1. identification and measurement of intangible assets in a business combination;
2. subsequent accounting for goodwill (including the relative merits of an impairment-only approach and an amortisation and impairment approach); and
3. improving the impairment requirements for goodwill and other non-current, non-financial assets in IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.

No decisions were made.

1. whether the scope exception in paragraph 2.1(a) of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments applies to long-term interests in an associate or a joint venture; and
2. if not, how the requirements of IFRS 9 and IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures interact with respect to such long-term interests.

The Board discussed a staff analysis of IFRS Standards as follows:

1. the scope exception in paragraph 2.1(a) of IFRS 9 does not apply to long-term interests because:


1. the scope exception in that paragraph applies only to interests in an associate or a joint venture that an entity accounts for using the equity method; and
2. long-term interests are not accounted for using the equity method.


2. an entity would account for long-term interests as follows:


1. the entity would recognise and measure long-term interests by applying the requirements of IFRS 9, including the impairment requirements of IFRS 9;
2. in allocating any losses of the associate or joint venture, the entity would include the carrying amount of those long-term interests (determined by applying IFRS 9) as part of the net investment to which the losses are allocated; and
3. the entity would assess the net investment for impairment applying the requirements in paragraphs 40 and 41A-43 of IAS 28.

12 Board members agreed with the staff analysis and 2 Board members disagreed.

Next steps

Feedback from the Board will be provided to the Interpretations Committee at a future meeting.

1. compliance with any conditions in the lending agreement should be assessed as at the reporting date;
2. any requirement in the lending agreement to test compliance with those conditions at a date after the end of the reporting period should not change the requirement for classification to be based on an assessment of compliance as at the end of the reporting period;
3. the proposed amendments should require that compliance with a condition as at the end of the reporting period should determine whether a right that is subject to that condition should affect classification (as described in paragraph BC4 of the ED);
4. when an agreement includes a periodic review clause, in which the lender has the right to demand repayment, the entity has a right to defer settlement only up to the date of the periodic review; and
5. the Board’s proposals, that classification of a liability is based on rights in existence at the end of the reporting period and compliance with any conditions is assessed as at the end of the reporting period, should not be amended in respect of a periodic review clause.

In this meeting, the Board discussed the further development of the three approaches (Alpha, Beta and Gamma) it had identified as potential ways of improving IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. Those three approaches classify claims as liabilities or equity based on different features of claims that are relevant to different assessments of the entity’s financial position and financial performance. The Board’s discussions focused on developing Approach Gamma, because it distinguishes claims based on a combination of the features used to distinguish claims in the other approaches.

Financial performance

The Board discussed the presentation of income and expense that arises from liabilities with different features.

1. income or expense that arises from liabilities for a specified amount, ie an amount that is determined independently from the entity’s economic resources; and
2. income and expense that arises from liabilities that depend on a residual amount.

The Board expects to consider, at a future meeting:

1. how to distinguish between income or expense that arises from these two sub-classes of liabilities; and
2. how to present income and expense from these two sub-classes of liabilities, for example within profit or loss or using the distinction between profit or loss and other comprehensive income.

Financial position

The Board discussed the presentation of liabilities with different features on the face of the statement of financial position.

The Board indicated that, under the Gamma Approach (as with the Alpha approach) it would be useful to present separately liabilities that depend on a residual amount.

In addition, the Board indicated that it would consider at a future meeting whether it would be useful to provide information about the priority of liabilities on the face of the statement of financial position, or in the notes, for all of the approaches being considered.

1. require entities to attribute profit or loss and other comprehensive income to some classes of equity other than the ordinary shares of the parent entity; and
2. update the carrying amount of each sub-class of equity to reflect any such attribution.

1. conditional on rights within the control of the entity; or
2. contingent on the occurrence or non-occurrence of uncertain future events beyond the control of both the entity and holder of the claim.

The work plan reflecting decisions made at this meeting was updated on the IASB website on 19 February 2016. View it here.