Feedback Stmt Amend IFRS4 Jan2021 to 6 January 2021

File information

Publication date
06 January 2021
Format
PDF, 99.0 KB
Download original PDF

Logo for the UK Endorsement Board (UKEB)

January 2021

I. Purpose

1.1The purpose of this Feedback statement is to summarise the UK Endorsement Board (UKEB) secretariat's outreach on the endorsement of the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) amendments Extension of the Temporary Exemption from Applying IFRS 9 (Amendments to IFRS 4) (the Amendments) and the comments received.

2. Background

2.1The Amendments were published by the IASB on 25 June 2020. The Amendments extend the temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 until annual periods beginning before 1 January 2023, maintaining the alignment of the effective dates of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts for eligible insurers.

2.2The Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is responsible for the formal adoption of the Amendments for use in the UK and the Adoption statement can be found on the 2021 list of UK adoptions webpage. To support that adoption, the UKEB secretariat performed outreach with stakeholders to seek their views on whether the Amendments met the endorsement criteria set out in legislation.

3. Draft Endorsement Criteria Assessment

3.1The draft Endorsement Criteria Assessment (DECA) was reviewed by the insurance Technical Advisory Group for technical input. It was open for public comment between 27 October 2020 and 10 November 2020.

3.2A total of 7 formal responses were received from stakeholders, all supporting adoption of the Amendments. The respondents were:

Organisation Category
Association of British Insurers (ABI) Membership Organisation
ICAS Accounting and Audit Representative Organisation
ICAEW Accounting and Audit Representative Organisation
KPMG Accounting firm
Legal and General Group PLC UK listed company applying IFRS
Prudential PLC UK listed company applying IFRS
PwC Accounting firm

3.3No substantive comments dissenting from the analysis in the DECA were received. As a result, there were no revisions to the wording of the final ECA.