8 IASB General Update

File information

Publication date
14 May 2026
Format
PDF, 1.2 MB
Download original PDF

Appendix A: Rate-regulated Activities

Executive Summary

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post-Implementation Review (1) Post-Implementation Review (2)
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing UKEB Post Implementation Review

UKEB project page
UKEB Final Comment Letter on Exposure Draft (published 4 August 2021)
IASB Next Milestone: IFRS Accounting Standard May 2026

Purpose

A1 The purpose of this paper is to ask for Board Members’ views on the IASB’s planned implementation support1 for IFRS 20 Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities, which is expected to be issued at the end of May 2026. The IASB is expected to discuss the plan at its 18 May 2026 meeting. A brief verbal update of the IASB’s discussion will be provided at this meeting.

A2 Additionally, the IASB is expected to ask for the views of Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF) members at the July 2026 ASAF meeting.

Overview of IASB staff paper

A3 This section provides an overview of the following:

  1. The implementation support activities planned by the IASB during the period from publication of IFRS 20 to beyond its effective date. The effective date is expected to be 1 January 2029.
  2. The implementation support activities the IASB does not intend to undertake.

Implementation support activities the IASB intends to undertake

Early implementation support: May–December 2026

A4 Planned activities during this period include:

  1. Webcasts, targeted outreach, participation in stakeholder and regulator meetings, engagement with IFRS Foundation bodies such as the Emerging Economies Group (EEG), Global Preparers Forum (GPF), Capital Markets Advisory Committee (CMAC) and ASAF.
  2. Presentations at major conferences such as the IFRS Conference and World Standard Setters (WSS) Conference.

Ongoing support (2027–mid-2028)

A5 The IASB will monitor early adoption and preparation activities, conduct further outreach, and develop additional materials only if implementation challenges emerge. No formal activities are planned late in 2028 to avoid disrupting preparers. However, IASB staff will stand ready to respond to any identified implementation issues if needed.

Effective date and beyond

A6 Around Q1 2029, the focus will shift to educating users of financial statements on the effects of IFRS 20.

Implementation activities the IASB does not intend to undertake

A7 The IASB staff does not propose establishing a Transition Resource Group (TRG), relying instead on existing guidance, outreach, and (if needed) the IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC).

A8 The rationale for this proposal includes:

  1. that IFRS 20 addresses a narrow, targeted issue (timing differences under rate regulation);
  2. is less complex and less pervasive than standards such as IFRS 9 Financial Instruments or IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts; and
  3. is supported by extensive application guidance and illustrative examples.

UKEB Secretariat views

A9 The Secretariat has the following preliminary views:

  1. The planned implementation support activities seem reasonable.
  2. The plan not to establish a TRG is a concern. A TRG will encourage consistency of application of IFRS 20 globally. The advantages of a TRG are that:
    1. It would draw on the practical experience of preparers, auditors and investors in jurisdictions which permit the recognition of regulated assets and regulated liabilities to help jurisdictions which do not currently recognise regulated assets and regulated liabilities.
    2. It would also help distinguish implementation issues from standard setting matters.
    3. It could provide timely guidance early in the implementation process rather than needing to await the outcome of the IFRIC due process.
    4. It would provide publicly available guidance that can be used by those entities/jurisdictions that commence adoption activities later in the process.

A10 At its meeting in December 2025, the UKEB Rate-regulated Activities Technical Advisory Group (RRA TAG) expressed a clear preference for enhanced implementation support through the establishment of an IASB TRG.

Next steps

A11 The final Standard is expected to be published at the end of May 2026.

A12 The Secretariat is planning to bring the project initiation plan to the June 2026 Board meeting.

Question for the Board

  1. Does the Board agree with the following views of the Secretariat?
    1. The IASB’s planned activities to support implementation appear reasonable.
    2. The IASB’s plan not to establish a TRG is a concern and getting a globally consistent implementation of IFRS 20 would be helped by having a TRG.

Executive Summary

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post-Implementation Review (1) Post-Implementation Review (2)
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing UKEB Post Implementation Review

IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft (2027)
UKEB project page

Purpose

B1 This paper provides the Board with an update2 on the status of the Statement of Cash Flows and Related Matters project, following the IASB’s meeting in April 2026.

Background

B2 At its May 2025 meeting, the IASB decided that this project would address five topics:

  1. The transparency of information communicated about cash flow measures not specified in IFRS Accounting Standards.
  2. The consistent application of requirements for classification of cash flows i.e. operating, investing or financing.
  3. The disaggregation of cash flow information in the financial statements.
  4. The reporting of information about non-cash transactions in the financial statements.
  5. The consistent application of the definition of ‘cash equivalents’.

B3 The IASB decided to consider any additional changes to cash flow statement requirements for financial institutions only after concluding discussions on the above topics.

B4 The project was moved to the IASB’s standard setting work plan in January 2026.

B5 The tentative decisions made by the IASB to date on this project can be found in Appendix A of Staff Agenda Paper 203 for the April 2026 IASB meeting.

April 2026 IASB meeting

Cash and cash equivalents

B6 In March 2025, the IASB considered stakeholder feedback on cash and cash equivalents from its initial outreach activities4. At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB was asked whether it agrees with two targeted clarifications intended to improve the consistency with which entities apply the definition of cash equivalents in IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows, and to reduce diversity in practice, without introducing significant cost or complexity. These included:

  1. clarifying the role of considering the business purpose for holding the investment in the definition of cash equivalents; and
  2. clarifying the application of the three months or less maturity threshold in determining whether an investment is a cash equivalent.

B7 Given that the IASB decided at its May 2025 meeting not to expand or redefine cash and cash equivalents, the IASB staff proposals are deliberately narrow.

Definition of cash equivalents

B8 The IASB’s tentative decisions made at the April 2026 meeting are set out below:

Moving the location of a section of the definition of cash equivalents
Current requirements
Paragraph 6 of IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows defines cash equivalents as 'short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and which are subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value'.

Further guidance included in paragraph 7 of IAS 7 states that 'cash equivalents are held for the purpose of meeting short-term cash commitments rather than for investment or other purposes'. The remainder of paragraph 7 provides application guidance.
IASB tentative decision
The IASB tentatively agreed with the staff recommendation to incorporate in the definition of ‘cash equivalents’ a section of paragraph 7 of IAS 7 which states that ‘cash equivalents are held for the purpose of meeting short-term cash commitments rather than for investment or other purposes’.
UKEB Secretariat views
The Secretariat note that feedback received by the IASB from some stakeholders was that they found it challenging to determine whether the purpose of meeting a short-term cash commitment forms an integral part of the definition of a cash equivalent.

In the Secretariat’s view, the addition to the definition in paragraph 6, while helpful, is not sufficient to change practice, as it will need to be considered in conjunction with the proposed changes to the three-month maturity threshold (see below).

Clarify the three-month maturity threshold as a rebuttable presumption

B9 The IASB staff recommended expanding the application guidance in paragraph 7 of IAS 7 to:

  1. clarify that an investment with a maturity of more than three months is presumed not to meet the definition of cash equivalents; and
  2. state that any presumption is rebuttable if the facts and circumstances demonstrate that an investment meets the definition of a cash equivalent.

B10 IASB staff expect the proposal will address confusion created by the phrase “say, three months or less” and reflect prevailing practice identified in accounting firm guidance.

B11 Many IASB members expressed concerns about introducing a rebuttable presumption. They noted that rebutting such a presumption could be complex and costly and would not necessarily make classification clearer.

B12 The IASB did not make any decisions on this matter. Given the staff recommendation did not receive sufficient support in its current form, the staff intend to explore alternatives to the rebuttable presumption, which appeared to be the main source of concern.

Questions for the Board

  1. Do Board Members have any feedback in relation to the IASB’s tentative decision at its April 2026 meeting on moving the location of a section of the definition of cash equivalents, or on the UKEB Secretariat’s view (see table in paragraph B8)?
  2. Do Board Members have any feedback in relation to the three-month maturity threshold in paragraph 7 of IAS 7 (see paragraphs B9–B12)?

Next Steps

B13 The IASB will continue to assess possible approaches to improve financial reporting in relation to each of the topics in paragraph F2 through the remainder of the first half of 2026 and expects to publish an Exposure Draft in 2027.

B14 The UKEB Secretariat will continue to monitor the IASB’s deliberations and tentative decisions and will provide the Board with updates accordingly.

Appendix C: Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity

Purpose

C1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Board with an update on the IASB’s redeliberation of certain proposals in the Exposure Draft Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity (ED).

Background

C2 In November 2023, the IASB issued the ED, which sought to clarify the classification requirements and principles of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The ED also included presentation and disclosure proposals in response to calls from users for "better information about the characteristics of financial liabilities and equity instruments that are not captured by classification alone, and about the amounts attributable to ordinary shareholders of an entity"[5]. The UKEB issued its Final Comment Letter (FCL) in response to the ED in April 2024.

C3 At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB discussed feedback on, and the direction of, proposals in the ED relating to contingent settlement provisions. The IASB discussed and voted on proposed changes to the ED proposals that incorporate stakeholder feedback.

IASB April 2026 Meeting

C4 The ED proposed clarifications as to how an entity should apply the requirements of paragraph 25 of IAS 32 related to contingent settlement provisions. These included clarifications to:

  1. the scope of the requirements; and
  2. the initial and subsequent measurement of the financial liability, or liability component of a compound instrument, arising from such provisions.

C5 The IASB staff reported mixed stakeholder feedback. While some proposals were supported, others attracted significant concerns6. Areas of disagreement included:

  1. introducing a new measurement basis into IAS 32, and concerns at disregarding the probability and timing of contingent events;
  2. recognising discretionary interest payments in equity, and the potential disruption to some hedge accounting practices; and
  3. the definition of liquidation.

C6 IASB staff presented three papers7 recommending finalisation of the ED proposals, subject to certain changes. All thirteen IASB members tentatively voted in favour of the staff recommendations, which are summarised in the table below.

C7 As discussed below, two of these tentative decisions directly address concerns raised in the UKEB FCL and are consistent with the approach suggested by the UKEB.

Contingent settlement provisions
Current requirements
Paragraph 25 of IAS 32 sets out the requirements for classifying a financial instrument containing a contingent settlement provision when the issuer does not have the unconditional right to avoid delivering cash or another financial asset (or otherwise to settle it in such a way that it would be a financial liability).
Exposure Draft proposals
The ED proposed clarifying:
  1. That some financial instruments with contingent settlement provisions are compound financial instruments with liability and equity components.
  2. The initial and subsequent measurement of the financial liability (or liability component of a compound financial instrument) arising from a contingent settlement provision.
  3. Payments at the issuer’s discretion are recognised in equity even if the equity component of a compound financial instrument has an initial carrying amount of zero.
  4. Introduction of a definition for ‘liquidation’.
  5. Factors to consider in the assessment of whether a contractual term is ‘not genuine’ in accordance with paragraph 25(a) of IAS 32.
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB broadly welcomed the IASB proposals, expressing support for proposals (a), (c), (d) and (e). However, the FCL also:
  • Recommended removing the measurement proposals introduced in proposed new paragraph 25A of the ED, and addressing measurement requirements within the Amortised Cost Measurement Project (b above).
  • Highlighted potential internal inconsistencies within IAS 32 arising from the proposed measurement requirements.
  • Recommended a minor drafting amendment to address potential ambiguity in the scope of paragraph 25 of IAS 32.
IASB tentative decisions
The IASB tentatively decided to proceed with the proposed requirements in the ED, subject to minor drafting changes and targeted improvements, including:
  • Clarifying that the requirements in paragraph 25 of IAS 32 apply to a financial instrument (or a component of one) that could require settlement giving rise to a financial liability only as a result of the occurrence or non-occurrence of an uncertain future event that is beyond the control of both the issuer and the holder.
  • Clarifying that, for the purposes of IAS 32, dividend payments are recognised as expenses if shares are wholly classified (instead of ‘recognised’) as liabilities to resolve an inconsistency within the Standard.
  • Clarifying that when an entity assesses whether a contractual term is ‘not genuine’, it considers both the probability and nature of the contingent event, including whether the event has a substantive business purpose. A contractual term with a substantive business purpose would be considered genuine, even if the probability of the event is remote.
  • Removing the proposed definition of liquidation. Instead, it will be described as a process that has the objective of permanently ceasing an entity’s operations and includes activities such as converting assets, paying obligations and settling equity claims.

The IASB tentatively decided not to proceed with the proposed requirements related to the measurement of the financial liability arising from a contingent settlement provision as part of the project on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity. Instead, the IASB tentatively decided to respond to the measurement-related issues as part of the project on Amortised Cost Measurement. This addresses the concern expressed in our FCL that measurement requirements should not be introduced into IAS 32.

Next steps

C8 The IASB will continue to redeliberate the ED proposals during 2026, with final amendments expected in 2027.

Appendix D: Post-implementation Review of IFRS 16 Leases

Executive Summary

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post-Implementation Review (1) Post-Implementation Review (2)
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing UKEB Post Implementation Review

UKEB project page
UKEB Final Comment Letter (published 16 October 2025)
IASB Next Milestone: Project completion

Purpose

D1 This paper provides the Board with an update on the status of the IASB’s Request for Information (RFI) on the Post-implementation Review (PIR) of IFRS 16 Leases following the IASB’s meeting in April 2026.

Background

D2 In June 2025, the IASB published its Request for Information (RFI) on the Post-implementation Review (PIR) of IFRS 16 Leases, to seek stakeholders’ views on the requirements in IFRS 16, with a comment period ending on 15 October 2025. The UKEB’s final comment letter (FCL) to the IASB was submitted on 15 October 2025. The IASB received 122 responses to the RFI and held 35 outreach events.

April 2026 IASB meeting

D3 The IASB met on 21 April 2026 to discuss the IASB staff paper8 and how to respond to stakeholder feedback on the usefulness of information relating to lessees’ lease-related cash flows (Question 3 in the RFI).

D4 The table below provides an overview of the feedback received by the IASB and the views provided by the UKEB in its FCL.

Question 3: Usefulness of information relating to lessees’ lease-related cash flows
Stakeholder feedback to the IASB
Feedback from stakeholders was mixed. Many stakeholders, including most accountancy bodies, standard-setters and accounting firms agreed that, overall, the improvements to the quality and comparability of financial information about lease-related cash flows that lessees present and disclose are largely as the IASB expected.

However, many users of financial statements and some preparers considered that the improvements were lower than expected, and in some cases that the classification and disclosure requirements have reduced the usefulness of information in the statement of cash flows.
IASB tentative decision
Applying the IASB’s PIR prioritisation framework, staff concluded that the issues identified have substantial consequences and are pervasive, but that addressing them would be best achieved through existing or planned projects rather than immediate amendments to IFRS 16.

The IASB tentatively decided to:
  1. Add a research project to the pipeline to explore requiring lessees to disclose the components of total lease cash outflows, together with the location of those components in the statement of cash flows.
  2. Consider feedback on classification, presentation and comparability of lease-related cash flows within the ongoing Statement of Cash Flows and Related Matters project.
  3. Take no action in response to stakeholder feedback on:
    1. the classification and presentation of lease-related cash flows by lessees; and
    2. the lack of comparability between the cash flows of lessees and those of entities that borrow to buy assets.
  4. Take no action in response to other matters raised by stakeholders related to the usefulness of information about lessees’ lease-related cash flows.
UKEB Secretariat views
In the Secretariat’s view, the decisions are in line with UKEB’s FCL. The UKEB considered that issues with lease-related cash flow information are best addressed within the IASB’s Statement of Cash Flows and Related Matters project.

UKEB research related to the project on Cash Flows and Related Matters has indicated that stakeholders want better information on cash flows related to leases. Current disclosures do not generally allow users to link information between the statement of financial position, the income statement and the cash flows. This is particularly relevant where there has been merger and acquisition activity.

Next steps

D5 The IASB will deliberate other feedback on the RFI and decide whether to take any action in response to that feedback.

Appendix E: Equity Method

Executive Summary

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post-Implementation Review (1) Post-Implementation Review (2)
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing UKEB Post Implementation Review

UKEB project page
UKEB Final Comment Letter (published 16 December 2024)
IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction (expected June 2026)

Purpose

E1 The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the IASB’s deliberation at its March and April 2026 meetings, on the proposals in the Exposure Draft (ED) ‘Equity Method of Accounting IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (revised 202x)’ relating to:

  1. other changes in ownership interest while an investor retains significant influence;
  2. measurement of the initial cost of an associate; and
  3. purchases of additional ownership interests.

Background

E2 In September 2024, the IASB published its ED, which aimed to:

  1. clarify and add to the requirements in IAS 28, to answer application questions about how to apply the equity method of accounting;
  2. reorder the requirements in a more logical and consistent way to help companies apply the Standard i.e. improve the understandability; and
  3. improve the disclosure requirements in IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities and IAS 27 Separate Financial Statements to complement the proposed amendments to IAS 28.

E3 The UKEB undertook a ‘light touch’ approach in responding to the ED and is not aware of pervasive or material concerns for the UK arising from the proposals. Therefore, the UKEB supported the proposals in the ED, but did not comment on each specific proposal.

Status of IASB redeliberation

E4 In May 2025, the IASB discussed feedback on the ED.

E5 In September 2025, the IASB commenced its redeliberation of the ED proposals. The Board has received regular updates on IASB’s decisions/tentative decisions9.

E6 The IASB is expected to decide on the project direction in June 202610.

IASB March and April 2026 meetings

Other changes in ownership interest

E7 At its March 2026 meeting, the IASB continued its redeliberation of the ED proposals and discussed other changes in ownership interest while the investor retains significant influence.

Other changes in ownership interest
Current requirements
IAS 28 does not include requirements on how an investor accounts for other changes in ownership interest.
Exposure Draft proposals11
The ED proposed that if an investor’s ownership interest changes, and the investor retains significant influence, the investor is required to:
  1. At the date of purchasing an additional ownership interest:
    1. recognise that additional ownership interest and measure it at the fair value of the consideration transferred;
    2. include in the carrying amount the investor’s additional share of the fair value of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities, including the related deferred tax effects; and
    3. account for any difference between (i) and (ii) either as goodwill included as part of the carrying amount of the investment or as a gain from a bargain purchase in profit or loss.
  2. At the date of disposing of an ownership interest:
    1. derecognise the disposed portion of its investment in the associate measured as a percentage of the carrying amount of the investment; and
    2. recognise any difference between the consideration received and the amount of the disposed portion as a gain or loss in profit or loss.
  3. For other changes in its ownership interest in an associate:
    1. recognise an increase in its ownership interest, as if purchasing an additional ownership interest.

The proposal in the ED results in an investor presenting gains or losses from dilutions, for example, those arising from dilutions and anti-dilutions in profit or loss.
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB Final Comment Letter generally supported the ED proposals but did not comment on each specific proposal.
IASB tentative decisions

1. Other changes in ownership interest


At its March 2026 meeting, in considering the feedback on the ED, the IASB decided to proceed with its ED proposals regarding an investor that retains significant influence over an associate when its ownership interest changes.
In addition to the ED proposals, the IASB also tentatively decided not to:
  1. Provide illustrative examples of some fact patterns12 to clarify how an investor would apply the proposed requirements.
  2. Introduce a requirement for an investor to recognise its share of the expense and the corresponding adjustment to the carrying amount of the investment during the vesting period of an equity-settled share-based payment transaction13.
  3. Provide an exemption from applying the proposed requirements for transactions to which an investor is not a party, including those that occur outside an immediate associate14.
  4. Introduce requirements for hybrid instruments (for example, hybrid instruments that affect dividend distribution but not voting rights).
  5. Introduce requirements for when an investor could combine transactions15.

2. Purchase of an additional ownership interest—Relief

16
In response to concerns17 raised on the ED proposal to require an investor to determine the fair value of its additional share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities when purchasing an additional ownership interest and retaining significant influence, the IASB tentatively decided:
  1. To provide relief from the proposal to require an investor to measure at fair value the additional share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities. The relief would permit the investor to use an alternative measure when purchasing an additional ownership interest and retaining significant influence.
  2. To permit an investor to apply the relief if the investor reasonably expects that the effects of using that alternative measure would not result in a material difference in its financial statements in the current or future periods (eligibility criterion).
  3. To list the factors an investor considers in assessing the eligibility criterion18.
  4. Not to specify alternative measures to fair value that an investor is permitted to use when using the relief19.
  5. To permit optional use of the relief.
UKEB Secretariat preliminary view
The IASB’s tentative decisions are consistent with the ED proposals, with some additional clarifications.

Measurement of initial cost of an associate—other matters

E8 At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB considered the feedback on three matters of the proposals in the ED relating to the measurement of the initial cost of an associate.

Measurement of initial cost of an associate—other matters
Current requirements
Paragraph 32 of IAS 28 requires an investor that obtains significant influence of an associate, to account for the difference between the cost of the investment and the investor’s share of the net fair value of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities as goodwill (included in the carrying amount of the investment) or as a gain from a bargain purchase (recognised in profit or loss).

However, IAS 28 does not include requirements for how an investor measures the cost of the investment on obtaining significant influence—for example:
  1. whether to measure any previously held ownership interest in the associate at fair value; or
  2. whether and if so how to recognise and measure contingent consideration.
Exposure Draft proposals
The ED proposed to require that an investor:
  1. Measure the cost of the associate, on obtaining significant influence, at the fair value of the consideration transferred, including the fair value of any previously held interest in the associate.
  2. Recognise contingent consideration as part of the consideration transferred and measure it at fair value. Thereafter:
    1. not remeasure contingent consideration classified as an equity instrument; and
    2. measure other contingent consideration at fair value at each reporting date and recognise changes in fair value in profit or loss.
  3. Include in the carrying amount of the investment:
    1. the share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities at fair value at the date of purchase; and
    2. the deferred tax effects on the fair value of the share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities.
  4. Account for any difference between the cost of the associate and the fair value of the share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities as either goodwill included in the carrying amount of the investment or a gain from a bargain purchase in profit or loss.

Note: at the April 2026 meeting the IASB discussed the ED proposal in (c)(ii) only, as the other ED proposals were discussed in previous IASB meetings.
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB Final Comment Letter generally supported the ED proposals but did not comment on each specific proposal.
IASB tentative decisions

1. Deferred tax effects of fair-value adjustments


At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided to confirm the proposal to include in the carrying amount of the investment the deferred tax effects related to adjusting the investor’s share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities to fair value.

2. Costs to issue equity or debt instruments


In addition, in considering a sweep issue related to the tentative decision on acquisition-related costs20 i.e. costs to issue a debt or equity instrument, the IASB tentatively decided to clarify that, when an investor issues equity or debt instruments to obtain significant influence, it is required to account for the costs to issue the debt or equity instrument in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, rather than expensed as acquisition-related costs.

3. Reassessment before recognising a bargain purchase gain


In relation to a suggestion made by a few respondents to include the same requirement in paragraph 36 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations21 to IAS 28, the IASB tentatively decided not to proceed with this suggestion, as it is implicit in existing equity method principles22.
UKEB Secretariat preliminary view
The IASB’s tentative decisions are consistent with the ED proposals, with some additional clarifications. The UKEB final comment letter supported the ED proposals.

Purchases of additional interests—other matters

E9 At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB considered the feedback on two matters addressing two application questions when an investor purchases an additional ownership interest while retaining significant influence.

Purchases of additional ownership interests—other matters
Current requirements
Paragraph 32 of IAS 28 requires a bargain purchase gain to be included in the determination of the investor’s share of the associate’s profit or loss.

IAS 28 does not specify whether an investor that has reduced its investment in an associate to nil should, at the date of purchasing an additional ownership interest, recognise its share of any previous losses not recognised as a deduction from the cost of the additional interest.
Exposure Draft proposals
The ED proposed to require an investor that purchases an additional ownership interest while retaining significant influence to:
  1. Recognise the additional ownership interest and measure it at the fair value of the consideration transferred.
  2. Recognise contingent consideration as part of the consideration transferred and measure it at fair value.
  3. Include in the carrying amount the investor’s additional ownership interest:
    1. the additional share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities at fair value at the date of purchase; and
    2. the deferred tax effects on the fair value of the additional share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities.
  4. Account for any difference between the fair value of the consideration transferred (including contingent consideration) and the fair value of the additional share of the associate’s identifiable assets and liabilities as either goodwill included in the carrying amount of the investment or a gain from a bargain purchase in profit or loss.
  5. Not immediately recognise unrecognised losses on its previously held interest.

Note: at the April 2026 meeting the IASB discussed the ED proposals in (d) and (e) only, as the other ED proposals were discussed in previous IASB meetings.
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB Final Comment Letter generally supported the ED proposals but did not comment on each specific proposal.
IASB tentative decisions

1. Bargain purchase on acquiring an additional interest


At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided to confirm the ED proposal in (d) above to require an investor to recognise a bargain purchase gain from the purchase of an additional ownership interest in profit or loss, even if the carrying amount of the previously held investment includes goodwill.

The rationale for the ED proposal is that the investment is treated as an accumulation of purchases, the previously held interest is not remeasured, and IAS 28 already requires gains on bargain purchases at initial recognition to be recognised in profit or loss.

Despite stakeholders raising concerns about possible earnings-management by splitting transactions, the IASB suggested that economic substance and existing IFRS principles (including aggregation concepts) already limit inappropriate outcomes, and that adding specific anti-structuring rules would introduce complexity.

2. Losses not recognised when the investment was reduced to nil


The IASB tentatively decided to confirm the ED proposal in (e) above that an investor that has reduced the carrying amount of the investment to nil is not required to immediately recognise losses not recognised on its previously held investment when it purchases an additional ownership interest. In other words, it measures the additional interest at the fair value of consideration transferred, and after the purchase, the investor resumes recognising profits only when its share of profits for the whole investment exceeds the total unrecognised losses.
UKEB Secretariat preliminary view
The IASB’s tentative decisions are consistent with the ED proposals, with some additional clarifications.

Next steps

E10 The IASB will continue redeliberating the ED proposals over the next few months.

E11 The UKEB Secretariat will continue to monitor the IASB’s redeliberation and tentative decisions and update the Board.

Appendix F: Amortised Cost Measurement

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing

IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft H2 2026

Purpose

F1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Board with an update on the IASB’s tentative decisions relating to possible changes to the requirements in IFRS 9 Financial Instruments in relation to the accounting for:

  1. changes in the Effective Interest Rate (EIR) for financial assets and financial liabilities; and
  2. modifications of financial instruments.

Background

F2 The IASB commenced its Amortised Cost Measurement project in response to stakeholder feedback. The IASB aims to make targeted improvements to the amortised cost measurement requirements in IFRS 9, addressing application issues that are widespread and have a material effect on entities’ financial statements.

F3 Information about the project was previously presented to the Board, including:

  1. Project objectives, approach, criteria and scope. Refer to the UKEB March 2025 Agenda Paper 10 IASB General Update (Appendix B).
  2. An indicative project timeline. Refer to the UKEB July 2025 Agenda Paper 9 IASB General Update (Appendix A).
  3. A project update, and request for Board views ahead of the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF) meeting in December 2025. Refer to the UKEB November 2025 Agenda Paper 7 IASB General Update (Appendix B).

F4 The IASB received feedback on the project direction from consultative groups including ASAF and the newly formed IASB Financial Instruments Consultative Group in December 2025.

Recent IASB discussions

F5 At its February 2026 and April 2026 meetings, the IASB discussed possible standard setting in relation to the modification of financial instruments, and subsequent changes to the EIR.

Modification of financial instruments
Current requirements
For financial liabilities, paragraph 3.3.2 of IFRS 9 sets out requirements for modifications and exchanges with the same lender and describes modifications with reference to modification of the terms of an existing liability, or part of it.

For financial assets, paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 considers an assessment of contractual rights and provides specific requirements as to when an entity derecognises a financial asset. Paragraph 5.4.3 of IFRS 9 sets out the requirements for modification of financial assets that do not result in derecognition, referring to modification of contractual cash flows.
Tentative decisions23
At the February 2026 IASB meeting, the IASB considered two papers24 and tentatively decided23:
  • to clarify that a modification of a financial asset or a financial liability constitutes a change in contractual terms that changes the nature, timing, amounts or uncertainty of contractual cash flows;
  • to clarify that a substantial modification of a financial asset, or a part of a financial asset, is accounted for as derecognition of the original financial asset and recognition of a new financial asset, which is consistent with the requirements for financial liabilities; and
  • to require that an entity apply a principles-based approach in assessing whether a modification of a financial asset or a financial liability is substantial and results in derecognition.
Subsequent changes to the EIR
Current requirements
Paragraphs B5.4.5–B5.4.6 of IFRS 9, applicable to financial instruments measured at amortised cost, provide application guidance on re-estimation of contractual cash flows arising from existing contractual terms.

Paragraph B5.4.5 applies to re-estimation of cash flows that reflect movements in the market rates of interest. It states that re-estimating future interest payments for floating interest rate financial assets and financial liabilities normally has no significant effect on the carrying amount of the asset or liability.

Paragraph B5.4.6 applies to all other re-estimation of contractual cash flows (excluding modifications and changes in estimates of expected credit losses): If an entity revises its estimates of payments and receipts it recalculates the carrying amount by discounting the revised cash flows at the original effective interest rate. The adjustment is recognised in profit or loss as income or expense.
ASAF feedback
At the December 2025 ASAF meeting, the IASB sought feedback on three possible models to address subsequent changes to the EIR. A number of ASAF members, including the UKEB, expressed some support for the more principles-based approach in model (A), which would adjust the EIR only for movements in contractual interest rates that are linked to general market-based variables, such as the benchmark interest component or inflation rate market.

However, a number of other ASAF members voiced concerns about the operational complexity of this approach, and favoured approach (C), which would reflect in the EIR any changes in a contractual interest rate that result from contractually specified variables.
Tentative decisions
At the April 2026 IASB meeting, the IASB considered a paper25, and IASB tentatively decided to amend paragraph B5.4.5 of IFRS 9. They propose to require that an entity adjust the EIR to account for a re-estimation of the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or a financial liability that provides consideration for the time value of money or for the credit risk.

Other re-estimation of contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability, excluding modifications and changes in estimates of expected credit losses, would continue to be accounted for as catch-up adjustments, in accordance with paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9.
UKEB Secretariat preliminary view
The tentative decisions taken by the IASB in the April 2026 meeting include elements of both model (A) and (C). It is difficult to form a Secretariat view on these tentative decisions until any drafting and illustrative examples are developed and shared by the IASB.

Next steps

F6 The IASB will continue to deliberate issues within the scope of the project. The project scope is now expected to widen to include certain aspects of the Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity project related to the initial and subsequent measurement of contingent settlement provisions.

F7 The IASB workplan says an Exposure Draft will be issued in H2 2026. However, in the April 2026 IASB podcast, the IASB chair indicated that while deliberations are expected to be substantively completed in 2026, the Exposure Draft is expected to be published in 2027.

Appendix G: Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment

Entity Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review UKEB Post Implementation Review
IASB Research / Pipeline Discussion Paper Redeliberation Exposure Draft Redeliberation Final Standard Post Implementation Review
UKEB Research / Influencing Research / Influencing Monitoring Influencing Monitoring Endorsement Influencing UKEB Post Implementation Review

UKEB project page
UKEB Final Comment Letter on Exposure Draft (published 19 July 2024)
IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction Q4 2026

Purpose of this paper

G1 This paper provides the Board with an update on the IASB’s redeliberation, at its April 2026 meeting, of the proposals in the Exposure Draft Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment (the ED)26.

Background

G2 The IASB’s objective for this project is to explore whether entities can, at a reasonable cost:

  1. provide users with more useful information about business combinations (by amending the requirements in IFRS 3 Business Combinations); and
  2. improve the effectiveness and reduce cost and complexity of the impairment test in IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.

G3 The proposed information should assist users to make better decisions, by helping them to understand and assess:

  1. the strategic rationale behind an acquisition;
  2. how the acquired business is performing; and
  3. whether the acquirer’s management has been effective and efficient in using the entity’s economic resources to acquire the business.

IASB meeting 21 April 2026

G4 At the meeting on 21 April 2026, the IASB discussed:

  1. Which subset of business combinations should be subject to post-acquisition performance disclosures.
  2. Refining the proposed exemption in the ED from some disclosure requirements.
  3. Whether to retain the ED proposal to remove from IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, the current restriction which prohibits inclusion of restructuring and enhancement cash flows in the value in use calculation.

G5 Although the Board was asked to make tentative decisions, as set out below, the IASB will later reassess the overall package of disclosures to confirm that the benefits outweigh the costs of applying the requirements.

Post-acquisition performance information: subset of business combinations

G6 The IASB discussed whether to retain a subset approach (i.e. not require performance information for all acquisitions) and how to identify the subset of business combinations subject to post-acquisition performance disclosures27 which are summarised in the table below.

Performance Information
Current requirements
N/A. The ED is proposing new disclosure requirements.
ED proposals
To provide users with more useful information about the performance of a business combination, the ED proposed to require an entity to disclose information about the performance of a business combination. In particular, the ED proposed to require an entity to disclose:
  1. information about the entity’s acquisition-date key objectives and related targets for a business combination; and
  2. whether these key objectives and related targets are being met.

In the ED, the IASB responded to preparers’ concerns about disclosing that information by proposing:
  1. to require this information for only a subset of an entity’s most important business combinations, i.e. ‘strategic’ business combinations; and
  2. to exempt entities from disclosing some items of this information in specific circumstances.

A ‘strategic’ business combination would be one for which failure to meet any one of an entity’s acquisition-date key objectives would put the entity at serious risk of failing to achieve its overall business strategy.

The ED proposed that entities identify a strategic business combination using a set of thresholds in IFRS 3 (see paragraphs BC56–BC73). The proposed thresholds are both quantitative (see paragraphs BC63–BC67) and qualitative (see paragraphs BC68–BC70).
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB broadly supported the IASB’s proposals to require disclosure of information about the performance of business combinations, based on the acquirer’s acquisition-date key objectives and related targets, for only a subset of the most important business combinations. However, the UKEB considers that the proposed exhaustive list of quantitative and qualitative thresholds (the closed threshold approach), may not capture the most important acquisitions, and instead recommended a principle-based approach, including a rebuttable presumption, focusing on the description of the relevant acquisitions currently set out in the Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC54 (see paragraphs 6 and 8 of the UKEB Comment letter).

The UKEB highlighted concerns with the ‘operating profit’ threshold due to volatility (see paragraphs A19–A20 of the UKEB Comment Letter).

The UKEB also suggested that the IASB should require disclosures for a series of business combinations that individually may not appear to be strategic but are part of a series of acquisitions which are strategic (see UKEB Comment Letter paragraphs A11–A15).
IASB tentative decisions28
  1. At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided to retain the proposal to require an entity to disclose performance information for only a subset of business combinations.
  2. The IASB also tentatively decided to proceed with a threshold approach to identify the subset.
  3. In relation to the design of the threshold approach, the IASB tentatively decided:
    1. to retain the proposed quantitative thresholds related to revenue and assets;
    2. to remove the proposed quantitative threshold related to operating profit;
    3. to retain the proposal to set the quantitative thresholds at 10%; and
    4. to remove the proposed qualitative thresholds (i.e. major new business line or geographical location).
  4. The IASB tentatively decided to make no changes based on other feedback on the proposed threshold approach, such as requiring business combinations to meet multiple thresholds, or trying to identify “series” of acquisitions.
UKEB Secretariat views
The UKEB Secretariat supports the IASB’s tentative decision to retain the revenue and asset quantitative thresholds. Because the IASB is not taking a rebuttable presumption approach, it makes sense to remove the operating profit quantitative threshold due to its volatility and lack of evidence that it would capture important acquisitions not already captured by revenue or assets.

However, as recommended in the UKEB Comment letter, a principle-based approach using a rebuttable presumption is preferred by the UKEB.

The Secretariat is disappointed that the IASB has not taken up the suggestion in the UKEB comment letter to require disclosures for a “series of business combinations” that individually may not appear to be strategic but are part of a series of acquisitions which are strategic.

Exemption from some disclosure requirements

G7 The IASB considered staff recommendations to refine the proposed ED exemption (based on the principle of “seriously prejudicial”). The staff recommended extending the exemption to cover situations where disclosure would breach statutory, legal or regulatory requirements, but to not extend the exemption to negative social or operational consequences beyond what is already captured29.

G8 There was strong consensus on a narrow exemption, as set out in the table below.

Exemption
Current requirements
N/A. The exemption relates to new proposed disclosures in the ED.
ED proposals
The ED proposed to exempt an entity from disclosing some of the information that would be required applying the proposals in the ED in specific circumstances.

The exemption is designed to respond to preparers’ concerns about commercial sensitivity and litigation risk but is also designed to be enforceable and auditable so that it is applied only in the appropriate circumstances (see paragraphs BC74–BC107).

The ED proposed that, as a principle, an entity be exempt from disclosing some information if doing so can be expected to prejudice seriously the achievement of any of the entity’s acquisition-date key objectives for the business combination (see paragraphs BC79–BC89).

The IASB has also proposed application guidance (see paragraphs BC90–BC107) to help entities, auditors and regulators identify the circumstances in which an entity can apply the exemption.
UKEB Comment Letter
The UKEB welcomed the ED proposal that an entity be exempt from disclosing some information if its disclosure can be expected to prejudice seriously the achievement of any one of the entity’s acquisition-date key objectives for the business combination. However, to ensure the appropriate application of the exemption, the UKEB recommended that the IASB clarifies that the exemption would only be used in “extremely rare cases”, consistent with the requirement in paragraph 92 of IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets (see paragraph 9–10 of the UKEB Comment Letter).

The UKEB commented that in some circumstances, the proposed requirement to disclose the key objectives and targets to which the exemption has been applied and the reason for applying the exemption to each item may in itself risk disclosure of potentially seriously prejudicial and commercially sensitive information. The UKEB noted that one way to counteract the risk of commercially sensitive information being disclosed may be to permit an entity not to disclose the reason for invoking the exemption in certain circumstances. The UKEB also suggested that the IASB could consider including additional requirements for the entity to disclose the reason for invoking the exemption at a future reporting date when the reason is no longer seriously prejudicial. (see paragraphs A3–A4 of the UKEB Comment Letter).
IASB tentative decisions
  1. At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided to retain the exemption from disclosing some information in specific circumstances.
  2. In relation to the circumstances in which an entity can apply the exemption, the IASB tentatively decided:
    1. to refine the wording of the exemption to exempt entities from disclosing information that would result in a breach of statutory legal or regulatory requirements; and
    2. not to refine the wording of the exemption to cover other circumstances suggested by respondents, including those in which disclosing performance and expected synergy information would lead to negative social or operational consequences beyond what would already be covered by the proposed exemption.
  3. The IASB tentatively decided:
    1. to retain the proposal requiring an entity to reassess at the end of each reporting period whether a key objective or target to which the exemption was previously applied still qualifies for the exemption;
    2. to remove the proposal requiring an entity to disclose the reason for applying the exemption;
    3. not to define the term “seriously prejudicial”;
    4. not to include a statement specifying that the exemption is to be applied only in “extremely rare circumstances”;
    5. not to include additional examples of circumstances in which an entity:
      1. can apply the exemption; or
      2. might be able to disclose information in a different way instead of applying the exemption; and
    6. to provide no further clarifications.
UKEB Secretariat views
The UKEB Secretariat supports the extension to the ED proposed exemption, to explicitly cover cases where disclosure would breach statutory, legal or regulatory requirements. However, the Secretariat considers the exemption could be overused if it is not stated that it is expected that the exemption be used only in extremely rare cases. The risk of overuse is heightened given that the IASB has (tentatively) decided to remove the proposal for an entity to disclose the reason for applying the exemption.

The Secretariat considers the IASB should consider refining the exemption to require an entity to disclose the reason for applying the exemption at a later date when it is no longer commercially sensitive, as noted in the UKEB Comment Letter.

Value in use: restructuring and enhancement cash flows

G9 The IASB discussed whether to retain the ED proposal to remove from IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, the current restriction from including cash flows from uncommitted future restructuring and asset enhancements when calculating value in use (VIU)[30], when carrying out an impairment test.

G10 This topic generated the most polarised debate, centred on whether cost reduction and realism outweigh the risk of management optimism. A narrow majority of IASB members approved the staff recommendation to retain the ED proposal.

G11 Members opposing retaining the ED proposal warned that the proposal may worsen “too little, too late” goodwill impairments, increase exposure to management optimism, and weaken constraints inherent in the current “asset in its current condition” principle.

G12 Members supporting the ED proposal argued that removing the constraints aligns impairment testing more closely with approved management budgets, reduces arbitrary accounting adjustments, lowers cost and improves understandability. It was noted that there is usually strong governance and audit oversight around the budgeting process.

Restructuring and asset enhancement cash flows
Current requirements
Paragraphs 44–48 of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets constrain the cash flows an entity is permitted to include when calculating VIU. An entity is not permitted to include estimated cash flows expected to arise from:
  1. a future restructuring to which the entity is not yet committed; or
  2. improving or enhancing an asset’s performance.
ED proposals
The ED proposed to remove the above constraints on cash flows used to calculate VIU (see paragraphs BC204–BC214).

In the IASB’s view, doing so would:
  1. Reduce cost and complexity: removing the constraint would reduce the need to amend management’s financial budgets or forecasts.
  2. Make the impairment test less prone to error because estimates of VIU would be based more closely on cash flow projections that are prepared, monitored and used internally for decision-making.
  3. Make the impairment test easier to understand, perform, audit and enforce.
UKEB Comment Letter
Whilst the UKEB recognised some stakeholder concerns that removal of constraints could increase the risk that management use over-optimistic inputs in calculating VIU, the UKEB agreed with the proposal to remove the constraints, to reduce the cost and complexity of the VIU calculation by using internally consistent assumptions.

To counteract any potential lack of consistency treatment and comparability resulting from removing the constraints, the UKEB recommended requiring entities to:
  1. disclose the fact that the recoverable amount of a cash-generating unit includes cash flows from uncommitted restructuring or asset improvements;
  2. disclose the nature and amounts of those uncommitted restructurings and when those are planned to occur; and
  3. disclose the risks associated with including such cash flows (see paragraphs 60–63 of the UKEB Comment Letter).
IASB tentative decision
At its April 2026 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided:
  1. to retain this proposal; and
  2. to do no further work in response to respondents’ suggestions that the IASB:
    1. add an illustrative example31;
    2. include additional safeguards or constraints;
    3. add disclosure requirements;
    4. clarify the relationship with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets; and
    5. clarify the remaining differences between VIU and fair value less costs of disposal or reconsider whether to maintain both methods.
UKEB Secretariat views
The Secretariat notes that the UKEB Comment Letter supports the IASB’s tentative decisions to retain the ED proposal to remove the relevant constraints in IAS 36.

The Secretariat also notes that the IASB has decided not to introduce additional disclosures that were suggested in the UKEB Comment Letter which might provide useful information to users.

Next Steps

G13 In line with the updated redeliberation plan outlined in paragraphs 8–10 of Staff Agenda Paper 18A for the IASB April 2026 meeting, the IASB will discuss the package of proposed amendments to IFRS 3 relating to performance and expected synergy information, including the overall cost-benefit assessment, before it discusses:

  1. subsidiaries without public accountability; and
  2. transition and effective date of any amendments.

G14 The UKEB Secretariat will continue to monitor the IASB’s redeliberation and tentative decisions and will provide the Board with updates accordingly.

Appendix H: List of IASB projects

This Appendix provides a list of all active IASB projects32, including links to the IASB project page and where relevant, to the UKEB project page and any UKEB projects or comment letters. Items highlighted in grey are changed from the last report.

List of IASB projects

Amendments to the Fair Value Option (IAS 28)

  • UKEB Project Type: Influencing
  • IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft Feedback May 2026
  • UKEB project page (Influencing)33
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published February 2026)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published March 2026)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published April 2026)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published April 2026)

Amortised Cost Measurement

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft H2 2026

Business Combinations–Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment

  • UKEB Project type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction Q4 2026
  • UKEB project page (Influencing)
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published March 2024)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published May 2024)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published July 2024)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published July 2024)
  • UKEB Due Process Compliance Statement (Published September 2024)
  • UKEB project page (Discussion Paper)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter on the Discussion Paper (Published January 2021)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published March 2021)
  • UKEB Report: Subsequent Measurement of Goodwill - A Hybrid Model (Published September 2022)

Equity Method

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction June 2026
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published October 2024)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published October 2024)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published December 2024)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published December 2024)
  • UKEB Due Process Compliance Statement (Published January 2025)

Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Final Amendments 2027
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published October 2023)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published February 2024)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published April 2024)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published April 2024)
  • UKEB Due Process Compliance Statement (Published April 2024)

Intangible Assets

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction H2 2026
  • UKEB project page
  • Accounting for Intangibles UK Stakeholders’ Views’ (Published March 2023)
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan Updated (Published June 2023)
  • Accounting for Intangibles a Quantitative Analysis of UK Financial Reports (Published May 2024)
  • Accounting for Intangibles a Survey of Users’ Views’ (Published May 2024)
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (2025) (Published November 2025)

Post-implementation Review of IFRS 16–Leases

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Project Summary and Feedback Statement H2 2026
  • UKEB Project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published June 2025)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published July 2025)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published October 2025)

Post-implementation Review of IFRS 9 – Hedge Accounting

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Request for Information Feedback Q4 2026

Provisions—Targeted Improvements

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Decide Project Direction June 2026
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published October 2024)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published December 2024)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published March 2025)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published March 2025)
  • UKEB Due Process Compliance Statement (Published March 2025)

Rate-regulated Activities

  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: IFRS Accounting Standard May 2026
  • UKEB project page (Pre-endorsement)
  • UKEB Preliminary Economic Assessment (Published April 2024)
  • UKEB letter to the IASB (Published July 2024)
  • UKEB Secretariat’s top-down approach (Published July 2024)
  • UKEB project page (Influencing)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter (Published July 2021)
  • UKEB Final Comment Letter (Published August 2021)
  • UKEB Feedback Statement (Published April 2022)

Risk Mitigation Accounting (formerly Dynamic Risk Management)

  • UKEB Project Type: Influencing
  • IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft Feedback H2 2026
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published February 2026)
  • UKEB Draft Comment Letter - Risk Mitigation Accounting (Published April 2026)
  • UKEB Project Type: Monitoring
  • IASB Next Milestone: Exposure Draft 2027
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published December 2024)
  • UKEB updated Project Initiation Plan (Published May 2025)
  • UKEB Research Paper 1 Statement of Cash Flows: Background and Key Issues (Published December 2024)
  • UKEB Research Paper 2 Statement of Cash Flows: Non-mandatory and Voluntary Cash Flow Disclosures Provided by UK Listed Companies (Published February 2025)
  • UKEB Research Paper 3 Statement of Cash Flows: UK User and Preparer Perspectives (Published March 2025)
  • UKEB Research Paper 4 Statement of Cash Flows: UK Users’ views on potential ways forward (Published July 2025)
  • UKEB Research Paper 5 Statement of Cash Flows: Further research – Net Debt (Published November 2025)

Translation to a Hyperinflationary Presentation Currency (IAS 21)

  • UKEB Project Type: Endorsement
  • IASB Next Milestone: Completed
  • UKEB project page
  • UKEB Project Initiation Plan (Published March 2026)
  • UKEB Draft Endorsement Criteria Assessment (Published April 2026)

Footnotes

  1. IASB Agenda Paper 9 – May 2026. ↩

  2. The Board was last provided an update on this research project in February 2026 – see UKEB meeting 26 February 2026 Agenda paper 9: Appendix C. ↩

  3. See IASB Staff Agenda Paper 20 for the April 2026 meeting. ↩

  4. See paragraphs 47–60 of IASB Staff Agenda Paper 20A and paragraph 31–46 IASB Staff Agenda Paper 20B of the March 2025 IASB meeting. ↩

  5. Paragraph IN6, Introduction to the ED. ↩

  6. Paragraph 11 onwards of: ap5-cover-paper.pdf ↩

  7. Agenda papers 5A, 5B and 5C. ↩

  8. IASB Agenda Paper 7 – April 2026. ↩

  9. Refer to: a) UKEB Public Board Meeting – 25 September 2025, Agenda Paper 7 IASB General Update (Appendix D). b) UKEB Public Board Meeting – 20 November 2025, Agenda Paper 7 IASB General Update (Appendix J). c) UKEB Public Board Meeting – 29 January 2026, Agenda Paper 8 IASB General Update (Appendix D). d) UKEB Public Board Meeting – 26 February 2026, Agenda Paper 9 IASB General Update (Appendix D). e) UKEB Public Board Meeting – 26 March 2026, Agenda Paper 8 IASB General Update (Appendix C). ↩

  10. https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/#ifrs-accounting-projects ↩

  11. The proposal in the ED refers to changes in the investor’s ownership interest. They would include the following transactions: (a) an associate issues new shares, the investor subscribes those shares and changes its own ownership interest; (b) an associate buys back its shares, the investor sells its shares and changes its own ownership interest; and (c) an associate issues new shares to (or redeems the shares of) another shareholder, causing the investor’s ownership interest to decrease (or increase). We refer to these transactions as dilutions and anti-dilutions. ↩

  12. For example, when an associate’s subsidiary issues new shares to a third party (indirect dilutions). ↩

  13. Some respondents asked the IASB to reconsider addressing the application question how an investor accounts for an associate’s share-based payment transaction during the vesting period. ↩

  14. A few respondents raised an issue about a fact pattern in which an associate issues hybrid instruments such as preference shares. In this case, the investor’s share of the associate’s net assets may change but not its percentage of voting rights. ↩

  15. Some respondents noted that investors may engage in separate transactions with the purpose to achieve a specific outcome. For example, an associate buys back its shares and subsequently grants some or all these shares to its employees to settle a share-based payment transaction. The investor’s ownership interest first increases and subsequently decreases. ↩

  16. The relief is designed to work in a manner similar to the relief in paragraph 4 of IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and paragraph 53 of IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts. ↩

  17. Most of the concerns raised on the proposal are about its potential cost and complexity, with fewer respondents raising concerns about the conceptual merits of the proposal. ↩

  18. The list of factors that the investor could consider, may include: (a) the period of time between the purchase of the additional ownership interest and the date the investor obtained significant influence of an associate. A short period of time might indicate there have been no material changes in the fair value of the associate identifiable assets or liabilities; (b) the nature and measurement bases of the associate's identifiable assets and liabilities–the associate for example might measure its properties at fair value and those properties represent a significant proportion of identifiable assets; (c) whether there is observable evidence of price changes in the associate's identifiable assets and liabilities; (d) whether the carrying amount of the associate is material to the investor’s financial statements; (e) the amount of consideration transferred for the additional ownership interest. ↩

  19. Not specifying alternative measures would allow for more flexibility. ↩

  20. At its October 2025 meeting, the IASB tentatively decided to require acquisition-related costs incurred by an investor or joint venturer: (a) to obtain significant influence or joint control—to be recognised as an expense in profit or loss in the period in which the costs are incurred; (b) to purchase an additional ownership interest in an associate or joint venture—to be recognised as an expense in profit or loss in the period in which the costs are incurred. ↩

  21. Paragraph 36 of IFRS 3 requires an acquirer to reassess whether it has correctly identified all the assets and liabilities of the acquiree, and to review the procedures used to measure the amounts of the business combination, before recognising a gain on a bargain purchase. This requirement is meant to prevent an acquirer from recognising a gain arising from undetected measurement errors. ↩

  22. The IASB staff paper explains that this requirement to IAS 28 is not necessary, mainly because paragraph 55 of the ED (carried forward unchanged from IAS 28) states that many of the procedures that are appropriate for applying the equity method are similar to the consolidation procedures. Furthermore, the concepts underlying the accounting for the acquisition of a subsidiary are also adopted on obtaining significant influence. The requirement in paragraph 36 of IFRS 3 could be considered as part of those concepts. ↩

  23. The discussions and tentative decisions on this topic appear broadly aligned with UKEB feedback. Any Secretariat view on this is subject to review of any drafting and illustrative examples. ↩↩

  24. Agenda papers 11A and 11B, February 2026 IASB meeting. ↩

  25. Agenda paper 11, April 2026 IASB meeting. ↩

  26. A summary of the ED proposals, the IASB’s redeliberation and tentative decisions to date can be found in Appendix A of the IASB Staff Agenda paper 18 for the April 2026 meeting. ↩

  27. See Staff paper Agenda reference 18B, Staff paper Agenda reference 18C and Staff paper Agenda reference 18D for the April 2026 IASB meeting. ↩

  28. See paragraphs 16–17 of Staff Paper 18B and paragraphs 49–55 of the Staff Paper 18C for the April 2026 IASB meeting. As paragraphs 47–50 of April 2024 Staff Paper 18B explain, IASB staff’s initial view was to not further explore a series of business combinations entered into to achieve the same strategic objective(s). During the April 2024 IASB meeting, some IASB members agreed with the staff’s initial view and some other IASB members asked the staff to explore further ways to identify a series of a business combinations. Following the meeting, IASB staff sought feedback during consultative group meetings on how to identify a series of business combinations and how the performance disclosures could be effectively applied to such a series, but they did not receive any additional feedback or suggestions. ↩

  29. See Staff paper Agenda reference 18E for the April 2026 IASB meeting. ↩

  30. See Staff paper Agenda reference 18F for the April 2026 IASB meeting. ↩

  31. This includes further work on illustrative examples already undertaken by the IASB staff to clarify the wording “current potential” in proposed paragraph 44A(b) of the ED when calculating VIU. ↩

  32. This list does not include projects related to the IFRS Interpretations Committee or IASB’s project outside the UKEB’s work remit (such as the Second Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard and Management Commentary). ↩

  33. The Project Initiation Plan covers both influencing and endorsement phases. The link to the UKEB project page for the endorsement phase is here. ↩