragraph B3. |
B8 | An investee may be designed so that voting rights are not the dominant factor in deciding who controls the investee, such as when any voting rights relate to administrative tasks only and the relevant activities are directed by means of contractual arrangements. In such cases, an investor’s consideration of the purpose and design of the investee shall also include consideration of the risks to which the investee was designed to be exposed, the risks it was designed to pass on to the parties involved with the investee and whether the investor is exposed to some or all of those risks. Consideration of the risks includes not only the downside risk, but also the potential for upside. |
B9 | To have power over an investee, an investor must have existing rights that give it the current ability to direct the relevant activities. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC42–BC55] For the purpose of assessing power, only substantive rights and rights that are not protective shall be considered (see paragraphs B22–B28). |
B10 | The determination about whether an investor has power depends on the relevant activities, the way decisions about the relevant activities are made and the rights the investor and other parties have in relation to the investee. |
B11 | For many investees, a range of operating and financing activities significantly affect their returns. Examples of activities that, depending on the circumstances, can be relevant activities include, but are not limited to:
|
B12 | Examples of decisions about relevant activities include but are not limited to:
|
B13 | In some situations, activities both before and after a particular set of circumstances arises or event occurs may be relevant activities. When two or more investors have the current ability to direct relevant activities and those activities occur at different times, the investors shall determine which investor is able to direct the activities that most significantly affect those returns consistently with the treatment of concurrent decision-making rights (see paragraph 13). The investors shall reconsider this assessment over time if relevant facts or circumstances change.
|
B14 | Power arises from rights. To have power over an investee, an investor must have existing rights that give the investor the current ability to direct the relevant activities. The rights that may give an investor power can differ between investees. |
B15 | Examples of rights that, either individually or in combination, can give an investor power include but are not limited to:
|
B16 | Generally, when an investee has a range of operating and financing activities that significantly affect the investee’s returns and when substantive decision‑making with respect to these activities is required continuously, it will be voting or similar rights that give an investor power, either individually or in combination with other arrangements. |
B17 | When voting rights cannot have a significant effect on an investee’s returns, such as when voting rights relate to administrative tasks only and contractual arrangements determine the direction of the relevant activities, the investor needs to assess those contractual arrangements in order to determine whether it has rights sufficient to give it power over the investee. To determine whether an investor has rights sufficient to give it power, the investor shall consider the purpose and design of the investee (see paragraphs B5–B8) and the requirements in paragraphs B51–B54 together with paragraphs B18–B20. |
B18 | In some circumstances it may be difficult to determine whether an investor’s rights are sufficient to give it power over an investee. In such cases, to enable the assessment of power to be made, [Refer:paragraphs B45 and B80–B85] the investor shall consider evidence of whether it has the practical ability to direct the relevant activities unilaterally. Consideration is given, but is not limited, to the following, which, when considered together with its rights and the indicators in paragraphs B19 and B20, may provide evidence that the investor’s rights are sufficient to give it power over the investee:
|
B19 | Sometimes there will be indications that the investor has a special relationship with the investee, which suggests that the investor has more than a passive interest in the investee. The existence of any individual indicator, or a particular combination of indicators, does not necessarily mean that the power criterion is met. However, having more than a passive interest in the investee may indicate that the investor has other related rights sufficient to give it power or provide evidence of existing power over an investee. For example, the following suggests that the investor has more than a passive interest in the investee and, in combination with other rights, may indicate power:
|
B20 | The greater an investor’s exposure, or rights, to variability of returns from its involvement with an investee, the greater is the incentive for the investor to obtain rights sufficient to give it power. Therefore, having a large exposure to variability of returns is an indicator that the investor may have power. However, the extent of the investor’s exposure does not, in itself, determine whether an investor has power over the investee. |
B21 | When the factors set out in paragraph B18 and the indicators set out in paragraphs B19 and B20 are considered together with an investor’s rights, greater weight shall be given to the evidence of power described in paragraph B18. |
B22 | An investor, in assessing whether it has power, considers only substantive rights relating to an investee (held by the investor and others). For a right to be substantive, the holder must have the practical ability to exercise that right. |
B23 | Determining whether rights are substantive requires judgement, taking into account all facts and circumstances. Factors to consider in making that determination include but are not limited to:
|
B24 | To be substantive, rights also need to be exercisable when decisions about the direction of the relevant activities need to be made. Usually, to be substantive, the rights need to be currently exercisable. However, sometimes rights can be substantive, even though the rights are not currently exercisable.
|
B25 | Substantive rights exercisable by other parties can prevent an investor from controlling the investee to which those rights relate. Such substantive rights do not require the holders to have the ability to initiate decisions. As long as the rights are not merely protective (see paragraphs B26–B28), substantive rights held by other parties may prevent the investor from controlling the investee even if the rights give the holders only the current ability to approve or block decisions that relate to the relevant activities. |
B26 | In evaluating whether rights give an investor power over an investee, the investor shall assess whether its rights, and rights held by others, are protective rights. Protective rights relate to fundamental changes to the activities of an investee or apply in exceptional circumstances. However, not all rights that apply in exceptional circumstances or are contingent on events are protective (see paragraphs B13 and B53).E12 |
| E12 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Effect of protective rights on an assessment of control’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the guidance in IFRS 10. The query relates to protective rights and the effect of those rights on the power over the investee. More specifically, the submitter asked whether the assessment of control should be reassessed when facts and circumstances change in such a way that rights, previously determined to be protective, change (for example upon the breach of a covenant in a borrowing arrangement that causes the borrower to be in default) or whether, instead, such rights are never included in the reassessment of control upon a change in facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee observed that paragraph 8 of IFRS 10 requires an investor to reassess whether it controls an investee if facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. The Interpretations Committee also observed that a breach of a covenant that results in rights becoming exercisable constitutes such a change. It noted that the Standard does not include an exemption for any rights from this need for reassessment. The Interpretations Committee also discussed the IASB's redeliberations of this topic during the development of IFRS 10 and concluded that the IASB's intention was that rights initially determined to be protective should be included in a reassessment of control whenever facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee noted that the conclusion about which party controlled the investee would need to be reassessed after the breach occurred. It also noted that the reassessment may or may not result in a change to the outcome of the assessment of control, depending on the individual facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee also concluded that it did not expect significant diversity in practice to develop following the implementation of the Standard. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
B27 | Because protective rights are designed to protect the interests of their holder without giving that party power over the investee to which those rights relate, an investor that holds only protective rights cannot have power or prevent another party from having power over an investee (see paragraph 14). |
B28 | Examples of protective rights include but are not limited to:
|
B29 | A franchise agreement for which the investee is the franchisee often gives the franchisor rights that are designed to protect the franchise brand. Franchise agreements typically give franchisors some decision‑making rights with respect to the operations of the franchisee. |
B30 | Generally, franchisors’ rights do not restrict the ability of parties other than the franchisor to make decisions that have a significant effect on the franchisee’s returns. Nor do the rights of the franchisor in franchise agreements necessarily give the franchisor the current ability to direct the activities that significantly affect the franchisee’s returns. |
B31 | It is necessary to distinguish between having the current ability to make decisions that significantly affect the franchisee’s returns and having the ability to make decisions that protect the franchise brand. The franchisor does not have power over the franchisee if other parties have existing rights that give them the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the franchisee. |
B32 | By entering into the franchise agreement the franchisee has made a unilateral decision to operate its business in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement, but for its own account. |
B33 | Control over such fundamental decisions as the legal form of the franchisee and its funding structure may be determined by parties other than the franchisor and may significantly affect the returns of the franchisee. The lower the level of financial support provided by the franchisor and the lower the franchisor’s exposure to variability of returns from the franchisee the more likely it is that the franchisor has only protective rights. |
B34 | Often an investor has the current ability, through voting or similar rights, to direct the relevant activities. An investor considers the requirements in this section (paragraphs B35–B50) if the relevant activities of an investee are directed through voting rights. |
B35 | An investor that holds more than half of the voting rights of an investee has power in the following situations, unless paragraph B36 or paragraph B37 applies:
|
B36 | For an investor that holds more than half of the voting rights of an investee, to have power over an investee, the investor’s voting rights must be substantive, in accordance with paragraphs B22–B25, and must provide the investor with the current ability to direct the relevant activities, which often will be through determining operating and financing policies. If another entity has existing rights that provide that entity with the right to direct the relevant activities and that entity is not an agent of the investor, the investor does not have power over the investee. |
B37 | An investor does not have power over an investee, even though the investor holds the majority of the voting rights in the investee, when those voting rights are not substantive. For example, an investor that has more than half of the voting rights in an investee cannot have power if the relevant activities are subject to direction by a government, court, administrator, receiver, liquidator or regulator. |
B38 | An investor can have power even if it holds less than a majority of the voting rights of an investee. An investor can have power with less than a majority of the voting rights of an investee, for example, through:
|
B39 | A contractual arrangement between an investor and other vote holders can give the investor the right to exercise voting rights sufficient to give the investor power, even if the investor does not have voting rights sufficient to give it power without the contractual arrangement. However, a contractual arrangement might ensure that the investor can direct enough other vote holders on how to vote to enable the investor to make decisions about the relevant activities. |
B40 | Other decision‑making rights, in combination with voting rights, can give an investor the current ability to direct the relevant activities. For example, the rights specified in a contractual arrangement in combination with voting rights may be sufficient to give an investor the current ability to direct the manufacturing processes of an investee or to direct other operating or financing activities of an investee that significantly affect the investee’s returns. However, in the absence of any other rights, economic dependence of an investee on the investor (such as relations of a supplier with its main customer) does not lead to the investor having power over the investee. [Refer:paragraph B42(c)] |
B41 | An investor with less than a majority of the voting rights has rights that are sufficient to give it power when the investor has the practical ability to direct the relevant activities unilaterally. |
B42 | When assessing whether an investor’s voting rights are sufficient to give it power, an investor considers all facts and circumstances, including:
|
B43 | When the direction of relevant activities is determined by majority vote and an investor holds significantly more voting rights than any other vote holder or organised group of vote holders, and the other shareholdings are widely dispersed, it may be clear, after considering the factors listed in paragraph B42(a)–(c) alone, that the investor has power over the investee.
|
B44 | In other situations, it may be clear after considering the factors listed in paragraph B42(a)–(c) alone that an investor does not have power.
|
B45 | However, the factors listed in paragraph B42(a)–(c) alone may not be conclusive. If an investor, having considered those factors, is unclear whether it has power, it shall consider additional facts and circumstances, such as whether other shareholders are passive in nature as demonstrated by voting patterns at previous shareholders’ meetings. This includes the assessment of the factors set out in paragraph B18 and the indicators in paragraphs B19 and B20. The fewer voting rights the investor holds, and the fewer parties that would need to act together to outvote the investor, the more reliance would be placed on the additional facts and circumstances to assess whether the investor’s rights are sufficient to give it power. When the facts and circumstances in paragraphs B18–B20 are considered together with the investor’s rights, greater weight shall be given to the evidence of power in paragraph B18 than to the indicators of power in paragraphs B19 and B20.
|
B46 | If it is not clear, having considered the factors listed in paragraph B42(a)–(d), that the investor has power, the investor does not control the investee. |
B47 | When assessing control, an investor considers its potential voting rights as well as potential voting rights held by other parties, to determine whether it has power. Potential voting rights are rights to obtain voting rights of an investee, such as those arising from convertible instruments or options, including forward contracts. Those potential voting rights are considered only if the rights are substantive (see paragraphs B22–B25). |
B48 | When considering potential voting rights, an investor shall consider the purpose and design of the instrument, as well as the purpose and design of any other involvement the investor has with the investee. This includes an assessment of the various terms and conditions of the instrument as well as the investor’s apparent expectations, motives and reasons for agreeing to those terms and conditions. |
B49 | If the investor also has voting or other decision‑making rights relating to the investee’s activities, the investor assesses whether those rights, in combination with potential voting rights, give the investor power. |
B50 | Substantive potential voting rights alone, or in combination with other rights, can give an investor the current ability to direct the relevant activities. For example, this is likely to be the case when an investor holds 40 per cent of the voting rights of an investee and, in accordance with paragraph B23, holds substantive rights arising from options to acquire a further 20 per cent of the voting rights.
|
B51 | In assessing the purpose and design of an investee (see paragraphs B5–B8), an investor shall consider the involvement and decisions made at the investee’s inception as part of its design and evaluate whether the transaction terms and features of the involvement provide the investor with rights that are sufficient to give it power. Being involved in the design of an investee alone is not sufficient to give an investor control. However, involvement in the design may indicate that the investor had the opportunity to obtain rights that are sufficient to give it power over the investee. |
B52 | In addition, an investor shall consider contractual arrangements such as call rights, put rights and liquidation rights established at the investee’s inception. When these contractual arrangements involve activities that are closely related to the investee, then these activities are, in substance, an integral part of the investee’s overall activities, even though they may occur outside the legal boundaries of the investee. Therefore, explicit or implicit decision‑making rights embedded in contractual arrangements that are closely related to the investee need to be considered as relevant activities when determining power over the investee. |
B53 | For some investees, relevant activities occur only when particular circumstances arise or events occur. The investee may be designed [Refer:paragraphs B8, B54 and B63 and example 2] so that the direction of its activities and its returns are predetermined unless and until those particular circumstances arise or events occur. In this case, only the decisions about the investee’s activities when those circumstances or events occur can significantly affect its returns and thus be relevant activities. The circumstances or events need not have occurred for an investor with the ability to make those decisions to have power. The fact that the right to make decisions is contingent on circumstances arising or an event occurring does not, in itself, make those rights protective.
|
B54 | An investor may have an explicit or implicit commitment to ensure that an investee continues to operate as designed. Such a commitment may increase the investor’s exposure to variability of returns and thus increase the incentive for the investor to obtain rights sufficient to give it power. Therefore a commitment to ensure that an investee operates as designed may be an indicator that the investor has power, but does not, by itself, give an investor power, nor does it prevent another party from having power. |
B55 | When assessing whether an investor has control of an investee, the investor determines whether it is exposed, or has rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee. |
B56 | Variable returns are returns that are not fixed and have the potential to vary as a result of the performance of an investee. Variable returns can be only positive, only negative or both positive and negative (see paragraph 15). An investor assesses whether returns from an investee are variable and how variable those returns are on the basis of the substance of the arrangement and regardless of the legal form of the returns. For example, an investor can hold a bond with fixed interest payments. The fixed interest payments are variable returns for the purpose of this IFRS because they are subject to default risk and they expose the investor to the credit risk of the issuer of the bond. The amount of variability (ie how variable those returns are) depends on the credit risk of the bond. Similarly, fixed performance fees for managing an investee’s assets are variable returns because they expose the investor to the performance risk of the investee. The amount of variability depends on the investee’s ability to generate sufficient income to pay the fee. |
B57 | Examples of returns include:
|
B58 | When an investor with decision‑making rights (a decision maker) assesses whether it controls an investee, it shall determine whether it is a principal or an agent. An investor shall also determine whether another entity with decision‑making rights is acting as an agent for the investor. An agent is a party primarily engaged to act on behalf and for the benefit of another party or parties (the principal(s)) and therefore does not control the investee when it exercises its decision‑making authority (see paragraphs 17 and 18). Thus, sometimes a principal’s power may be held and exercisable by an agent, but on behalf of the principal. A decision maker is not an agent simply because other parties can benefit from the decisions that it makes. |
B59 | An investor may delegate its decision‑making authority to an agent on some specific issues or on all relevant activities. When assessing whether it controls an investee, the investor shall treat the decision‑making rights delegated to its agent as held by the investor directly. In situations where there is more than one principal, each of the principals shall assess whether it has power over the investee by considering the requirements in paragraphs B5–B54. Paragraphs B60–B72 provide guidance on determining whether a decision maker is an agent or a principal. |
B60 | A decision maker shall consider the overall relationship between itself, the investee being managed and other parties involved with the investee, in particular all the factors below, in determining whether it is an agent:
Different weightings shall be applied to each of the factors on the basis of particular facts and circumstances. |
B61 | Determining whether a decision maker is an agent requires an evaluation of all the factors listed in paragraph B60 unless a single party holds substantive rights to remove the decision maker (removal rights) and can remove the decision maker without cause (see paragraph B65). |
B62 | The scope of a decision maker’s decision‑making authority is evaluated by considering:
|
B63 | A decision maker shall consider the purpose and design of the investee, the risks to which the investee was designed to be exposed, the risks it was designed [Refer:paragraphs B8, B53 and B54 and example 2] to pass on to the parties involved and the level of involvement the decision maker had in the design of an investee. For example, if a decision maker is significantly involved in the design of the investee (including in determining the scope of decision‑making authority), that involvement may indicate that the decision maker had the opportunity and incentive to obtain rights that result in the decision maker having the ability to direct the relevant activities. |
B64 | Substantive rights held by other parties may affect the decision maker’s ability to direct the relevant activities of an investee. Substantive removal or other rights may indicate that the decision maker is an agent. [Refer:paragraphs 18, B36, B58–B61, B65, B66 and B69–B75 and examples 13, 14A and 14C] |
B65 | When a single party holds substantive removal rights and can remove the decision maker without cause, this, in isolation, is sufficient to conclude that the decision maker is an agent. If more than one party holds such rights (and no individual party can remove the decision maker without the agreement of other parties) those rights are not, in isolation, conclusive in determining that a decision maker acts primarily on behalf and for the benefit of others. In addition, the greater the number of parties required to act together to exercise rights to remove a decision maker and the greater the magnitude of, and variability associated with, the decision maker’s other economic interests (ie remuneration and other interests), the less the weighting that shall be placed on this factor. |
B66 | Substantive rights held by other parties that restrict a decision maker’s discretion shall be considered in a similar manner to removal rights when evaluating whether the decision maker is an agent [Refer:paragraphs 18, B36, B58–B61, B64 and B69–B75 and examples 13, 14A and 14C]. For example, a decision maker that is required to obtain approval from a small number of other parties for its actions is generally an agent. (See paragraphs B22–B25 for additional guidance on rights and whether they are substantive.) |
B67 | Consideration of the rights held by other parties shall include an assessment of any rights exercisable by an investee’s board of directors (or other governing body) and their effect on the decision‑making authority (see paragraph B23(b)). |
B68 | The greater the magnitude of, and variability associated with, the decision maker’s remuneration relative to the returns expected from the activities of the investee, the more likely the decision maker is a principal. |
B69 | In determining whether it is a principal or an agent [Refer:paragraphs 18, B36, B58–B61, B64–B66, B70–B75, B84, B85 and examples 13, 14A and 14C] the decision maker shall also consider whether the following conditions exist:
|
B70 | A decision maker cannot be an agent unless the conditions set out in paragraph B69(a) and (b) are present. However, meeting those conditions in isolation is not sufficient to conclude that a decision maker is an agent. |
B71 | A decision maker that holds other interests in an investee (eg investments in the investee or provides guarantees with respect to the performance of the investee), shall consider its exposure to variability of returns from those interests in assessing whether it is an agent. Holding other interests in an investee indicates that the decision maker may be a principal. |
B72 | In evaluating its exposure to variability of returns from other interests in the investee a decision maker shall consider the following:
The decision maker shall evaluate its exposure relative to the total variability of returns of the investee. This evaluation is made primarily on the basis of returns expected from the activities of the investee but shall not ignore the decision maker’s maximum exposure to variability of returns of the investee through other interests that the decision maker holds.
|
B73 | When assessing control, an investor shall consider the nature of its relationship with other parties and whether those other parties are acting on the investor’s behalf (ie they are ‘de facto agents’). The determination of whether other parties are acting as de facto agents requires judgement, considering not only the nature of the relationship but also how those parties interact with each other and the investor. |
B74 | Such a relationship need not involve a contractual arrangement. A party is a de facto agent when the investor has, or those that direct the activities of the investor have, the ability to direct that party to act on the investor’s behalf. In these circumstances, the investor shall consider its de facto agent’s decision‑making rights and its indirect exposure, or rights, to variable returns through the de facto agent together with its own when assessing control of an investee. |
B75 | The following are examples of such other parties that, by the nature of their relationship, might act as de facto agents for the investor:
|
B76 | An investor shall consider whether it treats a portion of an investee as a deemed separate entity and, if so, whether it controls the deemed separate entity. |
B77 | An investor shall treat a portion of an investee as a deemed separate entity if and only if the following condition is satisfied:
|
B78 | When the condition in paragraph B77 is satisfied, an investor shall identify the activities that significantly affect the returns of the deemed separate entity and how those activities are directed in order to assess whether it has power over that portion of the investee. When assessing control of the deemed separate entity, the investor shall also consider whether it has exposure or rights to variable returns from its involvement with that deemed separate entity and the ability to use its power over that portion of the investee to affect the amount of the investor’s returns. |
B80 | An investor shall reassess whether it controls an investee if facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control listed in paragraph 7. |
B81 | If there is a change in how power over an investee can be exercised, that change must be reflected in how an investor assesses its power over an investee. For example, changes to decision‑making rights can mean that the relevant activities are no longer directed through voting rights, but instead other agreements, such as contracts, give another party or parties the current ability to direct the relevant activities. |
B82 | An event can cause an investor to gain or lose power over an investee without the investor being involved in that event. For example, an investor can gain power over an investee because decision‑making rights held by another party or parties that previously prevented the investor from controlling an investee have lapsed. |
B83 | An investor also considers changes affecting its exposure, or rights, to variable returns from its involvement with an investee. For example, an investor that has power over an investee can lose control of an investee if the investor ceases to be entitled to receive returns or to be exposed to obligations, because the investor would fail to satisfy paragraph 7(b) (eg if a contract to receive performance‑related fees is terminated). |
B84 | An investor shall consider whether its assessment that it acts as an agent or a principal has changed. Changes in the overall relationship between the investor and other parties can mean that an investor no longer acts as an agent, even though it has previously acted as an agent, and vice versa. For example, if changes to the rights of the investor, or of other parties, occur, the investor shall reconsider its status as a principal or an agent. |
B85 | An investor’s initial assessment of control or its status as a principal or an agent would not change simply because of a change in market conditions (eg a change in the investee’s returns driven by market conditions), unless the change in market conditions changes one or more of the three elements of control listed in paragraph 7 or changes the overall relationship between a principal and an agent. |
B85A | An entity shall consider all facts and circumstances when assessing whether it is an investment entity, including its purpose and design. An entity that possesses the three elements of the definition of an investment entity set out in paragraph 27 is an investment entity. Paragraphs B85B–B85M describe the elements of the definition in more detail. |
B85B | The definition of an investment entity requires that the purpose of the entity is to invest solely for capital appreciation, investment income (such as dividends, interest or rental income), or both. Documents that indicate what the entity’s investment objectives are, such as the entity’s offering memorandum, publications distributed by the entity and other corporate or partnership documents, will typically provide evidence of an investment entity’s business purpose. Further evidence may include the manner in which the entity presents itself to other parties (such as potential investors or potential investees); for example, an entity may present its business as providing medium-term investment for capital appreciation. In contrast, an entity that presents itself as an investor whose objective is to jointly develop, produce or market products with its investees has a business purpose that is inconsistent with the business purpose of an investment entity, because the entity will earn returns from the development, production or marketing activity as well as from its investments (see paragraph B85I). |
B85C | An investment entity may provide investment-related services (eg investment advisory services, investment management, investment support and administrative services), either directly or through a subsidiary, to third parties as well as to its investors, even if those activities are substantial to the entity, subject to the entity continuing to meet the definition of an investment entity. |
B85D | An investment entity may also participate in the following investment-related activities, either directly or through a subsidiary, if these activities are undertaken to maximise the investment return (capital appreciation or investment income) from its investees and do not represent a separate substantial business activity or a separate substantial source of income to the investment entity:
|
B85E | If an investment entity has a subsidiary that is not itself an investment entity and whose main purpose and activities are providing investment-related services or activities that relate to the investment entity’s investment activities, such as those described in paragraphs B85C–B85D, to the entity or other parties, it shall consolidate that subsidiary in accordance with paragraph 32. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC240–BC240I] If the subsidiary that provides the investment-related services or activities is itself an investment entity, the investment entity parent shall measure that subsidiary at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 31. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC272] |
B85F | An entity’s investment plans also provide evidence of its business purpose. One feature that differentiates an investment entity from other entities is that an investment entity does not plan to hold its investments indefinitely; it holds them for a limited period. Because equity investments and non‑financial asset investments have the potential to be held indefinitely, an investment entity shall have an exit strategy documenting how the entity plans to realise capital appreciation from substantially all of its equity investments and non‑financial asset investments. An investment entity shall also have an exit strategy for any debt instruments that have the potential to be held indefinitely, for example perpetual debt investments. The entity need not document specific exit strategies for each individual investment but shall identify different potential strategies for different types or portfolios of investments, including a substantive time frame for exiting the investments. Exit mechanisms that are only put in place for default events, such as a breach of contract or non‑performance, are not considered exit strategies for the purpose of this assessment. |
B85G | Exit strategies can vary by type of investment. For investments in private equity securities, examples of exit strategies include an initial public offering, a private placement, a trade sale of a business, distributions (to investors) of ownership interests in investees and sales of assets (including the sale of an investee’s assets followed by a liquidation of the investee). For equity investments that are traded in a public market, examples of exit strategies include selling the investment in a private placement or in a public market. For real estate investments, an example of an exit strategy includes the sale of the real estate through specialised property dealers or the open market. |
B85H | An investment entity may have an investment in another investment entity that is formed in connection with the entity for legal, regulatory, tax or similar business reasons. In this case, the investment entity investor need not have an exit strategy for that investment, provided that the investment entity investee has appropriate exit strategies for its investments. |
B85I | An entity is not investing solely for capital appreciation, investment income, or both, if the entity or another member of the group containing the entity (ie the group that is controlled by the investment entity’s ultimate parent) obtains, or has the objective of obtaining, other benefits from the entity’s investments that are not available to other parties that are not related to the investee. Such benefits include:
|
B85J | An investment entity may have a strategy to invest in more than one investee in the same industry, market or geographical area in order to benefit from synergies that increase the capital appreciation and investment income from those investees. Notwithstanding paragraph B85I(e), an entity is not disqualified from being classified as an investment entity merely because such investees trade with each other. |
B85K | An essential element of the definition of an investment entity is that it measures and evaluates the performance of substantially all of its investments on a fair value basis, because using fair value results in more relevant information than, for example, consolidating its subsidiaries or using the equity method for its interests in associates or joint ventures. In order to demonstrate that it meets this element of the definition, an investment entity:
|
B85L | In order to meet the requirement in B85K(a), an investment entity would:
|
B85M | An investment entity may have some non-investment assets, such as a head office property and related equipment, and may also have financial liabilities. The fair value measurement element of the definition of an investment entity in paragraph 27(c) applies to an investment entity’s investments. Accordingly, an investment entity need not measure its non-investment assets or its liabilities at fair value. |
B85N | In determining whether it meets the definition of an investment entity, an entity shall consider whether it displays the typical characteristics of one (see paragraph 28). The absence of one or more of these typical characteristics does not necessarily disqualify an entity from being classified as an investment entity but indicates that additional judgement is required in determining whether the entity is an investment entity. |
B85O | An investment entity typically holds several investments to diversify its risk and maximise its returns. An entity may hold a portfolio of investments directly or indirectly, for example by holding a single investment in another investment entity that itself holds several investments. |
B85P | There may be times when the entity holds a single investment. However, holding a single investment does not necessarily prevent an entity from meeting the definition of an investment entity. For example, an investment entity may hold only a single investment when the entity:
|
B85Q | Typically, an investment entity would have several investors who pool their funds to gain access to investment management services and investment opportunities that they might not have had access to individually. Having several investors would make it less likely that the entity, or other members of the group containing the entity, would obtain benefits other than capital appreciation or investment income (see paragraph B85I). |
B85R | Alternatively, an investment entity may be formed by, or for, a single investor that represents or supports the interests of a wider group of investors (eg a pension fund, government investment fund or family trust). |
B85S | There may also be times when the entity temporarily has a single investor. For example, an investment entity may have only a single investor when the entity:
|
B85T | Typically, an investment entity has several investors that are not related parties (as defined in IAS 24) of the entity or other members of the group containing the entity. Having unrelated investors would make it less likely that the entity, or other members of the group containing the entity, would obtain benefits other than capital appreciation or investment income (see paragraph B85I). |
B85U | However, an entity may still qualify as an investment entity even though its investors are related to the entity. For example, an investment entity may set up a separate ‘parallel’ fund for a group of its employees (such as key management personnel) or other related party investor(s), which mirrors the investments of the entity’s main investment fund. This ‘parallel’ fund may qualify as an investment entity even though all of its investors are related parties. |
B85V | An investment entity is typically, but is not required to be, a separate legal entity. Ownership interests in an investment entity are typically in the form of equity or similar interests (eg partnership interests), to which proportionate shares of the net assets of the investment entity are attributed. However, having different classes of investors, some of which have rights only to a specific investment or groups of investments or which have different proportionate shares of the net assets, does not preclude an entity from being an investment entity. |
B85W | In addition, an entity that has significant ownership interests in the form of debt that, in accordance with other applicable IFRSs, does not meet the definition of equity, may still qualify as an investment entity, provided that the debt holders are exposed to variable returns from changes in the fair value of the entity’s net assets. |
B86 | Consolidated financial statements:
|
B87 | If a member of the group uses accounting policies other than those adopted in the consolidated financial statements for like transactions and events in similar circumstances, appropriate adjustments are made to that group member’s financial statements in preparing the consolidated financial statements to ensure conformity with the group’s accounting policies. |
B88 | An entity includes the income and expenses of a subsidiary in the consolidated financial statements from the date it gains control until the date when the entity ceases to control the subsidiary. Income and expenses of the subsidiary are based on the amounts of the assets and liabilities recognised in the consolidated financial statements at the acquisition date. [Refer:IFRS 3] For example, depreciation expense recognised in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income after the acquisition date is based on the fair values [Refer:IFRS 13] of the related depreciable assets recognised in the consolidated financial statements at the acquisition date. |
paragraphs B15(a), B23, B38(d), B42(b) and B47–B50
B89 | When potential voting rights, or other derivatives containing potential voting rights, exist, the proportion of profit or loss and changes in equity allocated to the parent and non‑controlling interests [Refer:paragraphs 16, 22–24 and B94–B96] in preparing consolidated financial statements is determined solely on the basis of existing ownership interests and does not reflect the possible exercise or conversion of potential voting rights and other derivatives, unless paragraph B90 applies. |
B90 | In some circumstances an entity has, in substance, an existing ownership interest as a result of a transaction that currently gives the entity access to the returns associated with an ownership interest. In such circumstances, the proportion allocated to the parent and non‑controlling interests in preparing consolidated financial statements is determined by taking into account the eventual exercise of those potential voting rights and other derivatives that currently give the entity access to the returns. |
B91 | IFRS 9 does not apply to interests in subsidiaries that are consolidated. When instruments containing potential voting rights in substance currently give access to the returns associated with an ownership interest in a subsidiary, the instruments are not subject to the requirements of IFRS 9. In all other cases, instruments containing potential voting rights in a subsidiary are accounted for in accordance with IFRS 9. |
B92 | The financial statements of the parent and its subsidiaries used in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements shall have the same reporting date. When the end of the reporting period of the parent is different from that of a subsidiary, the subsidiary prepares, for consolidation purposes, additional financial information as of the same date as the financial statements of the parent to enable the parent to consolidate the financial information of the subsidiary, unless it is impracticable to do so. |
B93 | If it is impracticable to do so, the parent shall consolidate the financial information of the subsidiary using the most recent financial statements of the subsidiary adjusted for the effects of significant transactions or events that occur between the date of those financial statements and the date of the consolidated financial statements. In any case, the difference between the date of the subsidiary’s financial statements and that of the consolidated financial statements shall be no more than three months, and the length of the reporting periods and any difference between the dates of the financial statements shall be the same from period to period. |
B94 | An entity shall attribute the profit or loss and each component of other comprehensive income to the owners of the parent and to the non‑controlling interests. The entity shall also attribute total comprehensive income to the owners of the parent and to the non‑controlling interests even if this results in the non‑controlling interests having a deficit balance. |
B95 | If a subsidiary has outstanding cumulative preference shares that are classified as equity and are held by non‑controlling interests, the entity shall compute its share of profit or loss after adjusting for the dividends on such shares, whether or not such dividends have been declared. |
B96 | When the proportion of the equity held by non‑controlling interests changes, an entity shall adjust the carrying amounts of the controlling and non‑controlling interests to reflect the changes in their relative interests in the subsidiary. The entity shall recognise directly in equity any difference between the amount by which the non‑controlling interests are adjusted and the fair value [Refer:IFRS 13] of the consideration paid or received, and attribute it to the owners of the parent.E13 |
| E13 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements and IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Non-cash acquisition of a non-controlling interest by a controlling shareholder in the consolidated financial statements’ The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on the accounting for the purchase of a non-controlling interest (NCI) by the controlling shareholder when the consideration includes non-cash items. More specifically, the submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to clarify whether the difference between the fair value of the consideration given and the carrying amount of such consideration should be recognised in equity or in profit or loss. The submitter asserted that, according to paragraph 31 of IAS 27 (paragraph 31 of IAS 27 has been superseded by paragraph B96 of IFRS 10), the difference described should be recognised in equity, whereas applying IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners by analogy the difference should be recognised in profit or loss. The submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to resolve this apparent conflict between IAS 27 (superseded by IFRS 10) and IFRIC 17. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 31 of IAS 27 (paragraph 31 of IAS 27 has been superseded by paragraph B96 of IFRS 10) deals solely with the difference between the carrying amount of NCI and the fair value of the consideration given; this difference is required to be recognised in equity. This paragraph does not deal with the difference between the fair value of the consideration given and the carrying amount of such consideration. The difference between the fair value of the assets transferred and their carrying amount arises from the derecognition of those assets. IFRSs generally require an entity to recognise, in profit or loss, any gain or loss arising from the derecognition of an asset. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee concluded that in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, an interpretation or an amendment to Standards was not necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
B97 | A parent might lose control of a subsidiary in two or more arrangements (transactions). However, sometimes circumstances indicate that the multiple arrangements should be accounted for as a single transaction. In determining whether to account for the arrangements as a single transaction, a parent shall consider all the terms and conditions of the arrangements and their economic effects. One or more of the following indicate that the parent should account for the multiple arrangements as a single transaction:
|
B98 | If a parent loses control of a subsidiary, it shall:
|
B99 | If a parent loses control of a subsidiary, the parent shall account for all amounts previously recognised in other comprehensive income in relation to that subsidiary on the same basis as would be required if the parent had directly disposed of the related assets or liabilities. Therefore, if a gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income would be reclassified to profit or loss on the disposal of the related assets or liabilities, the parent shall reclassify the gain or loss from equity to profit or loss (as a reclassification adjustment) when it loses control of the subsidiary. If a revaluation surplus previously recognised in other comprehensive income would be transferred directly to retained earnings on the disposal of the asset, the parent shall transfer the revaluation surplus directly to retained earnings when it loses control of the subsidiary. [Refer:paragraph B98(c)] |
B99A | If a parent loses control of a subsidiary that does not contain a business, as defined in IFRS 3, as a result of a transaction involving an associate or a joint venture that is accounted for using the equity method, [Refer:IAS 28 paragraphs 10–15] the parent determines the gain or loss in accordance with paragraphs B98–B99. The gain or loss resulting from the transaction (including the amounts previously recognised in other comprehensive income that would be reclassified to profit or loss in accordance with paragraph B99) is recognised in the parent’s profit or loss only to the extent of the unrelated investors’ interests in that associate or joint venture. The remaining part of the gain is eliminated against the carrying amount of the investment in that associate or joint venture. In addition, if the parent retains an investment in the former subsidiary and the former subsidiary is now an associate or a joint venture that is accounted for using the equity method, the parent recognises the part of the gain or loss resulting from the remeasurement at fair value of the investment retained in that former subsidiary in its profit or loss only to the extent of the unrelated investors’ interests in the new associate or joint venture. The remaining part of that gain is eliminated against the carrying amount of the investment retained in the former subsidiary. If the parent retains an investment in the former subsidiary that is now accounted for in accordance with IFRS 9, the part of the gain or loss resulting from the remeasurement at fair value of the investment retained in the former subsidiary is recognised in full in the parent’s profit or loss. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC190A–BC190J and, for deferral of effective date, paragraphs BC190L–BC190O]
[Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC190L–BC190O for deferral of effective date] |
B100 | When an entity ceases to be an investment entity, it shall apply IFRS 3 to any subsidiary that was previously measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 31. The date of the change of status shall be the deemed acquisition date. The fair value of the subsidiary at the deemed acquisition date shall represent the transferred deemed consideration when measuring any goodwill or gain from a bargain purchase that arises from the deemed acquisition. All subsidiaries shall be consolidated in accordance with paragraphs 19–24 of this IFRS from the date of change of status. |
B101 | When an entity becomes an investment entity, it shall cease to consolidate its subsidiaries at the date of the change in status, except for any subsidiary that shall continue to be consolidated in accordance with paragraph 32. The investment entity shall apply the requirements of paragraphs 25 and 26 to those subsidiaries that it ceases to consolidate as though the investment entity had lost control of those subsidiaries at that date. |
This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS and has the same authority as the other parts of the IFRS.
C1 | An entity shall apply this IFRS for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies this IFRS earlier, it shall disclose that fact and apply IFRS 11, IFRS 12, IAS 27 Separate Financial Statements and IAS 28 (as amended in 2011) at the same time. |
C1A | Consolidated Financial Statements, Joint Arrangements and Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities: Transition Guidance (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12), issued in June 2012, amended paragraphs C2–C6 and added paragraphs C2A–C2B, C4A–C4C, C5A and C6A–C6B. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. If an entity applies IFRS 10 for an earlier period, it shall apply those amendments for that earlier period. |
C1B | Investment Entities (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 12 and IAS 27), issued in October 2012, amended paragraphs 2, 4, C2A, C6A and Appendix A and added paragraphs 27–33, B85A–B85W, B100–B101 and C3A–C3F. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014. Early application is permitted. If an entity applies those amendments earlier, it shall disclose that fact and apply all amendments included in Investment Entities at the same time. |
C1C | Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture (Amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28), issued in September 2014, amended paragraphs 25–26 and added paragraph B99A. An entity shall apply those amendments prospectively to transactions occurring in annual periods beginning on or after a date to be determined by the IASB. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies those amendments earlier, it shall disclose that fact. |
C1D | Investment Entities: Applying the Consolidation Exception (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 12 and IAS 28), issued in December 2014, amended paragraphs 4, 32, B85C, B85E and C2A and added paragraphs 4A–4B. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies those amendments for an earlier period it shall disclose that fact. |
C2 | An entity shall apply this IFRS retrospectively, in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, except as specified in paragraphs C2A–C6. |
C2A | Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 28 of IAS 8, when this IFRS is first applied, and, if later, when the Investment Entities and Investment Entities: Applying the Consolidation Exception amendments to this IFRS are first applied [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC285(c)], an entity need only present the quantitative information required by paragraph 28(f) of IAS 8 for the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application of this IFRS (the ‘immediately preceding period’) [Refer:paragraphs C6A and C6B]. An entity may also present this information for the current period or for earlier comparative periods, but is not required to do so. |
C2B | For the purposes of this IFRS, the date of initial application is the beginning of the annual reporting period for which this IFRS is applied for the first time. |
C3 | At the date of initial application, an entity is not required to make adjustments to the previous accounting for its involvement with either:
|
C3A | At the date of initial application, [Refer:paragraph C3F] an entity shall assess whether it is an investment entity on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at that date. If, at the date of initial application, an entity concludes that it is an investment entity, it shall apply the requirements of paragraphs C3B–C3F instead of paragraphs C5–C5A. |
C3B | Except for any subsidiary that is consolidated in accordance with paragraph 32 (to which paragraphs C3 and C6 or paragraphs C4–C4C, whichever is relevant, apply), an investment entity shall measure its investment in each subsidiary at fair value through profit or loss as if the requirements of this IFRS had always been effective. The investment entity shall retrospectively adjust both the annual period that immediately precedes the date of initial application and equity at the beginning of the immediately preceding period for any difference between:
The cumulative amount of any fair value adjustments previously recognised in other comprehensive income shall be transferred to retained earnings at the beginning of the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application. |
C3C | Before the date that IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is adopted, an investment entity shall use the fair value amounts that were previously reported to investors or to management, if those amounts represent the amount for which the investment could have been exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction at the date of the valuation. |
C3D | If measuring an investment in a subsidiary in accordance with paragraphs C3B–C3C is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8), an investment entity shall apply the requirements of this IFRS at the beginning of the earliest period for which application of paragraphs C3B–C3C is practicable, which may be the current period. The investor shall retrospectively adjust the annual period that immediately precedes the date of initial application, unless the beginning of the earliest period for which application of this paragraph is practicable is the current period. If this is the case, the adjustment to equity shall be recognised at the beginning of the current period. |
C3E | If an investment entity has disposed of, or has lost control of, an investment in a subsidiary before the date of initial application of this IFRS, the investment entity is not required to make adjustments to the previous accounting for that subsidiary. |
C3F | If an entity applies the Investment Entities amendments for a period later than when it applies IFRS 10 for the first time, references to ‘the date of initial application’ in paragraphs C3A–C3E shall be read as ‘the beginning of the annual reporting period for which the amendments in Investment Entities (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 12 and IAS 27), issued in October 2012, are applied for the first time.’ |
C4 | If, at the date of initial application, an investor concludes that it shall consolidate an investee that was not consolidated in accordance with IAS 27 and SIC‑12, the investor shall:
|
C4A | If measuring an investee’s assets, liabilities and non‑controlling interests in accordance with paragraph C4(a) or (b) is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8),E14 an investor shall:
The investor shall adjust retrospectively the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application, unless the beginning of the earliest period for which application of this paragraph is practicable is the current period. When the deemed acquisition date is earlier than the beginning of the immediately preceding period, the investor shall recognise, as an adjustment to equity at the beginning of the immediately preceding period, any difference between:
If the earliest period for which application of this paragraph is practicable is the current period, the adjustment to equity shall be recognised at the beginning of the current period. |
| E14 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements—Transition provisions in respect of impairment, foreign exchange and borrowing costs’ 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.] |
C4B | When an investor applies paragraphs C4–C4A and the date that control was obtained in accordance with this IFRS is later than the effective date of IFRS 3 as revised in 2008 (IFRS 3 (2008)), the reference to IFRS 3 in paragraphs C4 and C4A shall be to IFRS 3 (2008). If control was obtained before the effective date of IFRS 3 (2008), an investor shall apply either IFRS 3 (2008) or IFRS 3 (issued in 2004). |
C4C | When an investor applies paragraphs C4–C4A and the date that control was obtained in accordance with this IFRS is later than the effective date of IAS 27 as revised in 2008 (IAS 27 (2008)), an investor shall apply the requirements of this IFRS for all periods that the investee is retrospectively consolidated in accordance with paragraphs C4–C4A. If control was obtained before the effective date of IAS 27 (2008), an investor shall apply either:
|
C5 | If, at the date of initial application, an investor concludes that it will no longer consolidate an investee that was consolidated in accordance with IAS 27 and SIC‑12, the investor shall measure its interest in the investee at the amount at which it would have been measured if the requirements of this IFRS had been effective when the investor became involved with (but did not obtain control in accordance with this IFRS), or lost control of, the investee. The investor shall adjust retrospectively the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application. When the date that the investor became involved with (but did not obtain control in accordance with this IFRS), or lost control of, the investee is earlier than the beginning of the immediately preceding period, the investor shall recognise, as an adjustment to equity at the beginning of the immediately preceding period, any difference between:
|
C5A | If measuring the interest in the investee in accordance with paragraph C5 is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8),E15 an investor shall apply the requirements of this IFRS at the beginning of the earliest period for which application of paragraph C5 is practicable, which may be the current period. The investor shall adjust retrospectively the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application, unless the beginning of the earliest period for which application of this paragraph is practicable is the current period. When the date that the investor became involved with (but did not obtain control in accordance with this IFRS), or lost control of, the investee is earlier than the beginning of the immediately preceding period, the investor shall recognise, as an adjustment to equity at the beginning of the immediately preceding period, any difference between:
If the earliest period for which application of this paragraph is practicable is the current period, the adjustment to equity shall be recognised at the beginning of the current period. |
| E15 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements—Transition provisions in respect of impairment, foreign exchange and borrowing costs’ 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.] |
C6 | Paragraphs 23, 25, B94 and B96–B99 were amendments to IAS 27 made in 2008 that were carried forward into IFRS 10. Except when an entity applies paragraph C3, or is required to apply paragraphs C4–C5A, the entity shall apply the requirements in those paragraphs as follows:
|
C6A | Notwithstanding the references to the annual period immediately preceding the date of initial application (the ‘immediately preceding period’) in paragraphs C3B–C5A, an entity may also present adjusted comparative information for any earlier periods presented, but is not required to do so. If an entity does present adjusted comparative information for any earlier periods, all references to the ‘immediately preceding period’ in paragraphs C3B–C5A shall be read as the ‘earliest adjusted comparative period presented’. |
C6B | If an entity presents unadjusted comparative information for any earlier periods, it shall clearly identify the information that has not been adjusted, state that it has been prepared on a different basis, and explain that basis.
|
C7 | If an entity applies this IFRS but does not yet apply IFRS 9, any reference in this IFRS to IFRS 9 shall be read as a reference to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. |
C8 | This IFRS supersedes the requirements relating to consolidated financial statements in IAS 27 (as amended in 2008). |
C9 | This IFRS also supersedes SIC‑12 Consolidation—Special Purpose Entities. |
This appendix sets out the amendments to other IFRSs that are a consequence of the Board issuing this IFRS. An entity shall apply the amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. If an entity applies this IFRS for an earlier period, it shall apply these amendments for that earlier period. Amended paragraphs are shown with new text underlined and deleted text struck through.
| * * * * * |
The amendments contained in this appendix when this IFRS was issued in 2011 have been incorporated into the relevant IFRSs published in this volume.
International Financial Reporting Standard 10 Consolidated Financial Statements was approved for issue by the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Sir David Tweedie | Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Elke König | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Warren J McGregor | |
| Paul Pacter | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| John T Smith | |
| Tatsumi Yamada | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Consolidated Financial Statements, Joint Arrangements and Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities: Transition Guidance (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12) was approved for issue by the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Paul Pacter | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| John T Smith | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Investment Entities (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 12 and IAS 27) was approved for issue by the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Paul Pacter | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Zhang Wei-Guo |
Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture was approved for issue by eleven of the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr Kabureck, Ms Lloyd and Mr Ochi dissented2 from the issue of the amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28. Their dissenting opinions are set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Suzanne Lloyd | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Mary Tokar | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Investment Entities: Applying the Consolidation Exception was approved for issue by the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Amaro Luiz De Oliveira Gomes | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Suzanne Lloyd | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Mary Tokar | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Effective Date of Amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 was approved for publication by the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Gomes | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Suzanne Lloyd | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Mary Tokar | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
| 1 | Paragraph C7 of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements states “If an entity applies this IFRS but does not yet apply IFRS 9, any reference in this IFRS to IFRS 9 shall be read as a reference to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.” (back) |
| 2 | Ms Patricia McConnell (former IASB member) intended to dissent from the issue of the amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 for the same reasons as Ms Lloyd and Mr Ochi. Her dissenting opinion is not included in these amendments, because her term as an IASB member expired on 30 June 2014. (back) |