International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards

Home > Other > International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards > Page 901
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 901

by International GAAP 2019 (pdf)


  features (accounted for under IFRS 17). As these options are included in the terms of the

  contract, their exercise is not a contract modification as discussed at 12.1 below.

  IFRS 17 states that once a contract is within its scope then it is not subsequently

  reassessed even if, at a later date, it is no longer a contract within its scope. Therefore,

  investment contracts with discretionary participation features that subsequently lose

  their ‘discretionary feature’ as the result of the exercise of a policyholder option will

  remain within the scope of IFRS 17.

  12

  MODIFICATION AND DERECOGNITION

  IFRS 17 states that a contract which qualifies as an insurance contract remains an

  insurance contract until all rights and obligations are extinguished (i.e. discharged,

  cancelled or expired) unless the contract is derecognised because of a contract

  modification. [IFRS 17.B25].

  IFRS 4 contained no guidance on when or whether a modification of an insurance

  contract might cause derecognition of that contract. Therefore, prior to IFRS 17, most

  insurers would have applied the requirements, if any, contained in local GAAP.

  12.1 Modification of an insurance contract

  An insurance contract can be modified either by agreement between the parties or as

  result of regulation. If the terms of an insurance contract are modified, an entity should

  derecognise the original insurance contract and recognise the modified contract as a

  4556 Chapter 52

  new contract, if and only if, any of the conditions listed below are satisfied. The

  conditions are that: [IFRS 17.72]

  • if the modified terms had been included at contract inception:

  • the modified contract would have been excluded from the scope of IFRS 17;

  • an entity would have separated different components from the host insurance

  contract (see 4 above) resulting in a different insurance contract to which

  IFRS 17 would have applied;

  • the modified contract would have had a substantially different contract

  boundary; or

  • the modified contract would have been included in a different group of

  contracts at initial recognition (e.g. the contracts would have been onerous at

  initial recognition rather than had no significant possibility of being onerous

  subsequently – see 5 above);

  • the original contract met the definition of an insurance contract with direct

  participation features but the modified contract no longer meets that definition or

  vice versa; or

  • the entity applied the premium allocation approach (see 9 above) to the original

  contract but the modifications mean that the contract no longer meets the

  eligibility criteria for that approach.

  In summary, any contract modification which changes the accounting model or the

  accounting standards measuring the components of the insurance contract is likely to

  result in derecognition. This is probably a different treatment compared to current

  practices applied under IFRS 4.

  However, the exercise of a right included in the terms of a contract is not a modification.

  [IFRS 17.72].

  If a contract modification meets none of the conditions above for derecognition, the

  entity should treat any changes in cash flows caused by the modification as changes in

  the estimates of the fulfilment cash flows. [IFRS 17.73]. See 8.6 and 11.2.3 above for the

  accounting for changes in the fulfilment cash flows.

  Accounting for derecognition of a modified contract is discussed at 12.3 below.

  12.2 Derecognition of an insurance contract

  An insurance contract is derecognised when, and only when [IFRS 17.74]

  • it is extinguished, i.e. when the obligation specified in the insurance contract

  expires or is discharged or cancelled; or

  • any of the conditions for modifications which result in derecognition – see 12.1

  above – are met.

  The treatment of contract derecognition differs depending on which of the two

  scenarios above applies. See 12.3 below.

  When an insurance contract is extinguished, the entity is no longer at risk and is

  therefore no longer required to transfer any economic resources to satisfy the insurance

  contract. Therefore, the settlement of the last claim outstanding on a contract does not

  Insurance contracts (IFRS 17) 4557

  necessarily result in derecognition of the contract per se although it may result in the

  remaining fulfilment cash flows under a contract being immaterial. For derecognition to

  occur all obligations must be discharged or cancelled. When an entity purchases

  reinsurance, it should derecognise the underlying insurance contracts only when those

  underlying insurance contracts are extinguished. [IFRS 17.75].

  12.3 Accounting for derecognition

  There are three different ways to treat the derecognition of a contract, depending on

  the circumstances discussed at 12.3.1 to 12.3.3 below.

  12.3.1

  Derecognition resulting from extinguishment

  An entity derecognises an insurance contract from within a group of insurance contracts

  by applying the following requirements: [IFRS 17.76]

  • the fulfilment cash flows allocated to the group for both the liability for remaining

  coverage and the liability for incurred claims are adjusted to eliminate the present

  value of the future cash flows and risk adjustment for non-financial risk relating to

  the rights and obligations that have been derecognised from the group;

  • the contractual service margin of the group is adjusted for the change in fulfilment

  cash flows described above, to the extent required by the general model as

  discussed at 8.6.2 above (for contracts without direct participation features)

  and 11.2.2 above (for contracts with direct participation features); and

  • the number of coverage units for expected remaining coverage is adjusted to

  reflect the coverage units derecognised from the group, and the amount of the

  contractual service margin recognised in profit or loss in the period is based on that

  adjusted number to reflect services provided in the period (see 8.7 above).

  In practice, derecognition as a result of extinguishment will occur mostly on contracts

  where a contractual service margin (or liability for remaining coverage) no longer exists.

  In these circumstances, extinguishment will result in the elimination of any fulfilment

  cash flows for the liability for incurred claims with a corresponding adjustment to profit

  or loss. The Board observes in the Basis for Conclusions that an entity might not know

  whether a liability has been extinguished because claims are sometimes reported years

  after the end of the coverage period. It also considered concerns that an entity might be

  unable to derecognise those liabilities. In the Board’s view, ignoring contractual

  obligations that remain in existence and can generate valid claims would not give a

  faithful representation of an entity’s financial position. However, it is expected that

  when the entity has no information to suggest there are unasserted claims on a contract

  with an expired coverage period, the entity would measure the insurance contract

  liability at a very low amount. Accordingly, there may be little practical difference

  between recognising an insuranc
e liability measured at a very low amount and

  derecognising the liability. [IFRS 17.BC322].

  When an entity transfers a group of insurance contracts or derecognises an insurance

  contract because it either transfers that contract to a third party or derecognises the

  insurance contract and recognises a new insurance contract (see 12.3.2 and 12.3.3 below)

  it should: [IFRS 17.91]

  4558 Chapter 52

  • for insurance contracts without direct participation features, reclassify to profit or

  loss as a reclassification adjustment any remaining amounts for the group (or

  contract) that were previously recognised in other comprehensive income as a

  result of its accounting policy choice, if any, to disaggregate the finance income or

  expenses of a group of insurance contracts (see 15.3.1 below); or

  • for insurance contracts with direct participation features, not reclassify to profit or

  loss as a reclassification adjustment any remaining amounts for the group (or

  contract) that were previously recognised in other comprehensive income as a

  result of its accounting policy choice, if any, to disaggregate the finance income or

  expenses of a group of insurance contracts (see 15.3.1 below).

  12.3.2

  Derecognition resulting from transfer

  When an entity derecognises an insurance contract because it transfers the contract to

  a third party the entity should: [IFRS 17.77]

  • adjust the fulfilment cash flows allocated to the group relating to the rights and

  obligations that have been derecognised as discussed at 12.3.1 above; and

  • adjust the contractual service margin of the group from which the contract has

  been derecognised for the difference between the change in the contractual cash

  flows resulting from derecognition and the premium charged by the third party

  (unless the decrease in fulfilment cash flows are allocated to the loss component

  of the liability for remaining coverage).

  If there is no contractual service margin to be adjusted then the difference between the

  fulfilment cash flows derecognised and the premium charged by the third party are

  recognised in profit or loss.

  12.3.3

  Derecognition resulting from modification

  When an entity derecognises an insurance contract and recognises a new insurance

  contract as a result of a modification described at 12.1 above the entity should: [IFRS 17.77]

  • adjust the fulfilment cash flows allocated to the group relating to the rights and

  obligations that have been derecognised as discussed at 12.3.1 above;

  • adjust the contractual service margin of the group from which the contract has

  been derecognised for the difference between the change in the contractual

  cash flows resulting from derecognition and the hypothetical premium the entity

  would have charged had it entered into a contract with equivalent terms as the

  new contract at the date of the contract modification, less any additional

  premium charged for the modification (unless the decrease in fulfilment cash

  flows are allocated to the loss component of the liability for remaining

  coverage); and

  • measure the new contract recognised assuming that the entity received the

  hypothetical premium that the entity would have charged had it entered into the

  modified contract at the date of the contract modification.

  This can be illustrated by the following example.

  Insurance contracts (IFRS 17) 4559

  Example 52.46: Contract derecognition resulting from modification

  An entity modifies an insurance contract issued such that there is a substantial change in the contract boundary

  and, applying the guidance in IFRS 17, determines that the contract should be derecognised and replaced by

  a new contract. The modified contract was part of a group of insurance contracts that were not onerous.

  At the date of modification the fulfilment cash flows in respect of the contract were £100 and the present

  value of the additional premium received for the contract modification is £10. The entity estimates that a

  hypothetical premium that it would have charged had it entered into the modified contract at the date of the

  contract modification was £105.

  This gives rise to the following accounting entries:

  DR CR

  £ £

  Cash 10

  Derecognition of original contract fulfilment cash flows

  100

  Initial recognition of new contract at hypothetical premium

  105

  Contractual service margin

  5

  Determining any hypothetical premium will require the exercise of judgement by the

  reporting entity.

  12.3.4

  Contracts applying the premium allocation approach that are

  derecognised

  IFRS 17 does not contain guidance on how contracts accounted for under the premium

  allocation approach (see 9 above) should apply the requirements at 12.3.1 to 12.3.3 above

  in circumstances in which the derecognised contracts are part of a group which has a

  liability for remaining coverage but no separate contractual service margin (as a contractual

  service margin is not recognised separately under the premium allocation approach).

  13

  ACQUISITIONS OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS

  Insurance contracts may be acquired in a transfer (often referred to as a portfolio

  transfer) or in a business combination as defined in IFRS 3.

  In summary, insurance contracts acquired in a transfer or a business combination

  are measured in the same way as insurance contracts issued by the entity except

  that the fulfilment cash flows are recognised at date of the combination or transfer.

  IFRS 3 requires a group of insurance contracts acquired in a business combination

  to be measured at the acquisition date under IFRS 17 rather than at fair value.

  [IFRS 3.31A].

  This results in the following key differences for insurance contracts acquired in a

  business combination compared with the accounting used previously under IFRS 4:

  • contracts are classified and grouped based on the contractual terms, economic

  conditions, operating or accounting policies and other pertinent factors and

  conditions as they exist at the acquisition date. [IFRS 3.15]. Previously, when IFRS 4

  applied, IFRS 3 had an exception for insurance contracts from this requirement

  and stated that insurance contracts acquired in a business combination within its

  scope should be classified on the basis of the contractual terms and other factors

  at the inception of the contract rather than at the date of acquisition. In June 2018,

  4560 Chapter 52

  the IASB discussed and tentatively agreed a proposed amendment to IFRS 3 which

  clarifies that this exception is withdrawn prospectively from the date of initial

  application of IFRS 17;37 and

  • contracts are measured under the requirements of IFRS 17 rather than at fair value.

  Consequently no option is available to split the value of the acquired insurance

  contracts into two components (i.e. between a liability in according with the insurer’s

  accounting policies and an intangible asset representing the difference between fair

  value and the value of that liability under the IFRS 17 measurement model).

  IFRS 17 does not explicitly state that contracts acquired in a business combination<
br />
  should be classified based on the contractual terms and conditions as they exist at the

  acquisition date. However, neither do other standards in similar circumstances. The

  amendments to IFRS 3 are clear that, in a business combination, an entity is required to

  classify contracts (i.e. assess whether a contract transfers significant insurance risk or

  contains a discretionary participation feature) based on the contractual terms and other

  factors at the date of acquisition rather than the original inception date of the contract.38

  At the time of writing this chapter, the proposed narrow-scope amendments clarifying

  that these amendments to IFRS 3 would apply prospectively to business combinations

  after the date of initial application of IFRS 17 have not been issued.

  As IFRS 3 also refers to ‘groupings’ and ‘operating and accounting policies’, this implies

  also that other assessments like the eligibility for the variable fee approach for direct

  participation contracts or the premium allocation approach (see 9.1 and 11.2 above) should

  be based on the contractual terms and conditions at the date of acquisition rather than at

  the date of the original inception of the contract. This approach may result in, for example,

  contracts that are insurance contracts of the acquiree being investment contracts of the

  acquirer and consequently there will be a different accounting treatment between the

  consolidated financial statements that include the acquiree and the separate financial

  statements of the acquiree. However, this would reflect the substance that the acquirer

  has purchased investment contracts rather than insurance contracts.

  When insurance contracts or reinsurance contracts held are acquired in a transfer that

  is not a business combination, an entity should apply the aggregation requirements for

  the identification of portfolios of insurance contracts and divide those into groupings as

  explained at 5 above as if it had entered into the contracts on the date of acquisition.

  [IFRS 17.B93]. In our view, this also implies that these contracts should be classified (i.e.

  assessed for significant insurance risk and eligibility for the variable fee approach and

  the premium allocation approach) based on the terms and conditions at the transfer

 

‹ Prev