Some members were happy to finalise the agenda decision while others disagreed with the arauco ifrs septiembre 2017 conclusion reached in the tentative agenda decision. This is consistent with the premise that financial statements are prepared from the perspective of the reporting entity, which in the fact pattern described in the request is each of the investors. Background In Junethe IC discussed how an entity accounts for goods e. Staff recommendation The Staff recommended that the IC finalise the agenda decision subject to drafting changes. There was significant re-debate of this issue. 30 Sep Forestal Cholguán S.A. está controlada por Forestal Arauco S.A., que posee el 98,49% de las acciones de la Los estados financieros presentados por Forestal Cholguán S.A. al 30 de septiembre de son: Board ("IASB"), y representan la adopción integral, explícita y sin reservas de las referidas. PARQUE ARAUCO S.A. HECHOS RELEVANTES. Por los períodos comprendidos entre el 1 de enero y 30 de septiembre de {CL DOCX v.2}. • Con fecha 7 de febrero de , se comunicó con carácter de Hecho Esencial lo siguiente: En complemento de la información enviada a la Superintendencia de. CELULOSA ARAUCO Y CONSTITUCIÓN S.A.. INFORME DE CLASIFICACION. FEBRERO Prohibida la reproducción total o parcial sin la autorización escrita de Feller Rate. weebly Al 30 de septiembre de , Arauco registró una disminución .. Cifras en millones de dólares bajo IFRS. Arauco ifrs septiembre 2017Así nació nuestra línea de postres y helados". Plazo para devolver el dinero: Cifra de ahorro total sumando todas las comisiones. Invertir en una empresa o negocio: Esta reunión es parte de las actividades permanentes que realiza el Directorio cumpliendo su labor gremial. La Dirección de Vinculación con el medio organiza jornadas para conocer emprendimientos. El próximo año, de mantenerse la limitada inversión y depreciación de la moneda norteamericana, entre otros factores, la cifra puede fluctuar entre 2,5 y 4 puntos. Obras de arte y objetos coleccionables. Nuestro cliente, importante empresa del rubro de Servicios, requiere contratar para Concepción a Invertir en divisas consiste en comprar divisas tales como dólares, euros, yenes, libras, etc. Manejo de Excel nivel avanzado y Payroll. Experto en Normativa Sanitaria y Ambiental. Adelanto aprobado en 30 minutos. On the first point, one IC member noted that in the absence of any guidance on how an entity should assess whether a tax-related interest or penalty is an income tax, there would be no consistency in how such an assessment is made. This loophole could be exploited by entities as an accounting policy choice. However, the IC generally believed that the outcome of the assessment is highly dependent on local tax laws and that no generic guidance could capture the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Staff also acknowledged that it is difficult to make this assessment and previous submissions have indicated the same problem. D18 prohibits an entity from applying any of the exemptions in IFRS 1 by analogy. Accordingly, the IC concluded that IFRS 1 provides an adequate basis for a first-time adopter to determine how to account for CTD and decided not to add the issue onto its agenda. The Staff conducted some analysis and agreed that it would be relatively easy to propose a narrow-scope amendment to extend the exemption of paragraph D16 to CTD. Such an amendment would have little risk of unintended consequences, would be in line with the intention of the paragraph D16 exemption of not having to keep two sets of books, and would potentially benefit many first-time adopters. However, the Staff believed that any potential standard-setting activities should consider more than just CTD i. On balance, the Staff believed that the benefits of an amendment to IFRS 1 would not justify the costs of developing it and thus did not recommend such an amendment. D16 exemption cannot be applied to components of equity. However, they also agreed to perform additional research to help define the scope of a potential amendment to IFRS 1 in relation to this matter, i. The IC spent most of the session debating this issue. Eleven comment letters were received, ten of which suggested standard-setting activities are necessary to clarify the onerous contract requirements in IAS In June , the IC discussed what costs an entity should consider when assessing whether a contract is onerous in terms of IAS The IC also concluded that it would not be wise to amend some of the requirements on onerous contracts i. However, that would be beyond the ambit of the IC and so it decided not to add the matter onto its agenda. Such diversity is expected to increase once IFRS 15 becomes effective as IFRS 15 requires an entity to apply IAS 37 when assessing whether a contract with a customer is onerous, including those that were previously assessed based on the requirements of IAS Most of these respondents believe that a narrow-scope amendment to clarify what constitutes unavoidable costs could help achieve consistency in interpretation. No significant comments were raised with regard to the two interpretations of unavoidable costs provided by the IC. Some respondents suggested other interpretations that they think were appropriate. For the reasons given by the IC in its June meeting, the Staff continued to believe that it would not be feasible to develop a narrow-scope amendment to IAS 37 with regard to unavoidable costs separately from a wider project on onerous contracts, or even on IAS 37 as a whole. The IC did not vote on this paper but decided not to finalise the agenda decision. Instead, in light of the feedback received, the IC has asked the Staff to research into the possible scope of a project on onerous contracts for discussion at a future meeting. Most of the IC members saw the need for standard-setting given the feedback received. In addition to undertaking further research, a few members were in favour of finalising the agenda decision in order to limit the diversity in practice to the two views in the tentative agenda decision. They acknowledged that although this may not the best solution, it is better than having no guidance at all. However, some other members were concerned that such a limitation may have unintended consequences given that they had not considered the other possible interpretations raised by the respondents in their comment letters. One IC member suggested limiting the scope of the project to contracts within the scope of IFRS 15 particularly those onerous contracts that are currently accounted for under IAS 11 because this would have the least disturbance on onerous contracts that are already accounted for under IAS The other IC members did not support this idea because they thought that any analysis on onerous contracts would inevitably touch on areas beyond IFRS Also, it is too late to try to fix IFRS 15 issues now with implementation only a few months away. Six comment letters were received. The other respondents did not raise any significant comments. In June , the IC discussed how an entity accounts for goods e. The IC concluded that an entity should recognise the promotional goods acquired as an expense when it has a right to access the goods, regardless of when it distributes the goods. The IC believed that the requirements of IAS 38 are clear in this regard and decided not to add this issue onto its agenda. In this case, the tangible value of the goods may be argued to be more significant than the intangible value of the goods i. This indicates that the goods are not within the scope of IAS These respondents believe that a more appropriate assessment would be whether there is an alternative means other than for promotional purposes by which value could be generated from the goods. If so, the goods should be accounted for under the relevant Standard. The Staff pointed out that in the submission, the goods are used solely for promotional purposes. The Staff believed that an entity should not consider the significance of the tangible versus intangible elements IAS Furthermore, the Staff believed that IAS BC46B to BC46C clearly require that an entity consider the purpose for which it has acquired the goods. If an entity acquires the goods solely for promotional purposes, the entity should not recognise an asset simply because it could derive benefits from other potential uses. The Staff recommended that the IC finalise the agenda decision subject to drafting changes. Two IC members disagreed with the technical conclusion for the same reasons given by the dissenting respondents set out above and those given in the June IC meeting. Nonetheless, the two members who objected were unconvinced on grounds that IAS BC5 indicates that the intention with which management holds an asset is not relevant to its classification as an intangible asset. Furthermore, intention is not the same as commitment. One of the IC members also questioned whether it would be appropriate for an entity to expense its own inventories as soon as a decision is taken to distribute those stock for promotional purposes, instead of waiting till the actual distribution. Eleven comment letters were received and the responses were mixed: In June , the IC discussed how an entity accounts for the acquisition of an interest in an associate or joint venture from an entity under common control. The IC believed that the scope of IAS 28 is clear in this regard and decided not to add this matter onto its agenda. They questioned what led the IC to change their view from In response, the Staff did not believe that there is any inconsistency between the two agenda decisions. They observed that the agenda decision did not provide any technical conclusion on the matter and merely set out the basis for diversity in practice. Some respondents repeated some of the issues already considered by the IC in their June meeting without any new arguments. More than half of the respondents also disagreed that the cost of the investment in an associate or joint venture should always be adjusted for the effects of a transaction with owners. The Staff acknowledged their concern and recommended removing that reference. The Staff rejected suggestions of postponing the finalisation of the agenda decision until completion of the BCUCC project as that would unnecessarily perpetuate the diversity in practice. The IC did not vote on this paper. The Chair of the IC will report back to the Board and discuss the potential next steps with them. There was significant re-debate of this issue. Some members were happy to finalise the agenda decision while others disagreed with the technical conclusion reached in the tentative agenda decision. Both sides re-iterated the comments made in the previous meeting see June agenda paper 8. Those who disagreed believed that IAS In addition, these IC members believed that it is not intuitive to have an exemption for subsidiaries but not for associates when an entity controls a subsidiary and have all the fair value information at hand on the date of acquisition but not an associate. Furthermore, they believed that finalising the agenda decision would lead to significant operational and practical issues for entities that have previously applied predecessor accounting to account for associates acquired under common control. This is because these entities would have to go back to all such transactions, perhaps many years ago, and apply fair value accounting. The availability of information and the use of hindsight are just some of the potential practical issues resulting from such a change. Without any transition provisions, using an agenda decision to conclude on this matter is simply not workable. The Chair of the IC and the Staff had wanted to finalise the agenda decision because they believed that it was clear that IAS 28 applies to such a transaction which was supported by a majority of the IC members in the June meeting. However, they conceded to the dissenting opinions and decided to hold back on finalising the agenda decision. The Staff will present their analysis on the feedback received on the following tentative agenda decision at a future meeting: See Legal for additional copyright and other legal information. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line. The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Login or Register Deloitte User? Welcome My account Logout. Finalisation of draft agenda decisions The Committee decided to finalise four tentative agenda decisions: Background This was a new issue. The entity retains legal title to the unit and any land attributed to it until construction is complete. However, the customer cannot change the structural design of the unit or cancel the contract, except as noted in f below. In this situation, the customer can cancel the contract and is entitled to receive most, but not all, of the payments it has already made to the entity. The remainder is retained by the entity as a termination penalty. The entity may also auction off the unit if the customer defaults on payments. Staff analysis The Staff believed that revenue from the sale of off-plan units, based on specific fact pattern as described in the submission , should be recognised at a point in time because none of the IFRS Staff recommendation The Staff recommended that the IC not add this issue to its agenda on grounds that the requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time for the fact pattern described in the submission. The IC members generally agreed on the following three points: When assessing under IFRS In this case, the asset that the customer has while the apartment block is under construction is the sale and purchase contract, including the right to sell or pledge that contract, as opposed to the physical unit itself. No single factor is determinative of the control assessment. In a contract for the sale of a real estate unit that the entity constructs, the asset created is the real estate unit itself. It is not, for example, the right to obtain the real estate unit in the future. The right to sell or pledge this right is not evidence of control of the real estate unit itself. Paragraph BC of IFRS 15 explains that the Board developed a third criterion in paragraph 35 c for recognising revenue over time because it observed, in some cases, it may be unclear whether the asset that is created or enhanced is controlled by the customer. Paragraph 36 of IFRS 15 specifies that the asset created does not have an alternative use to an entity if the entity is restricted contractually from readily directing the asset for another use during the creation of that asset or limited practically from readily directing the asset in its completed state for another use. In assessing whether it has an enforceable right to payment, an entity considers the contractual terms as well as any legislation or legal precedent that could supplement or override those contractual terms. The Committee observed that the assessment of enforceable rights as described in paragraph 35 c is focussed on the existence of the right and its enforceability. The likelihood that the entity would exercise the right is not relevant to this assessment. Similarly, if a customer has the right to terminate the contract, the likelihood that the customer would terminate the contract is not relevant to this assessment. The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time for a contract for the sale of a real estate unit. Consequently, the Committee [decided] not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda. Illustration of the application of the requirements to the fact pattern in the request. The assessment of whether revenue is recognised over time requires an entity to consider the rights and obligations created by the contract, taking into account the legal environment within which the contract is enforceable. In the fact pattern described in the request, the contract for the real estate unit includes the following features:. The nature of the promise in the contract is to deliver a completed real estate unit to the customer. Any land attributed to the real estate unit is not distinct applying paragraphs 22—30 of IFRS Accordingly, the Committee observed that there is one performance obligation in the contract. Accordingly, the entity assesses whether, as the unit is being constructed, the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the part-constructed real estate unit. The Committee observed the following:. The Committee observed that, based on the fact pattern described in the request, the customer does not have the ability to direct the use of the real estate unit as it is being constructed, and thus the customer does not control the part-constructed unit. The entity cannot change or substitute the real estate unit specified in the contract with the customer, and thus the customer could enforce its rights to the unit if the entity sought to direct the asset for another use. Accordingly, the Committee observed that the contractual restriction is substantive and the real estate unit does not have an alternative use to the entity. The entity, however, does not have an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. This is because the customer has the legal right to cancel the contract and, in the event of doing so, the entity is entitled only to a termination penalty that does not compensate the entity for the performance completed to date. Based on the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee observed that none of the criteria in paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 are met. Accordingly, the entity would recognise revenue at a point in time applying paragraph 38 of IFRS The Committee received a request about how an entity accounts for a transaction in which it contributes property, plant and equipment PPE to a newly-formed associate in exchange for shares in the associate. The Committee observed, therefore, that unless a Standard specifically excludes common control transactions from its scope, an entity applies the applicable requirements in the Standard to common control transactions. Paragraph 28 includes as an example of a downstream transaction the contribution of assets from an entity to its associate. This is consistent with the premise that financial statements are prepared from the perspective of the reporting entity, which in the fact pattern described in the request is each of the investors. This question has an effect only if the fair value of the PPE contributed differs from the fair value of the equity interest in the associate received in exchange for that PPE. The Committee observed that in the fact pattern described in the request, it would generally expect the fair value of PPE contributed to be the same as the fair value of the equity interest in the associate that an entity receives in exchange. If there is initially any indication that the fair value of the PPE contributed might differ from the fair value of the acquired equity interest, the investor first assesses the reasons for this difference and reviews the procedures and assumptions it has used to determine fair value. For all three questions, the Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to account for the contribution of PPE to an associate in the fact pattern described in the request. The Committee received a request about the accounting applied by a subsidiary that becomes a first-time adopter of IFRS Standards later than its parent. The subsidiary has foreign operations, on which it accumulates translation differences as part of a separate component of equity. Paragraph D16 of IFRS 1 provides a subsidiary that becomes a first-time adopter of IFRSs later than its parent with an exemption relating to the measurement of its assets and liabilities. Translation differences that the subsidiary accumulates as part of a separate component of equity are neither assets nor liabilities. These paragraphs require the subsidiary to recognise cumulative translation differences either at zero or on a retrospective basis at its date of transition to IFRS Standards. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a first-time adopter to determine how to account for cumulative translation differences. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda. The Committee decided to research possible narrow-scope standard-setting for components of equity when a subsidiary becomes a first-time adopter of IFRS Standards later than its parent. The Committee will consider this research at a future meeting. The Committee received a request asking whether particular financial instruments are eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4. That election permits the holder of particular investments in equity instruments to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income, rather than in profit or loss. The submitter asked whether financial instruments are eligible for that presentation election if the issuer would classify them as equity applying paragraphs 16A—16D of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: The Committee observed that the presentation election in paragraph 4. Consequently, a financial instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability cannot meet the definition of an equity instrument. The Committee also observed that paragraph 11 of IAS 32 specifies that, as an exception, an instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability is classified as an equity instrument by the issuer if it has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS Accordingly, the Committee concluded that a financial instrument that has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS 32 is not eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4. This is because such an instrument does not meet the definition of an equity instrument in IAS The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for the holder of the instruments described in the request to classify those instruments. IFRS Standards do not specifically address the accounting for interest and penalties related to income taxes interest and penalties. In the light of the feedback received on the draft IFRIC Interpretation Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments , the Committee considered whether to add a project on interest and penalties to its standard-setting agenda. On the basis of its analysis, the Committee concluded that a project on interest and penalties would not result in an improvement in financial reporting that would be sufficient to outweigh the costs. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a project on interest and penalties to its standard-setting agenda. If an entity does not apply IAS 12 to a particular amount payable or receivable for interest and penalties, it applies IAS 37 to that amount. Paragraph 79 of IAS 12 requires an entity to disclose the major components of tax expense income ; for each class of provision, paragraphs 84—85 of IAS 37 require a reconciliation of the carrying amount at the beginning and end of the reporting period as well as other information. Accordingly, regardless of whether an entity applies IAS 12 or IAS 37 when accounting for interest and penalties, the entity discloses information about those interest and penalties if it is material. The Committee received a request about how an entity accounts for goods it distributes as part of its promotional activities. In the fact pattern described in the request, a pharmaceutical entity acquires goods such as refrigerators, air conditioners and watches to distribute to doctors as part of its promotional activities. The entity and the doctors do not enter into agreements that create enforceable rights and obligations in relation to those goods. The request asked how the entity accounts for any such goods that remain undistributed at its reporting date. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that if an entity acquires goods solely to be used to undertake advertising or promotional activities, it applies the requirements in paragraph 69 of IAS Paragraph 69 requires an entity to recognise expenditure on such goods as an expense when the entity has a right to access those goods. Paragraph 69A of IAS 38 states that an entity has a right to access goods when it owns them. The entity, therefore, recognises expenditure on those goods as an expense when it owns the goods, or otherwise has a right to access them regardless of when it distributes the goods. In other words, the only benefit of those goods for the entity is to develop or create brands or customer relationships, which in turn generate revenues. However, applying IAS 38, the entity does not recognise internally generated brands or customer relationships as assets. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to account for the goods described in the request.
1 Comment
Oferta de Prestamo Urgente
1/22/2020 02:34:22 am
Buenos días señor / señora,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |