.png?sfvrsn=dd675fd5_2)
-(1).png?sfvrsn=db949de5_0)
6a6c7fe2013f4be3b0ecc0a5930da5c9.jpg?sfvrsn=ab5334c8_0)
/business-management-global-connection/istock-1167579720-c.jpg?sfvrsn=ff93f9a5_2)
/audit-assurance/istock-1169206203-c.jpg?sfvrsn=1d6f9b25_6)
/professionals/istock-845530100-c.jpg?sfvrsn=46efdedd_2)
/ethics-and-professionalism/istock-1141115724-c.jpg?sfvrsn=4e54d691_2)
/audit-assurance/istock-818732836-c-v3.jpg?sfvrsn=ae44e7b7_0)
.png?sfvrsn=905ee1bd_0)
/legal-secretarial/istock-866706340-c.jpg?sfvrsn=d7f57b8c_2)
ISCA appreciates and supports the Board’s intention to lower the impracticability threshold for retrospective application of voluntary change in accounting policy to facilitate greater consistency in the application of IFRS standards.
However, we do not agree with the inclusion of “agenda decisions issued by the IFRS Interpretations Committee” (agenda decisions) in IAS 8 and the introduction of the proposed benefits-costs threshold specifically for voluntary changes in accounting policies that result from agenda decisions. Our reasons are as follows:
- The proposals effectively codifies agenda decisions as authoritative guidance, which is not the intention;
- Gives rise to increased complexity in practice;
- Difficulties in applying the assessment of benefits and costs in practice.
Read more