From the IFRS Institute - February 28, 2019 Show
A provision is a liability of uncertain timing or amount. The very nature of this uncertainty presents challenges in determining when to recognize a provision and how to measure it. Here we reconsider the IFRS requirements specific to legal claims, identify some of the practical implications, and outline differences between IFRS and US GAAP. With IAS 371, IFRS has one-stop guidance to account for provisions, contingent assets and contingent liabilities. Therefore, there is a single recognition, measurement and disclosure model for obligations such as legal claims and litigation, onerous contracts, restructuring2, assurance warranties, non-income tax exposures, environmental provisions and decommissioning. This contrasts with US GAAP, which has a number of Codification topics that, in combination, cover the same overall scope as IAS 37. For example, separate Codification topics deal with asset retirement obligations, environmental obligations, exit and disposal obligations and guarantees. After these exclusions, many loss contingencies and gain contingencies fall under the general model in ASC 450.3 It is this general model that is the subject of this article, focusing on legal claims. When should a provision for a legal claim be recognized?IFRS and US GAAP have similar, but not identical, recognition thresholds.
In some cases, it may not be clear whether a present obligation exists, even if there is a past event – e.g. a legal claim that is disputed by the company. In such cases, subject matter experts may be required to estimate the likelihood of an outflow of resources. The assessment considers all available evidence, including post-reporting date events and any other precedents. How is the best estimate determined?Under both IFRS and US GAAP, the amount recognized as a provision is the best estimate of the expenditure to be incurred. This is the amount that a company would rationally pay to settle the obligation, or to transfer it to a third party, at the end of the reporting period. Given the uncertainties inherent in determining an estimate, best estimates are based on management’s judgment of all possible outcomes and their financial effect, and should also factor in relevant past experience with similar transactions. Differences between IFRS and US GAAP become apparent when applying the measurement principle. The following is in the context of a legal claim – i.e. a single obligation.
These differences are illustrated in the following example.
What costs to include?For a legal claim, a significant consideration may be the related costs that a company expects to incur – e.g. lawyers’ and experts’ fees. IFRS does not provide specific guidance on recognizing related costs. However, under US GAAP, the accounting for related legal costs is subject to an accounting policy election. Acceptable accounting policies include expensing related costs as incurred or accruing related costs when they are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. For legal claims, under IFRS we believe that if there is no past obligating event, then no provision for the legal claim would be recognized and legal costs to be incurred in defending the claim should be expensed as incurred. In contrast, if there is a past obligating event, anticipated incremental costs that are related directly to the settlement of the claim should be included when measuring the provision for the legal claim. In our view, allocating future salaries of claims department personnel (‘full cost’ approach) to the provision would not be appropriate because they are unlikely to be incremental for any specific claim. However, if an external adviser is engaged to negotiate the settlement of a specific legal claim, the associated cost would be incremental and included in the measurement of the related provision. Risk and discountingUnder IFRS, discounting is generally required for provisions that are expected to be settled in the longer term, where the time value of money has a material effect. The unwinding of the discount is recognized in profit or loss as a finance cost when it occurs. IFRS also requires risks that are specific to the liability to be reflected in the best estimate. This can be done by (1) adjusting the cash flows for risk, or (2) using a risk-adjusted discount rate. In our experience, it is generally easier to incorporate risk factors into the estimate of the cash flows and use a pre-tax risk-free discount rate. Because a risk-adjusted discount rate should reflect the risks specific to the liability, the use of an entity’s incremental borrowing rate would not be an appropriate proxy. Therefore, adjusting the discount rate for risk can be challenging due to the complexity and high degree of judgment involved. Although US GAAP does require discounting for certain obligations (e.g. asset retirement obligations), the general model in ASC 450 does not permit it unless the amount and timing of the cash outflows are fixed or reliably determinable. It is unlikely that a contingency related to a legal claim would meet these criteria. ReimbursementsCertain legal claims may be subject to reimbursement, in the form of insurance proceeds, indemnities or reimbursement rights, such as in these examples.
Reimbursement assets are not netted against the related provision (loss contingency) on the balance sheet. However, the expense and related reimbursement may be netted in profit or loss under both IFRS and US GAAP. Disclosures and exemptionOne important IFRS disclosure requirement that differs from US GAAP is the requirement to disclose movements in each class of provision (e.g. legal claims) during the reporting period. This rollforward schedule should distinguish amounts reversed and unused from amounts used. These amounts are computed claim by claim and cannot be netted against other provisions increases or decreases. However, IFRS also provides an exemption that is particularly relevant to legal claims. The otherwise mandatory disclosures are not required in the extremely rare case that they would seriously prejudice a dispute. Whether this high threshold is met depends on the specific facts and circumstances. US GAAP has a disclosure exemption for unasserted claims if certain criteria are met, but in any event the disclosures under ASC 450 are less detailed than IFRS. The takeawayGiven the uncertainty about the timing or amount of future expenditures needed to settle legal claims, the recognition and measurement of a provision can often require companies to make significant judgments and assumptions. It is therefore important for companies to be cognizant of the IFRS measurement requirements and to have robust processes and controls in place to ensure timely recognition and appropriate measurement of provisions, including subsequent changes. For dual preparers, differences in the IFRS and US GAAP requirements related to recognition and measurement may result in different liability amounts. 1 IAS 37, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. IAS 37 has limited scope exclusions – e.g. rights and obligations under insurance contracts, income tax uncertainties, employee benefits, share-based payments.2 KPMG’s article, Restructuring: understanding the IFRS requirements, covers specific application issues related to restructuring provisions.3 ASC 450, ContingenciesThe information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.Which of the following is a difference between IAS 37 and U.S. GAAP?The primary difference between IAS 37, and U.S. GAAP concerning the treatment of contingent liabilities pertains to: definition of terms. The term "provision" as it is used in IAS 37, is most closely related to what term in U.S. GAAP? Contingent liability, where the outflow of resources is "probable."
How does IAS 38 Intangible assets differ from U.S. GAAP with respect to development costs?How does IAS 38 (Intangible Assets) differ from U.S. GAAP with respect to development costs? U.S. GAAP does not allow capitalization of development costs, whereas IAS 38 allows capitalization of these costs.
What are the differences between provisions and contingent liabilities according to IAS 37?An entity recognises a provision if it is probable that an outflow of cash or other economic resources will be required to settle the provision. If an outflow is not probable, the item is treated as a contingent liability.
Which of the following is generally true about the differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS quizlet?Which of the following is generally true about the differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS? U.S. GAAP tends to be more rules-based and IFRS tend to be principles-based. You just studied 64 terms!
|