setting bodies around the world initially often attempted to resolve practical accounting
and reporting problems through the development of accounting standards, without such
an accepted theoretical frame of reference. The end result was that standard-setters
determined the form and content of external financial reports, without resolving such
fundamental issues as:
• What are the objectives of these reports?
• Who are the users of these reports?
• What are the informational needs of these users?
• What types of report will best satisfy their needs?
Consequently, standards were often produced on a haphazard and ‘fire-fighting’ basis
with the danger of mutual inconsistencies. By contrast, an agreed framework would, in
principle, provide standard-setters with a basis for designing standards that facilitate
more consistent external financial reports that meet the needs of the user.
The main role of a conceptual framework is to assist the standard-setter and this is the
focus of the discussion in the remainder of this section.
Experience of the last thirty years also shows that, in the absence of an agreed
comprehensive conceptual framework, the same theoretical issues were revisited on
numerous occasions by different standard-setting bodies. This inevitably sometimes
resulted in the development of standards that were internally inconsistent and
inconsistent with each other, or which were founded on incompatible concepts. For
example, inconsistencies and conflicts have existed between and within individual
standards concerning the emphasis placed on substance versus form; neutrality versus
prudence; and whether earnings should be determined through balance sheet
measurements or by matching costs and revenue. Some standard-setters have permitted
two or more methods of accounting for the same set of circumstances, whilst others
permitted certain accounting practices to be followed on an arbitrary or unspecified
basis. These inconsistencies and irrationalities perhaps reflect the fundamental
difficulty of determining what is required in order to give a faithful representation of
economic phenomena.
Standard setters have adopted different approaches to the realisation of their
conceptual frameworks in specific accounting standards. This can be seen by comparing
the standards issued by the FASB with those issued by the IASB. In the US the FASB, in
42 Chapter
2
spite of its pioneering work on a conceptual framework, has produced a large number
of highly detailed accounting rules. The IASB, on the other hand has tended to produce
less detailed standards, relying on preparers and auditors to consider the general
principles on which they are based in applying them to specific situations. Clearly, the
proliferation of accounting standards in the US stems from many factors, not least the
legal and regulatory environment. However, a more satisfactory conceptual framework
might reduce the need for such a large number of highly detailed standards, since the
emphasis would be on general principles rather than specific rules. Indeed this change
of emphasis has been specifically considered by the US authorities following the
financial reporting problems that led, in the US, to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the
establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This is not to say
that the IASB’s more general ‘principles-based’ approach to standard setting is
necessarily more satisfactory than the FASB’s; rather, the legal and regulatory
environment within which non-US businesses habitually work is quite different from
that of the USA.
The political and economic environment influences not only the approach taken to
standard setting, but also the nature of the conceptual framework on which
standards are based. Following the widespread incorporation of IFRS into the
national GAAPs of many other countries, the IASB is faced with many stakeholders
with a variety of needs and expectations. These different stakeholders often express
differing views on proposals issued by the IASB and expect their views to be taken
into account. Under these circumstances, an agreed conceptual framework is of
great value, although the best defence against undue interference in the standard-
setting process is the need of the capital markets for financial reporting that provides
a sound basis for decision making, which in turn implies a system of financial
reporting characterised by relevance, faithful representation, practicality and
understandability. While it is probable that these characteristics are more likely to
be achieved using a sound theoretical foundation, the converse also applies: namely
that the framework must result in standards that account appropriately for actual
business practice and economic reality. Otherwise how, for example, is an industry
to be persuaded that a particular accounting treatment perceived as adversely
affecting its economic interests is better than one which does not?
An agreed framework is therefore not the panacea for all accounting problems.
Nor does it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in the process of
resolving accounting issues. What it can provide is a framework within which
those judgements can be made. Indeed this is happening, as the principles
expressed in the IASB’s framework are frequently referred to in IFRSs and during
the process of their development. Unfortunately, there is also evidence of the IASB
issuing standards that contravene its own conceptual framework. For example,
IAS 38 – Intangible Assets – requires the capitalisation of goodwill as an asset,
despite the fact that goodwill does not meet the definition of an asset in the IASB’s
framework. Similarly IAS 12 – Income Taxes – requires recognition of deferred
tax assets and liabilities that arguably do not meet the definitions of asset and
liability under the framework.
The IASB’s Conceptual Framework
43
2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE IASB’S CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND EFFECTIVE DATE
The IASB issued Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting 2010 in September
2010. This was effectively work-in-progress, comprising two chapters developed in the
first phase of the then joint project of the IASB and FASB to develop an agreed
framework (see 1 above), together with material carried forward from the former IASC’s
1989 Framework (which was adopted in 2001 by the then newly-constituted IASB).
Following the completion of the first phase in 2010, the joint project with the FASB stalled
somewhat until, in 2012, the IASB indicated that it no longer saw convergence between
IFRS and US GAAP in the area of the conceptual framework as a primary objective and,
moreover, that active work on the conceptual framework would resume shortly. This
resulted in the publication by the IASB in July 2013 of a discussion paper DP/2013/1 – A
Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. The discussion paper
noted this was no longer a joint project with the FASB, but the IASB’s own project.5 The
IASB followed the discussion paper with an exposure draft of an updated framework in
May 2015 (Exposure Draft ED/2015/3: Concep
tual Framework for Financial Reporting).
In March 2018 the IASB published Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (the
Framework). This fully revised document replaced the sections of the 2010 version
previously carried-forward from the 1989 Framework and also made amendments to
the sections produced in 2010.
This chapter discusses the Framework as published in 2018. Readers interested in
predecessor versions should refer to earlier editions of editions.
The Framework itself has no explicit effective date. However:
• The Board and Interpretations Committee will start using the 2018 Framework
immediately once it is issued. If, when developing a draft Interpretation, the
Interpretation Committee is faced with an inconsistency between a standard
(including any standard developed on the basis of the 1989 Framework or the 2010
Framework) and the concepts in the 2018 Framework, it will refer the issue to the
Board, as required by the IFRS Foundation Due Process Handbook. [CF. BC0.27].
• Preparers of financial statements could be affected by the changes to the Framework
if they need to use it to develop an accounting policy when no standard applies to a
particular transaction or other event or when a standard allows a choice of
accounting policy (see Chapter 3 at 4.3). To achieve transition to the Framework for
such entities, the Board issued Amendments to References to the Conceptual
Framework in IFRS Standards in March 2018 (CF References). Where appropriate,
that document updates references in standards to refer to the new Framework and
updates related quotations. [CF. BC0.28]. These changes are effective for periods
beginning on or after 1 January 2020. [CF References: Introduction and other sections].
Relevant chapters in this book will discuss, as appropriate, references to the Framework
in the standards with which they deal. At a more general level, it should be noted that
not all such references have been changed to refer to the new Framework; some
continue to refer to previous versions as discussed below.
44 Chapter
2
The following Interpretations continue to refer to the version of the framework in effect
when they were developed:
• IFRIC 12 – Service Concession Arrangements – and IFRIC 19 – Extinguishing
Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments – continue to refer to the 1989
Framework; [IFRIC 12 references, BC20] and
• IFRIC 20 – Stripping Costs in the Production Phase of a Surface Mine – and
IFRIC 22 – Foreign Currency Transactions and Advance Consideration –
continue to refer to the 2010 Framework. [IFRIC 20 references, BC7].
• IFRS 3 – Business Combinations – and IFRS 14 – Regulatory Deferral Accounts –
continue to refer to the 2010 Framework. [IFRS 3.11, IFRS 14.13].
Of particular note is the Board’s rationale for this decision regarding IFRS 3, which it
explains as follows. ‘Although the IASB intended to replace all references to the
Framework with references to the 2018 Conceptual Framework, the IASB did not
intend to make significant changes to the requirements of IFRS Standards containing
those references. Consequently, the IASB decided to retain the reference to the
Framework in paragraph 11 of IFRS 3 until it completes an analysis of the possible
consequences of referring in that paragraph to the revised definitions of an asset and a
liability. Once that analysis is complete, the IASB intends to amend IFRS 3 to replace
the reference to the Framework in a way that avoids unintended consequences, such as
Day 2 gains or losses.’ [IFRS 3.BC114B].
3
CONTENTS, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE IASB’S
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1
Contents of the Conceptual Framework
The Framework comprises an introductory section dealing with its status and purpose
(discussed at 3.2 below), followed by eight chapters and an appendix of defined terms.
The appendix is an editorial device which extracts (or derives) definitions from the
Framework itself. As these are dealt with in this chapter in the relevant sections the
appendix is not reproduced.
The chapters are as follows:
• Chapter 1 – The objective of general purpose financial reporting (discussed at 4 below);
• Chapter 2 – Qualitative characteristics of useful financial information (discussed
at 5 below);
• Chapter 3 – Financial statements and the reporting entity (discussed at 6 below);
• Chapter 4 – The elements of financial statements (discussed at 7 below);
• Chapter 5 – Recognition and derecognition (discussed at 8 below);
• Chapter 6 – Measurement (discussed at 9 below);
• Chapter 7 – Presentation and disclosure (discussed at 10 below); and
• Chapter 8 – Concepts of capital and capital maintenance (discussed at 11 below).
The IASB’s Conceptual Framework
45
3.2
Status and purpose of the Conceptual Framework
The purpose of the Framework is to assist:
• the Board to develop IFRSs that are based on consistent concepts. However, the
Board notes that to meet the objective of general purpose financial reporting, it
may sometimes specify requirements that depart from aspects of the Framework.
If it does so, it will explain the departure in the basis for conclusions on that
standard; [SP1.3]
• preparers of financial statements to develop consistent accounting policies when
no standard applies to a particular transaction or other event, or when a standard
allows a choice of accounting policy (see Chapter 3 at 4.3); and
• all parties to understand and interpret IFRS.
The Framework describes the objective of, and the concepts for, general purpose
financial reporting. [SP1.1]. It is not a standard, and nothing in it overrides any specific
standard or any requirement of one. [SP1.2].
The Framework may be revised from time to time in light of the IASB’s experience of
working with it. Revisions to it will not automatically lead to changes to the standards;
any decision to amend a standard would require the Board to go through its normal due
process. [SP1.4].
The Board states that its work serves the public interest by fostering trust, growth and long-
term financial stability in the global economy and that the Framework contributes to the
development of standards that bring transparency, accountability and efficiency to financial
markets. The IASB describes its Framework as providing the foundation for standards that:
• contribute to transparency by enhancing the international comparability and
quality of financial information, enabling investors and other market participants
to make informed economic decisions;
• strengthen accountability by reducing the information gap between the providers
of capital and the people to whom they have entrusted their money. Standards
based on the Framework provide information needed to hold management to
account. As a source of globally comparable information, those standards are also
of vital importance to regulators around the world; and
• contribute to economic efficiency by helping investors to identify opportunities
and risks across the world, thus
improving capital allocation. For businesses, the
use of a single, trusted accounting language derived from standards based on the
Framework lowers the cost of capital and reduces international reporting costs.
[SP 1.5].
4
CHAPTER 1: THE OBJECTIVE OF GENERAL PURPOSE
FINANCIAL REPORTING
Chapter 1 of the Framework discusses the objective of general purpose financial
reporting, which – in the IASB’s view – forms the foundation of the Framework. Other
aspects of the Framework (a reporting entity concept, the qualitative characteristics of,
and the constraint on, useful financial information, elements of financial statements,
46 Chapter
2
recognition and derecognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure) flow
logically from the objective. [CF 1.1].
The Chapter is divided into three main sections dealing with:
• the objective, usefulness and limitations of general purpose financial reporting;
• information about a reporting entity’s economic resources, claims, and changes in
resources and claims; and
• information about an entity’s use of such resources.
The first of these is discussed at 4.1 below; 4.2 below deals together with the other two items.
4.1 Objective,
usefulness
and
limitations of general purpose
financial reporting
4.1.1
Objective and usefulness
The Framework defines the objective of general purpose financial reporting as being:
‘to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing
and potential investors, lenders and other creditors in making decisions relating to
providing resources to the entity. Those decisions involve decisions about: buying,
selling or holding equity and debt instruments; providing or settling loans and other
forms of credit; or exercising rights to vote on, or otherwise influence, management’s
actions that affect the use of the entity’s economic resources.’ [CF 1.2].
Existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors (collectively, ‘users’ or
‘primary users’) cannot generally require reporting entities to provide information
directly to them and must rely on general purpose financial reports for much of the
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 11