11 IFRS Interpretations Committee Update

File information

Publication date
09 July 2026
Format
PDF, 327.6 KB
Download original PDF

Date: 16 July 2026 Agenda Paper: 11

Executive Summary

Field Details
Project Type Influencing
Project Scope Various
Purpose of the paper This paper provides updates to the Board about the work and decisions of the IFRS Interpretations Committee.
Summary of the Issue As agreed with the Board, the Secretariat monitors requests submitted to the IFRS Interpretations Committee. This paper presents an overview of the topics on the Interpretations Committee’s agenda, categorised as follows:

Topics for discussion
I. New pipeline item.
II. Tentative agenda decisions open for comment.
Decisions for the Board
  1. Do Board Members agree that the Secretariat should undertake preliminary research on, and continue to monitor, the new pipeline item Sale of FVOCI equity instruments when consideration differs from fair value (IFRS 9)? (item I.1 below)
  2. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on:
    1. Management-defined Performance Measures – Hypothetical Income and Expenses (IFRS 18)? (item II.1 below)
    2. Management-defined Performance Measures – Public Communications (IFRS 18)? (item II.2 below)
    3. Classification of Income and Expenses from Cash and Cash Equivalents (IFRS 18)? (item II.3 below)
    4. Classification of Income and Expenses when an Entity Has a Main Business Activity of Providing Financing to Customers (IFRS 18)? (item II.4 below)
    5. Control Assessment for a Single-investor Fund (IFRS 10)? (item II.5 below)
    6. Assessment of Specified Main Business Activities for a Manufacturer-Lessor (IFRS 18)? (item II.6 below)
    7. Labels of Subtotals (IFRS 18)? (item II.7 below)
    8. Presentation of Operating Expenses (IFRS 18)? (item II.8 below)
Recommendation The Secretariat recommends that the UKEB should:
  1. undertake preliminary research on, and continue to monitor the pipeline item (item I.1); and
  2. not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on the tentative agenda decisions open for comment (items II.1 – II.8 below).
Appendices N/A

Background

1The UKEB’s Due Process Handbook notes that the UKEB expects to respond to a limited number of tentative agenda decisions published by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (‘Interpretations Committee’ or ‘the Committee’). Some factors to consider when deciding whether to respond may be:

  1. the degree of impact of the tentative agenda decision on UK companies (for example, in cases where the tentative agenda decision is expected to affect a significant number of UK companies);
  2. disagreement with the Interpretations Committee’s analysis; or
  3. usefulness of the explanations and clarifications included in the tentative agenda decision.

2The Interpretations Committee met on 16 to 17 June 2026.

3The next Interpretations Committee meeting is on 15 to 16 September 2026.

Overview

4The rest of this paper is structured as follows:

  1. Section I. New pipeline items.
  2. Section II. Tentative Agenda Decisions: open for comment.

Both sections I and II include questions for discussion.

5Section II includes topics that the Board has previously considered. Material that has been included in a previous Interpretations Committee Update presented to the Board is shaded.

Section I. New pipeline item

I.1 Sale of FVOCI equity instruments when consideration differs from fair value (IFRS 9)

Field Details
Standard IFRS 9 Financial Instruments
IFRIC status This pipeline item was recently submitted to the Committee and has not yet been included on a Committee agenda.

The next meeting of the Committee is on 15 to 16 September 2026.
Question The submission relates to the accounting on the sale of equity instruments which an entity has elected to measure at fair value through other comprehensive income. Clarification is sought on instances where there is a difference between the consideration received for equity instruments sold and the carrying amount (i.e. fair value) measured at the date of derecognition.

Applying paragraph 3.2.12 of IFRS 9, on derecognition of a financial asset, the difference between the carrying amount (measured at the date of derecognition) and the consideration received is recognised in profit or loss.

However, paragraphs 5.7.1(b) and 5.7.5 provide a measurement exception for equity instruments where the entity has elected to present gains and losses on that instrument in other comprehensive income. These paragraphs, if analogised, would indicate the gain or loss on disposal should also be presented in other comprehensive income.
Comment The Secretariat intends to undertake preliminary research on this pipeline item (including desktop research and targeted outreach with Advisory Group Members) to establish the prevalence of the issue in the UK.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Secretariat continues to monitor this item. The Secretariat will bring this item back to the Board for further discussion as necessary.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the Secretariat should undertake preliminary research on, and continue to monitor, the new pipeline item Sale of FVOCI equity instruments when consideration differs from fair value (IFRS 9)?

Section II. Tentative Agenda Decisions: open for comment

II.1 Management-defined Performance Measures—Hypothetical Income and Expenses (IFRS 18)1

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A Tentative Agenda Decision (TAD) was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.2).

The Board considered an update on this item at its June 2026 meeting (see paper 9, section II).
Question The submission asks whether a performance measure could meet the definition of a management-defined performance measure (MPM) if it includes income and/or expenses that are ‘hypothetical’, i.e. income and/or expenses that have not been, and never will be, recognised in the statement of financial performance.

Examples of these include:
  • Annualised rental income minus non-recoverable property expenses (such as service charges and ground rent), where annualised rent is calculated by multiplying the rental income for the last month of the reporting date, as recognised in accordance with IFRS 16 Leases, by twelve months.
  • Net profit adjusted for the estimated effects on income and expenses of a major crisis, such as a pandemic or a global conflict.
  • Pro forma gross profit calculated as if a business combination that actually happened mid-year instead happened at the beginning of the reporting period.

The submission notes that IFRS 18 does not specifically require that income and expenses must be recognised in the statement of profit or loss to be included in an MPM.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee has analysed this question because it anticipates that the matter could have widespread effect due to the prevalence of performance measures used by entities in public communications outside financial statements.

At its June meeting, the Committee tentatively concluded that performance measures that include hypothetical income and expenses can meet the definition of an MPM because:
  • they are a subtotal of income and expenses; and
  • can faithfully represent what they purport to represent (being management’s view of an aspect of financial performance of the entity as a whole).

Members of the Interpretations Committee expressed concerns about this tentative conclusion. In particular, the appropriateness of an MPM based on hypothetical figures that cannot be verified (for example, profit adjusted to remove the effects of a global pandemic) was challenged.

In addition, members of the Committee expressed concern that a decision to permit the inclusion of hypothetical figures in MPMs may conflict with guidance from regulators on the publication of certain information.

However, the Committee noted that IFRS 18 includes measures that should prevent entities from including misleading information in the disclosure. For example, paragraph 123(c) requires a reconciliation between the MPM and the most directly comparable subtotal specifically required to be presented or disclosed by IFRS Accounting Standards. In addition, paragraph B134 requires an entity to label and describe its MPMs in a way that faithfully represents its characteristics. This requirement should prevent certain estimates as if they were the entity’s actual performance.

Committee members also highlighted paragraph BC360, which emphasises that an MPM is only required to faithfully represent the aspect of performance being communicated. That is, an MPM should not be considered to be a “good” measure by virtue of being an MPM.

IASB members in attendance at the meeting noted that the IASB had discussed whether hypothetical figures may be included in MPMs and had decided not to prohibit this.

The Committee therefore agreed that IFRS 18 does not prevent the inclusion of hypothetical income and expenses in an MPM.
Comment The Secretariat agrees with the Committee’s analysis of IFRS 18 and agrees that, provided all of IFRS 18’s requirements are met, performance measures that include hypothetical income and expenses can meet the definition of an MPM.

The Secretariat notes, however, that some UK stakeholders share concerns expressed by members of the Interpretations Committee that the Committee’s conclusion potentially contradicts guidance issued by regulators. The Secretariat notes that it is not within the IASB’s remit to determine what may be communicated outside the financial statements. Regulators can continue to address this matter as relevant to their individual jurisdictions.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether a performance measure that includes hypothetical income and expenses can meet the definition of a management-defined performance measure. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request and published a TAD following its meeting in June 2026.
Recommendation Having reviewed the final wording of the TAD, the Secretariat continues to recommend that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Management-defined Performance Measures—Hypothetical Income and Expenses (IFRS 18)?

II.2 Management-defined Performance Measures—Public Communications (IFRS 18)2

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.4).
Question The submission notes that paragraph B119 includes investor presentations as an example of public communications outside financial statements. The submission asks whether investor presentations or pitch materials shared strictly with a small number of identifiable shareholders or potential investors under confidentiality arrangements would constitute ‘public communications’.

In the fact pattern presented in the submission to illustrate the question, Entity A is a privately held group whose shareholders include venture capital and private equity firms. As part of its investor relations activities, Entity A prepares presentations for existing shareholders under the shareholder agreement and pitch materials for potential fundraising. These materials are shared confidentially (e.g. with strict non-disclosure agreements) and are not published online, shared with analysts, included in press releases, or otherwise made available to a wider external audience.
Interpretations Committee discussion Per paragraph 117, a subtotal of income and expenses qualifies as an MPM only if it is used in ‘public communications outside the financial statements’.

The Committee noted that entities are required to use judgement when determining whether a communication is public. In the context of a privately held group, the Committee concluded that the presentations referred to in the submission are not public communications for the purpose of identifying an MPM applying IFRS 18.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for the entity to assess whether the presentations described in the fact pattern are public communications for the purpose of identifying a management-defined performance measure applying IFRS 18. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Management-defined Performance Measures - Public Communications (IFRS 18)?

II.3 Classification of Income and Expenses from Cash and Cash Equivalents (IFRS 18)3

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.1).
Question The submission asks for clarity on the application of paragraph 56(a). This question relates to situations in which an entity or a group has several different main business activities of which some, but not all, are specified main business activities. The submission seeks clarity on whether paragraph 56(a) requires an entity to classify all income and expenses from cash and cash equivalents in the operating category, or just the income and expenses related to the specified main business activity or activities.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee observed that paragraph 56(a) of IFRS 18 requires income and expenses from all cash and cash equivalents to be classified in the operating category, regardless of whether the entity has another specified main business activity.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for the entity described in the fact pattern to determine how to classify income and expenses from cash and cash equivalents in its statement of profit or loss. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Classification of Income and Expenses from Cash and Cash Equivalents (IFRS 18)?

II.4 Classification of Income and Expenses when an Entity Has a Main Business Activity of Providing Financing to Customers (IFRS 18)4

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.1).
Question The submission asked for clarity on three questions:

1. Application of paragraph 65(a)(ii) in consolidated financial statements. The fact pattern in the submission describes a group with two subsidiaries. Subsidiary 1’s main business activity is manufacturing, Subsidiary 2’s is providing finance to customers. The question concerns paragraph 65(a)(ii), which applies to entities with specified main business activities and offers an accounting policy choice for the classification of income and expenses from certain liabilities.
The submission asks whether paragraph 65(a)(ii) applies to Subsidiary 1 in the consolidated financial statements. If so, the submission seeks clarity on whether the accounting policy choice applied to the relevant liabilities held by Subsidiary 1 needs to be consistent with the accounting policy choice applied to the relevant liabilities held by Subsidiary 2.

2. Interaction between paragraph 65(a)(ii) and paragraph 66. The fact pattern in the submission describes an entity with a specified main business activity. The entity has three ‘portions’ of liabilities that arise from transactions that involve only the raising of finance. The entity cannot distinguish whether portion A relates to providing financing to customers or not. Portion B does relate to providing financing to customers. Portion C does not. Applying paragraph 66, income and expenses from liabilities in portion A are classified in the operating category.
The submission asks whether paragraph 65(a)(ii) then requires the entity to classify income and expenses from liabilities in portion C in the operating category (to achieve a consistent choice of accounting policy), or whether the entity may apply the accounting policy choice offered by paragraph 65(a)(ii) in respect of the liabilities in portion C and classify the related income and expenses in the financing category.

3. Interaction between paragraphs 56-57 and paragraphs 65-66. This aspect of the submission echoes the issues raised in question (2) above in the context of the interaction of requirements for the classification of income and expenses from cash and cash equivalents and from liabilities.
For example, an entity with a specified main business activity might apply paragraph 57 and include income and expenses from cash and cash equivalents in the operating category. The submission seeks clarity on whether the entity may then apply the accounting policy choice permitted by paragraph 65(a)(ii) to classify the income and expenses from certain liabilities in the financing category, or whether this would be deemed an inconsistent choice of accounting policy (per paragraph 56(b)(ii)).
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee observed the following:

Question 1
When a reporting entity that is a consolidated group determines that providing financing to customers is a main business activity, paragraph 65(a)(ii) of IFRS 18 applies to the entire group. As a result, the accounting policy choice applies to all specified liabilities of the consolidated group that do not relate to customer financing, not just those of subsidiaries whose main business activity is providing financing to customers.

Question 2
When an entity cannot distinguish specified liabilities related to providing financing to customers from those that do not, it must classify income and expenses from all specified liabilities in the operating category.

Question 3
When an entity classifies income and expenses from cash and cash equivalents in the operating category because it cannot distinguish those related to customer financing, it must apply the same classification to income and expenses from specified liabilities.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for the entity described in the fact pattern to determine how to classify income and expenses from specified liabilities in its statement of profit or loss. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Classification of Income and Expenses when an Entity Has a Main Business Activity of Providing Financing to Customers (IFRS 18)?

II.5 Control Assessment for a Single-investor Fund (IFRS 10)

Field Details
Standard IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its January 2026 meeting the Board agreed the UKEB will not undertake substantive work on this issue (see paper 9A, item I.1).
Question The submission asks how an entity, that is the sole investor in a fund, assesses whether it has control over the fund.
The fund described in the submission:
  1. Is managed by a fund manager (i.e. the general partner or GP): The GP has extensive decision-making authority to direct the relevant activities of the fund. The GP receives a market-based fee for its services, and the fee is commensurate with the services provided. The GP also has a 0.01% investment in the fund.
  2. Has only one other investor, namely the entity (99.99% investment) - It has no ability to remove or replace the fund manager except for cause (e.g. breach of contract, wilful misconduct or gross negligence).
  3. Has a contractual fixed term - The entity cannot withdraw its investment during the contractual life, but it can sell its investment to another party.

The submission asks whether in applying IFRS 10 the fund manager is automatically deemed to act as an agent for the entity and, consequently, the entity is assessed as controlling the fund.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee observed that assessing control requires judgement based on all relevant facts and circumstances.

Where decision-making rights exist, paragraphs B58–B59 of IFRS 10 require an investor to determine whether the decision-maker is acting as an agent for the investor. Where an investor delegates decision-making authority over relevant activities to an agent, the investor treats those delegated rights as its own.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 10 provide an adequate basis for the investor described in the fact pattern to assess whether it is automatically deemed to have delegated its decision-making authority to the fund manager. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Control Assessment for a Single-investor Fund (IFRS 18)?

II.6 Assessment of Specified Main Business Activities for a Manufacturer-Lessor (IFRS 18)

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.5).
Question The submission concerns the assessment of specified main business activities in the context of a manufacturer-lessor.
In the fact pattern presented in the submission, an entity has two lines of business:
  • Line A – Production of vehicles. After production, the vehicles are either sold, leased out via finance leases or leased out via operating leases.
  • Line B – Service and maintenance.

Each business activity is significant. The entity uses one gross profit-like performance indicator for business line A, one for business line B and one for the combined leasing activities.
The submission notes that:
  • finance lease activities are mentioned as an example of providing financing to customers (paragraph B32(c)); and
  • the term “investing in assets” is not defined in IFRS 18 therefore could apply to assets that are produced then leased out.

The submission asks:
  • Whether operating lease activities of a manufacturer-lessor constitute a specified business activity of either “providing financing to customers” or “investing in assets”.
  • Whether the finance lease activities of a manufacturer-lessor constitute a main business activity under the example of B34 in IFRS 18 if they are monitored together with operating lease activities.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee observed that:
  1. Applying paragraph B34 of IFRS 18, the entity’s combined leasing activity (finance and operating leases) is likely a main business activity of providing financing to customers. This is supported by the entity’s use of a single subtotal for the activity that is similar to gross profit as a key performance measure.
  2. The classification of some leases as operating leases does not prevent the aggregated lease activity from being considered a financing activity.
  3. Although paragraph B32 does not specifically list entities providing financing through operating leases, this is not determinative, as the examples in that paragraph are not exhaustive.

The Committee did not reach a conclusion on whether operating lease activities of a manufacturer-lessor can constitute a specified business activity of “investing in assets”. In the context of the fact pattern in the submission, it is not necessary to analyse this matter, as it can be concluded that the entity has a specified business activity of “providing financing to customers”.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for the entity described in the fact pattern to assess whether its aggregated lease activity is a main business activity of providing financing to customers. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation The Secretariat recommends that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Assessment of Specified Main Business Activities for Manufacturer-Lessor (IFRS 18)?

II.7 Labels of subtotals (IFRS 18)5

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.3).
Question The submission notes that it is possible to present an MPM as an additional subtotal in the statement of profit or loss and seeks clarity on the labelling of such a subtotal. In particular, clarity is sought on:
  1. whether the label must explicitly name all the elements that are excluded from, or included in, the subtotal; and
  2. whether the use of a label such as “recurring operating profit” or “core operating result” might be permitted.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee noted that IFRS 18 requires labels to faithfully represent the characteristics of a subtotal or MPM and to be clear, understandable, and not misleading.

It also observed that a label does not need to list all items included in or excluded from the measure.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether the label of a subtotal that is a management-defined performance measure is required to explicitly list all the elements excluded from (or included in) the measure. Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Labels of Subtotals (IFRS 18)?

II.8 Presentation of Operating Expenses (IFRS 18)6

Field Details
Standard IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements
IFRIC status The Interpretations Committee discussed this item at its meeting on 16 to 17 June 2026.

A TAD was published on 18 June 2026 and is open for comment until 9 September 2026.
UKEB status Monitoring only.

At its May 2026 meeting the Board agreed that the UKEB will monitor this item without undertaking further work (see paper 9, item I.3).
Question The submission asks the Interpretations Committee to clarify matters related to presentation of the statement of profit or loss:
  • The mixed presentation of operating expenses. The submission seeks clarity on the circumstances in which a ‘mixed’ approach to the classification and presentation of operating expenses may be adopted (i.e. an approach in which some expenses are classified and presented by nature and others by function, applying paragraphs 78 and 79).
  • Different presentation of two expenses of the same nature. With reference to expenses of the same nature, the submission asks whether it is permissible to classify and present the expenses partly by function and partly by nature.
Interpretations Committee discussion The Committee noted that paragraph 78 of IFRS 18 requires an entity to classify and present expenses in line items in a way that provides the most useful structured summary of its expenses. Accordingly, the Committee observed that a mixed presentation is required if it provides the most useful structured summary of an entity’s operating expenses.

The Committee also observed that including some expenses of the same nature in function line items does not require all such expenses to be presented by function.
Tentative Agenda Decision The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 18 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine how to classify and present expenses as relevant to the submission.

Consequently, the Committee tentatively decided that a standard-setting project is not needed to address the request.
Comment This matter has not been raised with the Secretariat as a particular challenge by UK stakeholders.
Recommendation It is recommended that the UKEB does not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment.

Question for the Board

  1. Do Board Members agree that the UKEB will not respond to the Interpretations Committee’s invitation to comment on Presentation of Operating Expenses (IFRS 18)?

Footnotes

  1. Previously referred to as Performance measures with income and expenses that are hypothetical (IFRS 18). ↩

  2. Previously referred to as Scope of ‘public communications’ in the context of confidential investor materials (IFRS 18). ↩

  3. This is now a stand-alone half of a multi part submission which was previously referred to as Application of paragraphs 56-57 and 65-66 of IFRS 18. ↩

  4. This is now a stand-alone half of a multi part submission which was previously referred to as Application of paragraphs 56-57 and 65-66 of IFRS 18. ↩

  5. This is now a stand-alone question of a multi-part submission previously referred to as Labels of subtotals and matters relating to the presentation of expenses (IFRS 18). ↩

  6. This is now a stand-alone question of a multi part submission previously referred to as Labels of subtotals and matters relating to the presentation of expenses (IFRS 18). ↩