IAS 1 BC (2018)

IASB documents published to accompany

IAS 1

Presentation of Financial Statements

BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX TO THE BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS
Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs

©
IFRS Foundation 1
IAS 1 BC (2018)

CONTENTS from paragraph

BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS ON

IAS 1 PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INTRODUCTION BC1
The Improvements project—revision of IAS 1 (2003) BC2
Amendment to IAS 1—Capital Disclosures (2005) BC5
Amendments to IAS 32 and IAS 1—Puttable Financial Instruments and
Obligations Arising on Liquidation (2008) BC6A
Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income (Amendments to IAS 1) BC6B
Financial statement presentation—Joint project BC7
DEFINITIONS BC11
General purpose financial statements (paragraph 7) BC11
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BC14
Complete set of financial statements BC14
Departures from IFRSs (paragraphs 19–24) BC23
Materiality and aggregation (paragraphs 29–31) BC30A
Comparative information BC31
Reporting owner and non-owner changes in equity BC37
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION BC38A
Information to be presented in the statement of financial position (paragraphs 54–
55A) BC38A
Current assets and current liabilities (paragraphs 68 and 71) BC38H
Classification of the liability component of a convertible instrument (paragraph
69) BC38L
Effect of events after the reporting period on the classification of liabilities
(paragraphs 69–76) BC39
STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME BC49
Reporting comprehensive income (paragraph 81) BC49
Results of operating activities BC55
Subtotal for profit or loss (paragraph 82) BC57
Information to be presented in the profit or loss section or the statement of profit
or loss (paragraphs 85–85B) BC58A
Minority interest (paragraph 83) BC59
Extraordinary items (paragraph 87) BC60
Other comprehensive income—related tax effects (paragraphs 90 and 91) BC65
Reclassification adjustments (paragraphs 92–96) BC69
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY BC74
Effects of retrospective application or retrospective restatement (paragraph
106(b)) BC74
Reconciliation for each component of other comprehensive income (paragraphs
106(d)(ii) and 106A) BC74A
Presentation of dividends (paragraph 107) BC75
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS BC76
IAS 7 Cash Flow Statements (paragraph 111) BC76

©
2 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

NOTES BC76A
Structure (paragraphs 112–116) BC76A
Disclosure of accounting policies (paragraphs 117–121) BC76F
Disclosure of the judgements that management has made in the process of
applying the entity’s accounting policies (paragraphs 122–124) BC77
Disclosure of major sources of estimation uncertainty (paragraphs 125–133) BC79
Disclosures about capital (paragraphs 134 and 135) BC85
Objectives, policies and processes for managing capital (paragraph 136) BC90
Externally imposed capital requirements (paragraph 136) BC92
Internal capital targets BC98
Puttable financial instruments and obligations arising on liquidation BC100A
Presentation of measures per share BC101
TRANSITION AND EFFECTIVE DATE BC105
Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to IAS 1) BC105C
DIFFERENCES FROM SFAS 130 BC106
APPENDIX
Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs

©
IFRS Foundation 3
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Basis for Conclusions on

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements

This Basis for Conclusions accompanies, but is not part of, IAS 1.

The International Accounting Standards Board revised IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements in 2007 as part of
its project on financial statement presentation. It was not the Board’s intention to reconsider as part of that project all
the requirements in IAS 1.

For convenience, the Board has incorporated into this Basis for Conclusions relevant material from the Basis for
Conclusions on the revision of IAS 1 in 2003 and its amendment in 2005. Paragraphs have been renumbered and
reorganised as necessary to reflect the new structure of the Standard.

Introduction

BC1 The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) issued the first version of IAS 1 Disclosure of
Accounting Policies in 1975. It was reformatted in 1994 and superseded in 1997 by IAS 1 Presentation of
Financial Statements.1 In 2003 the International Accounting Standards Board revised IAS 1 as part of the
Improvements project and in 2005 the Board amended it as a consequence of issuing IFRS 7 Financial
Instruments: Disclosures. In 2007 the Board revised IAS 1 again as part of its project on financial statement
presentation. This Basis for Conclusions summarises the Board’s considerations in reaching its conclusions
on revising IAS 1 in 2003, on amending it in 2005 and revising it in 2007. It includes reasons for accepting
some approaches and rejecting others. Individual Board members gave greater weight to some factors than
to others.

The Improvements project—revision of IAS 1 (2003)

BC2 In July 2001 the Board announced that, as part of its initial agenda of technical projects, it would undertake
a project to improve a number of standards, including IAS 1. The project was undertaken in the light of
queries and criticisms raised in relation to the standards by securities regulators, professional accountants
and other interested parties. The objectives of the Improvements project were to reduce or eliminate
alternatives, redundancies and conflicts within standards, to deal with some convergence issues and to make
other improvements. The Board’s intention was not to reconsider the fundamental approach to the
presentation of financial statements established by IAS 1 in 1997.
BC3 In May 2002 the Board published an exposure draft of proposed Improvements to International Accounting
Standards, which contained proposals to revise IAS 1. The Board received more than 160 comment letters.
After considering the responses the Board issued in 2003 a revised version of IAS 1. In its revision the
Board’s main objectives were:
(a) to provide a framework within which an entity assesses how to present fairly the effects of
transactions and other events, and assesses whether the result of complying with a requirement in
an IFRS would be so misleading that it would not give a fair presentation;
(b) to base the criteria for classifying liabilities as current or non-current solely on the conditions
existing at the balance sheet date;
(c) to prohibit the presentation of items of income and expense as ‘extraordinary items’;
(d) to specify disclosures about the judgements that management has made in the process of applying
the entity’s accounting policies, apart from those involving estimations, and that have the most
significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements; and
(e) to specify disclosures about sources of estimation uncertainty at the balance sheet date that have a
significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities
within the next financial year.

1
IASC did not publish a Basis for Conclusions.

©
4 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC4 The following sections summarise the Board’s considerations in reaching its conclusions as part of its
Improvements project in 2003:
(a) departures from IFRSs (paragraphs BC23–BC30)
(b) criterion for exemption from requirements (paragraphs BC34–BC36)
(c) effect of events after the reporting period on the classification of liabilities (paragraphs BC39–
BC48)
(d) results of operating activities (paragraphs BC55 and BC56)
(e) minority interest (paragraph BC59)2
(f) extraordinary items (paragraphs BC60–BC64)
(g) disclosure of the judgements management has made in the process of applying the entity’s
accounting policies (paragraphs BC77 and BC78)
(h) disclosure of major sources of estimation uncertainty (paragraphs BC79–BC84).

Amendment to IAS 1—Capital Disclosures (2005)

BC5 In August 2005 the Board issued an Amendment to IAS 1—Capital Disclosures. The amendment added to
IAS 1 requirements for disclosure of:
(a) the entity’s objectives, policies and processes for managing capital.
(b) quantitative data about what the entity regards as capital.
(c) whether the entity has complied with any capital requirements; and if it has not complied, the
consequences of such non-compliance.
BC6 The following sections summarise the Board’s considerations in reaching its conclusions as part of its
amendment to IAS 1 in 2005:
(a) disclosures about capital (paragraphs BC85–BC89)
(b) objectives, policies and processes for managing capital (paragraphs BC90 and BC91)
(c) externally imposed capital requirements (paragraphs BC92–BC97)
(d) internal capital targets (paragraphs BC98–BC100).

Amendments to IAS 32 and IAS 1—Puttable Financial Instruments

and Obligations Arising on Liquidation (2008)

BC6A In July 2006 the Board published an exposure draft of proposed amendments to IAS 32 and IAS 1 relating
to the classification of puttable instruments and instruments with obligations arising only on liquidation.
The Board subsequently confirmed the proposals and in February 2008 issued an amendment that now
forms part of IAS 1.

Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income

(Amendments to IAS 1)

BC6B In May 2010 the Board published an exposure draft of proposed amendments to IAS 1 relating to the
presentation of items of other comprehensive income (OCI). The Board subsequently modified and
confirmed the proposals and in June 2011 issued Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income
(Amendments to IAS 1). The amendments were developed in a joint project with the US national standard-
setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), with the aim of aligning the presentation of OCI
so that information in financial statements prepared by entities using IFRSs and entities using US generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) can be more easily compared.

2
In January 2008 the IASB issued an amended IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, which amended ‘minority
interest’ to ‘non-controlling interests’. The consolidation requirements in IAS 27 were superseded by IFRS 10 Consolidated
Financial Statements issued in May 2011. The term ‘non-controlling interests’ and the requirements for non-controlling interests
were not changed.

©
IFRS Foundation 5
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Financial statement presentation—Joint project

BC7 In September 2001 the Board added to its agenda the performance reporting project (in March 2006
renamed the ‘financial statement presentation project’). The objective of the project was to enhance the
usefulness of information presented in the income statement. The Board developed a possible new model
for reporting income and expenses and conducted preliminary testing. Similarly, in the United States, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) added a project on performance reporting to its agenda in
October 2001, developed its model and conducted preliminary testing. Constituents raised concerns about
both models and about the fact that they were different.
BC8 In April 2004 the Board and the FASB decided to work on financial statement presentation as a joint
project. They agreed that the project should address presentation and display not only in the income
statement, but also in the other statements that, together with the income statement, would constitute a
complete set of financial statements—the balance sheet, the statement of changes in equity, and the cash
flow statement. The Board decided to approach the project in two phases. Phase A would address the
statements that constitute a complete set of financial statements and the periods for which they are required
to be presented. Phase B would be undertaken jointly with the FASB and would address more fundamental
issues relating to presentation and display of information in the financial statements, including:
(a) consistent principles for aggregating information in each financial statement.
(b) the totals and subtotals that should be reported in each financial statement.
(c) whether components of other comprehensive income should be reclassified to profit or loss and,
if so, the characteristics of the transactions and events that should be reclassified and when
reclassification should be made.
(d) whether the direct or the indirect method of presenting operating cash flows provides more useful
information.
BC9 In March 2006, as a result of its work in phase A, the Board published an exposure draft of proposed
amendments to IAS 1—A Revised Presentation. The Board received more than 130 comment letters. The
exposure draft proposed amendments that affected the presentation of owner changes in equity and the
presentation of comprehensive income, but did not propose to change the recognition, measurement or
disclosure of specific transactions and other events required by other IFRSs. It also proposed to bring IAS 1
largely into line with the US standard—SFAS 130 Reporting Comprehensive Income. After considering the
responses to the exposure draft the Board issued a revised version of IAS 1. The FASB decided to consider
phases A and B issues together, and therefore did not publish an exposure draft on phase A.
BC10 The following sections summarise the Board’s considerations in reaching its conclusions as part of its
revision in 2007:
(a) general purpose financial statements (paragraphs BC11–BC13)
(b) titles of financial statements (paragraphs BC14–BC21)
(c) equal prominence (paragraph BC22)
(d) a statement of financial position as at the beginning of the earliest comparative period (paragraphs
BC31 and BC32)
(e) IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting (paragraph BC33)
(f) reporting owner and non-owner changes in equity (paragraphs BC37 and BC38)
(g) reporting comprehensive income (paragraphs BC49–BC54)
(h) subtotal for profit or loss (paragraphs BC57 and BC58)
(i) other comprehensive income-related tax effects (paragraphs BC65–BC68)
(j) reclassification adjustments (paragraphs BC69–BC73)
(k) effects of retrospective application or retrospective restatement (paragraph BC74)
(l) presentation of dividends (paragraph BC75)
(m) IAS 7 Cash Flow Statements (paragraph BC76)
(n) presentation of measures per share (paragraphs BC101–BC104)
(o) effective date and transition (paragraph BC105)
(p) differences from SFAS 130 (paragraph BC106).

©
6 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

Definitions

General purpose financial statements (paragraph 7)

BC11 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed a change to the explanatory paragraph of what ‘general purpose
financial statements’ include, in order to produce a more generic definition of a set of financial statements.
Paragraph 7 of the exposure draft stated:
General purpose financial statements include those that are presented separately or within other public documents
such as a regulatory filing or report to shareholders. [emphasis added]

BC12 Respondents expressed concern about the proposed change. They argued that it could be understood as
defining as general purpose financial statements any financial statement or set of financial statements filed
with a regulator and could capture documents other than annual reports and prospectuses. They saw this
change as expanding the scope of IAS 1 to documents that previously would not have contained all of the
disclosures required by IAS 1. Respondents pointed out that the change would particularly affect some
entities (such as small private companies and subsidiaries of public companies with no external users of
financial reports) that are required by law to place their financial statements on a public file.
BC13 The Board acknowledged that in some countries the law requires entities, whether public or private, to
report to regulatory authorities and include information in those reports that could be beyond the scope of
IAS 1. Because the Board did not intend to extend the definition of general purpose financial statements, it
decided to eliminate the explanatory paragraph of what ‘general purpose financial statements’ include,
while retaining the definition of ‘general purpose financial statements’.

Financial statements

Complete set of financial statements

Titles of financial statements (paragraph 10)

BC14 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed changes to the titles of some of the financial statements—from
‘balance sheet’ to ‘statement of financial position’, from ‘income statement’ to ‘statement of profit or loss’
and from ‘cash flow statement’ to ‘statement of cash flows’. In addition, the exposure draft proposed a
‘statement of recognised income and expense’ and that all owner changes in equity should be included in a
‘statement of changes in equity’. The Board did not propose to make any of these changes of nomenclature
mandatory.
BC15 Many respondents opposed the proposed changes, pointing out that the existing titles had a long tradition
and were well understood. However, the Board reaffirmed its view that the proposed new titles better reflect
the function of each financial statement, and pointed out that an entity could choose to use other titles in its
financial report.
BC16 The Board reaffirmed its conclusion that the title ‘statement of financial position’ not only better reflects the
function of the statement but is consistent with the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of
Financial Statements, which contains several references to ‘financial position’. Paragraph 12 of the
Framework3 states that the objective of financial statements is to provide information about the financial
position, performance and changes in financial position of an entity; paragraph 19 of the Framework states
that information about financial position is primarily provided in a balance sheet. In the Board’s view, the
title ‘balance sheet’ simply reflects that double entry bookkeeping requires debits to equal credits. It does
not identify the content or purpose of the statement. The Board also noted that ‘financial position’ is a well-
known and accepted term, as it has been used in auditors’ opinions internationally for more than 20 years to
describe what the ‘balance sheet’ presents. The Board decided that aligning the statement’s title with its
content and the opinion rendered by the auditor would help the users of financial statements.

3
References to the Framework are to IASC’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, adopted by
the IASB in 2001. In September 2010 the IASB replaced the Framework with the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.

©
IFRS Foundation 7
IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC17 As to the other statements, respondents suggested that renaming the balance sheet the ‘statement of
financial position’ implied that the ‘cash flow statement’ and the ‘statement of recognised income and
expense’ do not also reflect an entity’s financial position. The Board observed that although the latter
statements reflect changes in an entity’s financial position, neither can be called a ‘statement of changes in
financial position’, as this would not depict their true function and objective (ie to present cash flows and
performance, respectively). The Board acknowledged that the titles ‘income statement’ and ‘statement of
profit or loss’ are similar in meaning and could be used interchangeably, and decided to retain the title
‘income statement’ as this is more commonly used.
BC18 The title of the proposed new statement, the ‘statement of recognised income and expense’, reflects a
broader content than the former ‘income statement’. The statement encompasses both income and expenses
recognised in profit or loss and income and expenses recognised outside profit or loss.
BC19 Many respondents opposed the title ‘statement of recognised income and expense’, objecting particularly to
the use of the term ‘recognised’. The Board acknowledged that the term ‘recognised’ could also be used to
describe the content of other primary statements as ‘recognition’, explained in paragraph 82 of the
Framework, is ‘the process of incorporating in the balance sheet or income statement an item that meets the
definition of an element and satisfies the criteria for recognition set out in paragraph 83.’ Many respondents
suggested the term ‘statement of comprehensive income’ instead.
BC20 In response to respondents’ concerns and to converge with SFAS 130, the Board decided to rename the new
statement a ‘statement of comprehensive income’. The term ‘comprehensive income’ is not defined in the
Framework but is used in IAS 1 to describe the change in equity of an entity during a period from
transactions, events and circumstances other than those resulting from transactions with owners in their
capacity as owners. Although the term ‘comprehensive income’ is used to describe the aggregate of all
components of comprehensive income, including profit or loss, the term ‘other comprehensive income’
refers to income and expenses that under IFRSs are included in comprehensive income but excluded from
profit or loss.
BC20A In May 2010 the Board published the exposure draft Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income
(proposed amendments to IAS 1) relating to the presentation of items of other comprehensive income
(OCI). One of the proposals in the exposure draft related to the title of the statement containing profit or
loss and other comprehensive income. The Board proposed this change so that it would be clear that the
statement had two components: profit or loss and other comprehensive income. A majority of the
respondents to the exposure draft supported the change and therefore the Board confirmed the proposal in
June 2011. IAS 1 allows preparers to use other titles for the statement that reflect the nature of their
activities.
BC20B Several other IFRSs refer to the ‘statement of comprehensive income’. The Board considered whether it
should change all such references to ‘statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income’. The
Board noted that the terminology used in IAS 1 is not mandatory and that ‘statement of comprehensive
income’ is one of the examples used in the standard. The Board decided that there was little benefit in
replacing the title ‘statement of comprehensive income’ in other IFRSs or ‘income statement’ with the
‘statement of profit or loss’. However, the Board did change the terminology when an IFRS made reference
to the two-statement option.
BC21 In finalising its revision, the Board confirmed that the titles of financial statements used in this Standard
would not be mandatory. The titles will be used in future IFRSs but are not required to be used by entities in
their financial statements. Some respondents to the exposure draft expressed concern that non-mandatory
titles will result in confusion. However, the Board believes that making use of the titles non-mandatory will
allow time for entities to implement changes gradually as the new titles become more familiar.

Equal prominence (paragraphs 11 and 12)

BC22 The Board noted that the financial performance of an entity is not assessed by reference to a single financial
statement or a single measure within a financial statement. The Board believes that the financial
performance of an entity can be assessed only after all aspects of the financial statements are taken into
account and understood in their entirety. Accordingly, the Board decided that in order to help users of the
financial statements to understand the financial performance of an entity comprehensively, all financial
statements within the complete set of financial statements should be presented with equal prominence.

Departures from IFRSs (paragraphs 19–24)

BC23 IAS 1 (as issued in 1997) permitted an entity to depart from a requirement in a Standard ‘in the extremely
rare circumstances when management concludes that compliance with a requirement in a Standard would be

©
8 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

misleading, and therefore that departure from a requirement is necessary to achieve a fair presentation’
(paragraph 17, now paragraph 19). When such a departure occurred, paragraph 18 (now paragraph 20)
required extensive disclosure of the facts and circumstances surrounding the departure and the treatment
adopted.
BC24 The Board decided to clarify in paragraph 15 of the Standard that for financial statements to present fairly
the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of an entity, they must represent faithfully the
effects of transactions and other events in accordance with the definitions and recognition criteria for assets,
liabilities, income and expenses set out in the Framework.
BC25 The Board decided to limit the occasions on which an entity should depart from a requirement in an IFRS to
the extremely rare circumstances in which management concludes that compliance with the requirement
would be so misleading that it would conflict with the objective of financial statements set out in the
Framework. Guidance on this criterion states that an item of information would conflict with the objective
of financial statements when it does not represent faithfully the transactions, other events or conditions that
it either purports to represent or could reasonably be expected to represent and, consequently, it would be
likely to influence economic decisions made by users of financial statements.
BC26 These amendments provide a framework within which an entity assesses how to present fairly the effects of
transactions, other events and conditions, and whether the result of complying with a requirement in an
IFRS would be so misleading that it would not give a fair presentation.
BC27 The Board considered whether IAS 1 should be silent on departures from IFRSs. The Board decided against
making that change, because it would remove the Board’s capability to specify the criteria under which
departures from IFRSs should occur.
BC28 Departing from a requirement in an IFRS when considered necessary to achieve a fair presentation would
conflict with the regulatory framework in some jurisdictions. The revised IAS 1 takes into account the
existence of different regulatory requirements. It requires that when an entity’s circumstances satisfy the
criterion described in paragraph BC25 for departure from a requirement in an IFRS, the entity should
proceed as follows:
(a) When the relevant regulatory framework requires—or otherwise does not prohibit—a departure
from the requirement, the entity should make that departure and the disclosures set out in
paragraph 20.
(b) When the relevant regulatory framework prohibits departure from the requirement, the entity
should, to the maximum extent possible, reduce the perceived misleading aspects of compliance
by making the disclosures set out in paragraph 23.
This amendment enables entities to comply with the requirements of IAS 1 when the relevant regulatory
framework prohibits departures from accounting standards, while retaining the principle that entities should,
to the maximum extent possible, ensure that financial statements provide a fair presentation.

BC29 After considering the comments received on the exposure draft of 2002, the Board added to IAS 1 a
requirement in paragraph 21 to disclose the effect of a departure from a requirement of an IFRS in a prior
period on the current period’s financial statements. Without this disclosure, users of the entity’s financial
statements could be unaware of the continuing effects of prior period departures.
BC30 In view of the strict criteria for departure from a requirement in an IFRS, IAS 1 includes a rebuttable
presumption that if other entities in similar circumstances comply with the requirement, the entity’s
compliance with the requirement would not be so misleading that it would conflict with the objective of
financial statements set out in the Framework.

Materiality and aggregation (paragraphs 29–31)

BC30A The Board was informed at the Discussion Forum Financial Reporting Disclosure in January 2013, in its
related survey and by other sources, that there are difficulties applying the concept of materiality in practice.
Some are of the view that these difficulties contribute to a disclosure problem, namely, that there is both too
much irrelevant information and not enough relevant information in financial statements. A number of
factors have been identified for why materiality may not be applied well in practice. One of these is that the
guidance on materiality in IFRS is not clear.
BC30B Some think that the statement in IAS 1 that an entity need not provide a specific disclosure if the
information is not material means that an entity does not need to present an item in the statement(s) of profit
or loss and other comprehensive income, the statement of financial position, the statement of cash flows and
the statement of changes in equity, but must instead disclose it in the notes. However, the Board noted that

©
IFRS Foundation 9
IAS 1 BC (2018)

the concept of materiality is applicable to financial statements, which include the notes, and not only to
those statements.
BC30C Some are of the view that when IFRS states that a specific disclosure is required, the concept of materiality
does not apply to those disclosure requirements, ie disclosures specifically identified in IFRS are required
irrespective of whether they result in material information. In addition, some people think that when a line
item is presented, or a material item is otherwise recognised, in the statement(s) of profit or loss and other
comprehensive income and the statement of financial position, all the disclosures in IFRS specified for that
item must be disclosed. The Board observed that paragraph 31 of IAS 1 is clear that the concept of
materiality applies to specific disclosures required by an IFRS and therefore an entity does not have to
disclose information required by an IFRS if that information would not be material.
BC30D The Board understands that these misconceptions may have arisen because of the wording that is used when
specifying presentation or disclosure requirements in IFRS; for example, the use of the words ‘as a
minimum’. For this reason, the Board removed the phrase ‘as a minimum’ in paragraph 54 of IAS 1, which
lists line items for presentation in the statement of financial position. This also makes the requirement
broadly consistent with the corresponding requirement in paragraph 82 of IAS 1 for the profit or loss
section of the statement of comprehensive income or the statement of profit or loss.
BC30E On the basis of its observations and conclusions set out in paragraphs BC30A–BC30D, the Board added a
new paragraph, paragraph 30A, and amended paragraph 31 of IAS 1.
BC30F Paragraph 30A was added to IAS 1 to highlight that when an entity decides how it aggregates information
in the financial statements, it should take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. Paragraph
30A emphasises that an entity should not reduce the understandability of its financial statements by
providing immaterial information that obscures the material information in financial statements or by
aggregating material items that have different natures or functions. Obscuring material information with
immaterial information in financial statements makes the material information less visible and therefore
makes the financial statements less understandable. The amendments do not actually prohibit entities from
disclosing immaterial information, because the Board thinks that such a requirement would not be
operational; however, the amendments emphasise that disclosure should not result in material information
being obscured.
BC30G The Exposure Draft Disclosure Initiative (Proposed amendments to IAS 1) (the ‘March 2014 Exposure
Draft’), which was published in March 2014, also proposed that an entity should not ‘disaggregate’
information in a manner that obscures useful information. Disaggregation is often used to describe the
process of expanding totals, subtotals and line items into further items that themselves may reflect the
aggregated results of transactions or other events. Because the process of expanding totals, subtotals and
line items is more likely to increase the transparency of information rather than obscuring it, the Board
decided not to include the term disaggregation in paragraph 30A of IAS 1. In addition, the Board was of the
view that items resulting from the process of disaggregation that themselves reflect the aggregated results of
transactions would be covered by paragraphs 29–31 of IAS 1.
BC30H The Board amended paragraph 31 of IAS 1 to highlight that materiality also applies to disclosures
specifically required by IFRS. In addition, to highlight that materiality not only involves decisions about
excluding information from the financial statements, the Board amended paragraph 31 to reiterate the
notion already stated in paragraph 17(c) of IAS 1 that materiality also involves decisions about whether to
include additional information in the financial statements. Consequently, an entity should make additional
disclosures when compliance with the specific requirements in IFRS is insufficient to enable users of
financial statements to understand the impact of particular transactions, other events and conditions on the
entity’s financial position and financial performance.
BC30I The Board noted that the definition of ‘material’ in paragraph 7 of IAS 1 discusses omissions or
misstatements of items being material if they could individually or collectively influence economic
decisions. The Board considered making amendments to paragraph 31 of IAS 1 to say that an entity need
not provide a specific disclosure if the information provided by that disclosure is not material, either
individually or collectively. However, the Board decided not to make that change since the definition of
material already incorporates the notions of individual and collective assessment and, therefore, reference to
the term material in paragraph 31 is sufficient to incorporate this concept.
BC30J In the March 2014 Exposure Draft the Board proposed to use the term ‘present’ to refer to line items,
subtotals and totals on the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, the statement of
financial position, the statement of cash flows and the statement of changes in equity, and the term
‘disclose’ to mean information in the notes. However, respondents to the March 2014 Exposure Draft did
not support the distinction between present and disclose because they considered that the terminology has
not been used consistently throughout IAS 1 and that any changes in how these terms are used should be
done as part of a comprehensive review of IAS 1. Because of this, and because making such comprehensive

©
10 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

changes to IAS 1 would be outside the scope of these amendments, the Board did not finalise the proposed
changes regarding use of the terms present and disclose.

Comparative information

A statement of financial position as at the beginning of the earliest

comparative period (paragraph 39)

BC31 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed that a statement of financial position as at the beginning of the earliest
comparative period should be presented as part of a complete set of financial statements. This statement
would provide a basis for investors and creditors to evaluate information about the entity’s performance
during the period. However, many respondents expressed concern that the requirement would unnecessarily
increase disclosures in financial statements, or would be impracticable, excessive and costly.
BC32 By adding a statement of financial position as at the beginning of the earliest comparative period, the
exposure draft proposed that an entity should present three statements of financial position and two of each
of the other statements. Considering that financial statements from prior years are readily available for
financial analysis, the Board decided to require only two statements of financial position, except when the
financial statements have been affected by retrospective application or retrospective restatement, as defined
in IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, or when a reclassification has
been made. In those circumstances three statements of financial position are required.

Clarification of requirements for comparative information

BC32A In Annual Improvements 2009–2011 Cycle (issued in May 2012) the Board addressed a request to clarify
the requirements for providing comparative information for:
(a) the comparative requirements for the opening statement of financial position when an entity
changes accounting policies, or makes retrospective restatements or reclassifications, in
accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors; and
(b) the requirements for providing comparative information when an entity provides financial
statements beyond the minimum comparative information requirements.

Opening statement of financial position

BC32B In Annual Improvements 2009–2011 Cycle (issued in May 2012) the Board addressed a request to clarify
the appropriate date for the opening statement of financial position. The Board decided to amend the current
requirements in IAS 1 that relate to the presentation of a statement of financial position for the beginning of
the earliest comparative period presented in cases of changes in accounting policies, retrospective
restatements or reclassifications to clarify that the appropriate date for the opening statement of financial
position is the beginning of the preceding period.
BC32C The Board also decided to change the previous requirements so that related notes to this opening statement
of financial position are no longer required to be presented. The Board’s decision to give this relief was
based on the fact that circumstances in which an entity changes an accounting policy, or makes a
retrospective restatement or a reclassification in accordance with IAS 8, are considered narrow, specific and
limited. However, the circumstances in which an entity chooses to provide additional financial statements
(ie on a voluntary basis) can be viewed as more generic and may arise for different reasons. Accordingly,
this relief is not available when additional financial statements are provided on a voluntary basis.
BC32D The Board added the guidance in paragraph 40A(a) to clarify when an opening statement of financial
position provides useful information and, should therefore be required. Paragraph 40A(b) is a reminder that
the concept of materiality should be considered in applying the guidance in paragraph 40A(a). The Board
noted that the entity would still be required to disclose the information required by IAS 8 for changes in
accounting policies and retrospective restatements.

Comparative information beyond minimum requirements

BC32E In Annual Improvements 2009–2011 Cycle (issued in May 2012) the Board addressed a request to clarify
the requirements for providing comparative information. Specifically, the Board was asked to consider

©
IFRS Foundation 11
IAS 1 BC (2018)

whether an entity should be required to present a complete set of financial statements when it provides
financial statements beyond the minimum comparative information requirements (ie additional comparative
information). In response to this request, the Board decided to clarify that additional financial statement
information need not be presented in the form of a complete set of financial statements for periods beyond
the minimum requirements. The Board also noted that additional comparative information might include:
(a) information that is presented voluntarily, beyond the information that is included within a
complete set of financial statements; or
(b) comparative information that is required by law or other regulations but that is not required by
IFRSs.
BC32F The Board also decided to amend paragraphs 38–41 of IAS 1 to clarify that, when additional comparative
information (that is not required by IFRSs) is provided by an entity, this information should be presented in
accordance with IFRSs and the entity should present comparative information in the related notes for that
additional information. The Board determined that requiring full notes for additional information in
accordance with paragraph 38C is necessary to ensure that the additional information that the entity
provides is balanced and results in financial statements that achieve a fair presentation.
BC32G In the light of the concerns raised by interested parties, the Board decided that the amendments should be
introduced through the Annual Improvements process instead of through the Financial Statement
Presentation project, so that the changes could be made more quickly.

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting

BC33 The Board decided not to reflect in paragraph 8 of IAS 34 (ie the minimum components of an interim
financial report) its decision to require the inclusion of a statement of financial position as at the beginning
of the earliest comparative period in a complete set of financial statements. IAS 34 has a year-to-date
approach to interim reporting and does not replicate the requirements of IAS 1 in terms of comparative
information.

Criterion for exemption from requirements (paragraphs 41–44)

BC34 IAS 1 as issued in 1997 specified that when the presentation or classification of items in the financial
statements is amended, comparative amounts should be reclassified unless it is impracticable to do so.
Applying a requirement is impracticable when the entity cannot apply it after making every reasonable
effort to do so.
BC35 The exposure draft of 2002 proposed a different criterion for exemption from particular requirements. For
the reclassification of comparative amounts, and its proposed new requirement to disclose key assumptions
and other sources of estimation uncertainty at the end of the reporting period (discussed in paragraphs
BC79–BC84), the exposure draft proposed that the criterion for exemption should be that applying the
requirements would require undue cost or effort.
BC36 In the light of respondents’ comments on the exposure draft, the Board decided that an exemption based on
management’s assessment of undue cost or effort was too subjective to be applied consistently by different
entities. Moreover, balancing costs and benefits was a task for the Board when it sets accounting
requirements rather than for entities when they apply them. Therefore, the Board retained the
‘impracticability’ criterion for exemption. This affects the exemptions now set out in paragraphs 41–43 and
131 of IAS 1. Impracticability is the only basis on which IFRSs allow specific exemptions from applying
particular requirements when the effect of applying them is material. 4

Reporting owner and non-owner changes in equity

BC37 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed to separate changes in equity of an entity during a period arising from
transactions with owners in their capacity as owners (ie all owner changes in equity) from other changes in
equity (ie non-owner changes in equity). All owner changes in equity would be presented in the statement
of changes in equity, separately from non-owner changes in equity.
BC38 Most respondents welcomed this proposal and saw this change as an improvement of financial reporting, by
increasing the transparency of those items recognised in equity that are not reported as part of profit or loss.

4
In 2006 the IASB issued IFRS 8 Operating Segments. As explained in paragraphs BC46 and BC47 of the Basis for Conclusions on
IFRS 8, that IFRS includes an exemption from some requirements if the necessary information is not available and the cost to
develop it would be excessive.

©
12 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

However, some respondents pointed out that the terms ‘owner’ and ‘non-owner’ were not defined in the
exposure draft, the Framework or elsewhere in IFRSs, although they are extensively used in national
accounting standards. They also noted that the terms ‘owner’ and ‘equity holder’ were used interchangeably
in the exposure draft. The Board decided to adopt the term ‘owner’ and use it throughout IAS 1 to converge
with SFAS 130, which uses the term in the definition of ‘comprehensive income’.

Statement of financial position

Information to be presented in the statement of financial position

(paragraphs 54–55A)

BC38A Paragraph 54 of IAS 1 lists line items that are required to be presented in the statement of financial position.
The Board has been informed that some have interpreted that list as prescriptive and that those line items
cannot be disaggregated. There is also a perception by some that IFRS prevents them from presenting
subtotals in addition to those specifically required by IFRS.
BC38B Paragraph 55 of IAS 1 requires an entity to present additional line items, headings and subtotals when their
presentation is relevant to an understanding of the entity’s financial position. This highlights that the line
items listed for presentation in paragraph 54 of IAS 1 should be disaggregated and that subtotals should be
presented, when relevant. Paragraphs 78 and 98 of IAS 1 give examples of potential disaggregations of line
items in the statement of financial position and the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive
income.
BC38C Consequently, the Board:
(a) removed the wording ‘as a minimum’ from paragraph 54 of IAS 1 (see paragraph BC30D) to
address the possible misconception that this wording prevents entities from aggregating the line
items specified in paragraph 54 if those specified line items are immaterial; and
(b) clarified that the presentation requirements in paragraphs 54–55 may be fulfilled by
disaggregating a specified line item.
BC38D The Board noted that there are similar presentation requirements in paragraph 85 of IAS 1 for the
statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. The Board therefore amended those
requirements to make them consistent.
BC38E Some respondents to the proposals suggested that the Board should make clear that the line items listed in
paragraph 54 of IAS 1 are required ‘when material’. The Board decided not to state that the line items are
only required when material, because materiality is generally not referenced specifically in disclosure
requirements in IFRS and so including a specific reference in this case could make it less clear that
materiality applies to other disclosure requirements.
BC38F The Board understands that some are concerned about the presentation of subtotals, in addition to those
specified in IFRS, in the statement of financial position and the statement(s) of profit or loss and other
comprehensive income. Those with this concern think that some subtotals can be misleading, for example,
because they are given undue prominence. The Board noted that paragraphs 55 and 85 of IAS 1 require the
presentation of subtotals when such presentation is relevant to an understanding of the entity’s financial
position or financial performance.
BC38G The Board therefore included additional requirements in IAS 1 to help entities apply paragraphs 55 and 85.
These additional requirements supplement the existing guidance on fair presentation in paragraphs 15 and
17 of IAS 1. They are designed to clarify the factors that should be considered when fairly presenting
subtotals in the statement of financial position and the statement(s) of profit or loss and other
comprehensive income. Specifically, the subtotal should:
(a) be comprised of line items made up of amounts recognised and measured in accordance with
IFRS.
(b) be understandable. It should be clear what line items are included in the subtotal by the way that
the subtotal is presented and labelled. For example, if an entity presents a commonly reported
subtotal, but excludes items that would normally be considered as part of that subtotal, the label
should reflect what has been excluded.
(c) be consistent from period to period. The subtotal should be consistently presented and calculated
from period to period (in accordance with paragraph 45 of IAS 1), subject to possible changes in
accounting policy or estimates assessed in accordance with IAS 8.

©
IFRS Foundation 13
IAS 1 BC (2018)

(d) not be displayed with more prominence than those subtotals and totals required in IFRS for either
the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income or the statement of financial
position.

Current assets and current liabilities (paragraphs 68 and 71)

BC38H As part of its improvements project in 2007, the Board identified inconsistent guidance regarding the
current/non-current classification of derivatives. Some might read the guidance included in paragraph 71 as
implying that financial liabilities classified as held for trading in accordance with IAS 39 Financial
Instruments: Recognition and Measurement5 are always required to be presented as current.
BC38I The Board expects the criteria set out in paragraph 69 to be used to assess whether a financial liability
should be presented as current or non-current. The ‘held for trading’ category in paragraph 9 of IAS 39 6 is
for measurement purposes and includes financial assets and liabilities that may not be held primarily for
trading purposes.
BC38J The Board reaffirmed that if a financial liability is held primarily for trading purposes it should be presented
as current regardless of its maturity date. However, a financial liability that is not held for trading purposes,
such as a derivative that is not a financial guarantee contract or a designated hedging instrument, should be
presented as current or non-current on the basis of its settlement date. For example, derivatives that have a
maturity of more than twelve months and are expected to be held for more than twelve months after the
reporting period should be presented as non-current assets or liabilities.
BC38K Therefore, the Board decided to remove the identified inconsistency by amending the examples of current
liabilities in paragraph 71. The Board also amended paragraph 68 in respect of current assets to remove a
similar inconsistency.

Classification of the liability component of a convertible

instrument (paragraph 69)

BC38L As part of its improvements project in 2007, the Board considered the classification of the liability
component of a convertible instrument as current or non-current. Paragraph 69(d) of IAS 1 states that when
an entity does not have an unconditional right to defer settlement of a liability for at least twelve months
after the reporting period, the liability should be classified as current. According to the Framework,
conversion of a liability into equity is a form of settlement.
BC38M The application of these requirements means that if the conversion option can be exercised by the holder at
any time, the liability component would be classified as current. This classification would be required even
if the entity would not be required to settle unconverted instruments with cash or other assets for more than
twelve months after the reporting period.
BC38N IAS 1 and the Framework state that information about the liquidity and solvency positions of an entity is
useful to users. The terms ‘liquidity’ and ‘solvency’ are associated with the availability of cash to an entity.
Issuing equity does not result in an outflow of cash or other assets of the entity.
BC38O The Board concluded that classifying the liability on the basis of the requirements to transfer cash or other
assets rather than on settlement better reflects the liquidity and solvency position of an entity, and therefore
it decided to amend IAS 1 accordingly.
BC38P The Board discussed the comments received in response to its exposure draft of proposed Improvements to
IFRSs published in 2007 and noted that some respondents were concerned that the proposal in the exposure
draft would apply to all liabilities, not just those that are components of convertible instruments as
originally contemplated in the exposure draft. Consequently, in Improvements to IFRSs issued in April
2009, the Board amended the proposed wording to clarify that the amendment applies only to the
classification of a liability that can, at the option of the counterparty, be settled by the issue of the entity’s
equity instruments.

5
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replaced IAS 39. IFRS 9 applies to all items that were previously within the scope of IAS 39. This
paragraph refers to matters relevant when IAS 1 was issued.
6
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replaced IAS 39. IFRS 9 applies to all items that were previously within the scope of IAS 39. This
paragraph refers to matters relevant when IAS 1 was issued.

©
14 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

Effect of events after the reporting period on the classification of

liabilities (paragraphs 69–76)

BC39 Paragraph 63 of IAS 1 (as issued in 1997) included the following:

An enterprise should continue to classify its long-term interest-bearing liabilities as non-current, even when they are
due to be settled within twelve months of the balance sheet date if:

(a) the original term was for a period of more than twelve months;

(b) the enterprise intends to refinance the obligation on a long-term basis; and

(c) that intention is supported by an agreement to refinance, or to reschedule payments, which is completed
before the financial statements are authorised for issue.

BC40 Paragraph 65 stated:

Some borrowing agreements incorporate undertakings by the borrower (covenants) which have the effect that the
liability becomes payable on demand if certain conditions related to the borrower’s financial position are breached.
In these circumstances, the liability is classified as non-current only when:

(a) the lender has agreed, prior to the authorisation of the financial statements for issue, not to demand
payment as a consequence of the breach; and

(b) it is not probable that further breaches will occur within twelve months of the balance sheet date.

BC41 The Board considered these requirements and concluded that refinancing, or the receipt of a waiver of the
lender’s right to demand payment, that occurs after the reporting period should not be taken into account in
the classification of a liability.
BC42 Therefore, the exposure draft of 2002 proposed:
(a) to amend paragraph 63 to specify that a long-term financial liability due to be settled within
twelve months of the balance sheet date should not be classified as a non-current liability because
an agreement to refinance, or to reschedule payments, on a long-term basis is completed after the
balance sheet date and before the financial statements are authorised for issue. This amendment
would not affect the classification of a liability as non-current when the entity has, under the
terms of an existing loan facility, the discretion to refinance or roll over its obligations for at least
twelve months after the balance sheet date.
(b) to amend paragraph 65 to specify that a long-term financial liability that is payable on demand
because the entity breached a condition of its loan agreement should be classified as current at the
balance sheet date even if the lender has agreed after the balance sheet date, and before the
financial statements are authorised for issue, not to demand payment as a consequence of the
breach. However, if the lender has agreed by the balance sheet date to provide a period of grace
within which the entity can rectify the breach and during which the lender cannot demand
immediate repayment, the liability is classified as non-current if it is due for settlement, without
that breach of the loan agreement, at least twelve months after the balance sheet date and:
(i) the entity rectifies the breach within the period of grace; or
(ii) when the financial statements are authorised for issue, the period of grace is incomplete
and it is probable that the breach will be rectified.
BC43 Some respondents disagreed with these proposals. They advocated classifying a liability as current or non-
current according to whether it is expected to use current assets of the entity, rather than strictly on the basis
of its date of maturity and whether it is callable at the end of the reporting period. In their view, this would
provide more relevant information about the liability’s future effect on the timing of the entity’s resource
flows.
BC44 However, the Board decided that the following arguments for changing paragraphs 63 and 65 were more
persuasive:
(a) refinancing a liability after the balance sheet date does not affect the entity’s liquidity and
solvency at the balance sheet date, the reporting of which should reflect contractual arrangements
in force on that date. Therefore, it is a non-adjusting event in accordance with IAS 10 Events after
the Balance Sheet Date and should not affect the presentation of the entity’s balance sheet.
(b) it is illogical to adopt a criterion that ‘non-current’ classification of short-term obligations
expected to be rolled over for at least twelve months after the balance sheet date depends on

©
IFRS Foundation 15
IAS 1 BC (2018)

whether the roll-over is at the discretion of the entity, and then to provide an exception based on
refinancing occurring after the balance sheet date.
(c) in the circumstances set out in paragraph 65, unless the lender has waived its right to demand
immediate repayment or granted a period of grace within which the entity may rectify the breach
of the loan agreement, the financial condition of the entity at the balance sheet date was that the
entity did not hold an absolute right to defer repayment, based on the terms of the loan agreement.
The granting of a waiver or a period of grace changes the terms of the loan agreement. Therefore,
an entity’s receipt from the lender, after the balance sheet date, of a waiver or a period of grace of
at least twelve months does not change the nature of the liability to non-current until it occurs.
BC45 IAS 1 now includes the amendments proposed in 2002, with one change. The change relates to the
classification of a long-term loan when, at the end of the reporting period, the lender has provided a period
of grace within which a breach of the loan agreement can be rectified, and during which period the lender
cannot demand immediate repayment of the loan.
BC46 The exposure draft proposed that such a loan should be classified as non-current if it is due for settlement,
without the breach, at least twelve months after the balance sheet date and:
(a) the entity rectifies the breach within the period of grace; or
(b) when the financial statements are authorised for issue, the period of grace is incomplete and it is
probable that the breach will be rectified.
BC47 After considering respondents’ comments, the Board decided that the occurrence or probability of a
rectification of a breach after the reporting period is irrelevant to the conditions existing at the end of the
reporting period. The revised IAS 1 requires that, for the loan to be classified as non-current, the period of
grace must end at least twelve months after the reporting period (see paragraph 75). Therefore, the
conditions (a) and (b) in paragraph BC46 are redundant.
BC48 The Board considered arguments that if a period of grace to remedy a breach of a long-term loan agreement
is provided before the end of the reporting period, the loan should be classified as non-current regardless of
the length of the period of grace. These arguments are based on the view that, at the end of the reporting
period, the lender does not have an unconditional legal right to demand repayment before the original
maturity date (ie if the entity remedies the breach during the period of grace, it is entitled to repay the loan
on the original maturity date). However, the Board concluded that an entity should classify a loan as non-
current only if it has an unconditional right to defer settlement of the loan for at least twelve months after
the reporting period. This criterion focuses on the legal rights of the entity, rather than those of the lender.

Statement of comprehensive income

Reporting comprehensive income (paragraph 81)

BC49 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed that all non-owner changes in equity should be presented in a single
statement or in two statements. In a single-statement presentation, all items of income and expense are
presented together. In a two-statement presentation, the first statement (‘income statement’) presents
income and expenses recognised in profit or loss and the second statement (‘statement of comprehensive
income’) begins with profit or loss and presents, in addition, items of income and expense that IFRSs
require or permit to be recognised outside profit or loss. Such items include, for example, translation
differences related to foreign operations and gains or losses on available-for-sale financial assets.7 The
statement of comprehensive income does not include transactions with owners in their capacity as owners.
Such transactions are presented in the statement of changes in equity.
BC50 Respondents to the exposure draft had mixed views about whether the Board should permit a choice of
displaying non-owner changes in equity in one statement or two statements. Many respondents agreed with
the Board’s proposal to maintain the two-statement approach and the single-statement approach as
alternatives and a few urged the Board to mandate one of them. However, most respondents preferred the
two-statement approach because it distinguishes profit or loss and total comprehensive income; they believe
that with the two-statement approach, the ‘income statement’ remains a primary financial statement.
Respondents supported the presentation of two separate statements as a transition measure until the Board

7
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments eliminated the category of available-for-sale financial assets. This paragraph refers to matters
relevant when IAS 1 was issued.

©
16 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

develops principles to determine the criteria for inclusion of items in profit or loss or in other
comprehensive income.
BC51 The exposure draft of 2006 expressed the Board’s preference for a single statement of all non-owner
changes in equity. The Board provided several reasons for this preference. All items of non-owner changes
in equity meet the definitions of income and expenses in the Framework. The Framework does not define
profit or loss, nor does it provide criteria for distinguishing the characteristics of items that should be
included in profit or loss from those items that should be excluded from profit or loss. Therefore, the Board
decided that it was conceptually correct for an entity to present all non-owner changes in equity (ie all
income and expenses recognised in a period) in a single statement because there are no clear principles or
common characteristics that can be used to separate income and expenses into two statements.
BC52 However, in the Board’s discussions with interested parties, it was clear that many were strongly opposed to
the concept of a single statement. They argued that there would be undue focus on the bottom line of the
single statement. In addition, many argued that it was premature for the Board to conclude that presentation
of income and expense in a single statement was an improvement in financial reporting without also
addressing the other aspects of presentation and display, namely deciding what categories and line items
should be presented in a statement of recognised income and expense.
BC53 In the light of these views, although it preferred a single statement, the Board decided that an entity should
have the choice of presenting all income and expenses recognised in a period in one statement or in two
statements. An entity is prohibited from presenting components of income and expense (ie non-owner
changes in equity) in the statement of changes in equity.
BC54 Many respondents disagreed with the Board’s preference and thought that a decision at this stage would be
premature. In their view the decision about a single-statement or two-statement approach should be subject
to further consideration. They urged the Board to address other aspects of presentation and display, namely
deciding which categories and line items should be presented in a ‘statement of comprehensive income’.
The Board reaffirmed its reasons for preferring a single-statement approach and agreed to address other
aspects of display and presentation in the next stage of the project.
BC54A In Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income published in May 2010 the Board proposed to
eliminate the option to present all items of income and expense recognised in a period in two statements,
thereby requiring presentation in a continuous statement displaying two sections: profit or loss and other
comprehensive income. The Board also proposed to require items of OCI to be classified into items that
might be reclassified (recycled) to profit or loss in subsequent periods and items that would not be
reclassified subsequently.
BC54B In its deliberations on financial instruments and pensions the Board discussed the increasing importance of
consistent presentation of items of OCI. Both projects will increase the number of items presented in OCI,
particularly items that will not be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss. Therefore the Board thought it
important that all income and expenses that are components of the total non-owner changes in equity should
be presented transparently.
BC54C The Board has no plans to eliminate profit or loss as a measure of performance. Profit or loss will be
presented separately and will remain the required starting point for the calculation of earnings per share.
BC54D The Board had previously received responses to similar proposals for a single statement of comprehensive
income. In October 2008 the Board and the FASB jointly published a discussion paper, Preliminary Views
on Financial Statement Presentation. In that paper, the boards proposed eliminating the alternative
presentation formats for comprehensive income and to require an entity to present comprehensive income
and its components in a single statement. The boards asked for views on that proposal. The responses were
split on whether an entity should present comprehensive income and its components in a single statement or
in two separate statements. In general, respondents supporting a single statement of comprehensive income
said that it would lead to greater transparency, consistency and comparability. Furthermore, the process of
calculating financial ratios would be made easier.
BC54E Respondents disagreeing with the proposal for a single statement of comprehensive income urged the
boards to defer any changes to the guidance on the statement of comprehensive income until the boards had
completed a project to revise the guidance on what items should be presented in OCI. Those respondents
also said that a single statement would undermine the importance of profit or loss by making it a subtotal
and that presenting total comprehensive income as the last number in the statement would confuse users.
They also feared that requiring all items of income and expense to be presented in a single statement was
the first step by the boards towards eliminating the notion of profit or loss. In addition, they argued that the
items that are presented in OCI are different from items presented in profit or loss. Therefore they preferred
either to keep the presentation of profit or loss separate from the presentation of OCI or to allow
management to choose to present them either in a single statement or in two statements.

©
IFRS Foundation 17
IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC54F In the responses to the exposure draft of May 2010 many of the respondents objected to the proposals to
remove the option to present all items of income and expense in two statements. The arguments used by
those objecting were much the same as those received on the discussion paper. However, many respondents,
regardless of their views on the proposed amendments, said that the Board should establish a conceptual
basis for what should be presented in OCI. Those opposed to a continuous statement cited OCI’s lack of a
conceptual definition and therefore believed that OCI should not be presented in close proximity to profit or
loss because this would confuse users. However, users generally said that the lack of a conceptual
framework made it difficult to distinguish the underlying economics of items reported in profit or loss (net
income) from items reported in other comprehensive income. Although users also asked for a conceptual
framework for OCI, most supported the notion of a single statement of comprehensive income.
BC54G Another issue on which many respondents commented was the reclassification (recycling) of OCI items.
Those respondents said that in addition to addressing the conceptual basis for the split between profit or loss
and OCI the Board should set principles for which OCI items should be reclassified (recycled) to profit or
loss and when they should be reclassified. The Board acknowledges that it has not set out a conceptual basis
for how it determines whether an item should be presented in OCI or in profit or loss. It also agrees that it
has not set out principles to determine whether items should be reclassified to profit or loss. Those matters
were not within the scope of this project, which focused on presentation, and therefore the Board has not
addressed them at this time. However, the Board is consulting on its future agenda, which could lead to
those matters becoming part of the work programme.
BC54H In the light of the response the Board confirmed in June 2011 the requirement for items of OCI to be
classified into items that will not be reclassified (recycled) to profit or loss in subsequent periods and items
that might be reclassified.
BC54I The Board also decided not to mandate the presentation of profit or loss in a continuous statement of profit
or loss and other comprehensive income but to maintain an option to present two statements. The Board did
this in the light of the negative response to its proposal for a continuous statement and the resistance to this
change signified by a majority of respondents.
BC54J The FASB also proposed in its exposure draft to mandate a continuous statement of comprehensive income
but decided in the light of the responses not to go as far as mandating a single statement and instead to
allow the two-statement option. Nevertheless, the changes made by the FASB are a significant improvement
for US GAAP, which previously allowed an option to present OCI items in stockholders’ equity or in the
notes to the financial statements.
BC54K In 2013 the IFRS Interpretations Committee reported to the Board that there was uncertainty about the
requirements in paragraph 82A of IAS 1 for presenting an entity’s share of items of other comprehensive
income of associates and joint ventures accounted for using the equity method. The Board agreed that
paragraph 82A allowed for diverse interpretations, and therefore decided to amend IAS 1 as follows:
(a) to clarify that paragraph 82A requires entities to present the share of other comprehensive income
of associates and joint ventures accounted for using the equity method, separated into the share of
items that:
(i) will not be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss; and
(ii) will be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss when specific conditions are met.
(b) to amend the Guidance on Implementing IAS 1 to reflect the clarification of paragraph 82A.
The Board noted that whether an amount is reclassified to profit or loss is determined by the nature of the
underlying item. It also noted that the timing of reclassification is usually determined by the actions of the
investee. It may however also be triggered by the investor, which would be the case on the disposal of the
investee by the investor.

BC54L The feedback received on the March 2014 Exposure Draft included requests for the Board to clarify
whether the investor’s share of the other comprehensive income of its associate or joint venture should be
presented net or gross of tax and the applicability of the guidance in paragraphs 90–91 of IAS 1 in this
regard. The Board noted that an investor’s share of other comprehensive income of associates or joint
ventures is after tax and non-controlling interests of the associate or joint venture, as illustrated in the
Guidance on Implementing IAS 1. It also noted that the disclosure requirements in paragraphs 90–91 do not
apply to the tax of the associate or joint venture that is already reflected in the investor’s share of other
comprehensive income of the associate or joint venture. However, the Board noted that if the investor itself
is liable for tax in respect of its share of other comprehensive income of the associate or joint venture, then
paragraphs 90–91 would apply to this tax. Therefore, the Board decided not to add additional guidance to
IAS 1 on this topic.

©
18 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

Results of operating activities

BC55 IAS 1 omits the requirement in the 1997 version to disclose the results of operating activities as a line item
in the income statement. ‘Operating activities’ are not defined in IAS 1, and the Board decided not to
require disclosure of an undefined item.
BC56 The Board recognises that an entity may elect to disclose the results of operating activities, or a similar line
item, even though this term is not defined. In such cases, the Board notes that the entity should ensure that
the amount disclosed is representative of activities that would normally be regarded as ‘operating’. In the
Board’s view, it would be misleading and would impair the comparability of financial statements if items of
an operating nature were excluded from the results of operating activities, even if that had been industry
practice. For example, it would be inappropriate to exclude items clearly related to operations (such as
inventory write-downs and restructuring and relocation expenses) because they occur irregularly or
infrequently or are unusual in amount. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to exclude items on the grounds
that they do not involve cash flows, such as depreciation and amortisation expenses.

Subtotal for profit or loss (paragraph 82)

BC57 As revised, IAS 1 requires a subtotal for profit or loss in the statement of comprehensive income. If an
entity chooses to present comprehensive income by using two statements, it should begin the second
statement with profit or loss—the bottom line of the first statement (the ‘income statement’)—and display
the components of other comprehensive income immediately after that. The Board concluded that this is the
best way to achieve the objective of equal prominence (see paragraph BC22) for the presentation of income
and expenses. An entity that chooses to display comprehensive income in one statement should include
profit or loss as a subtotal within that statement.
BC58 The Board acknowledged that the items included in profit or loss do not possess any unique characteristics
that allow them to be distinguished from items that are included in other comprehensive income. However,
the Board and its predecessor have required some items to be recognised outside profit or loss. The Board
will deliberate in the next stage of the project how items of income and expense should be presented in the
statement of comprehensive income.

Information to be presented in the profit or loss section or the

statement of profit or loss (paragraphs 85–85B)

BC58A In December 2014 the Board issued Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to IAS 1). Those amendments
included amendments to paragraph 85 of IAS 1 and the addition of paragraph 85A. These amendments are
consistent with similar amendments to the requirements for the statement of financial position and therefore
the Basis for Conclusions for these amendments has been included in the section dealing with that statement
(see paragraphs BC38A–BC38G).
BC58B In addition to those amendments, the Board decided to require entities to present line items in the
statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income that reconcile any subtotals presented in
accordance with paragraphs 85–85A of IAS 1 with those that are required in IFRS for the statement(s) of
profit or loss and other comprehensive income. Consequently, it added paragraph 85B to IAS 1. The
purpose of this requirement is to help users of financial statements understand the relationship between the
subtotals presented in accordance with paragraph 85 and the specific totals and subtotals required in IFRS to
address concerns that that relationship would not be clear. The Board noted that such a requirement is
already implicit in existing IFRS requirements. IFRS requires entities to present aggregated information as
line items when such presentation provides material information. Consequently, because all recognised
items of income and expense must be included in the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive
income totals, any intervening line items and subtotals necessarily reconcile. However, the Board decided to
make the requirement more explicit for the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income to
help users of financial statements understand the relationship between subtotals and totals presented in the
statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income.

©
IFRS Foundation 19
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Minority interest (paragraph 83)8

BC59 IAS 1 requires the ‘profit or loss attributable to minority interest’ and ‘profit or loss attributable to owners
of the parent’ each to be presented in the income statement in accordance with paragraph 83. These amounts
are to be presented as allocations of profit or loss, not as items of income or expense. A similar requirement
has been added for the statement of changes in equity, in paragraph 106(a). These changes are consistent
with IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, which requires that in a consolidated balance
sheet (now called ‘statement of financial position’), minority interest is presented within equity because it
does not meet the definition of a liability in the Framework.

Extraordinary items (paragraph 87)

BC60 IAS 8 Net Profit or Loss for the Period, Fundamental Errors and Changes in Accounting Policies (issued in
1993) required extraordinary items to be disclosed in the income statement separately from the profit or loss
from ordinary activities. That standard defined ‘extraordinary items’ as ‘income or expenses that arise from
events or transactions that are clearly distinct from the ordinary activities of the enterprise and therefore are
not expected to recur frequently or regularly’.
BC61 In 2002, the Board decided to eliminate the concept of extraordinary items from IAS 8 and to prohibit the
presentation of items of income and expense as ‘extraordinary items’ in the income statement and the notes.
Therefore, in accordance with IAS 1, no items of income and expense are to be presented as arising from
outside the entity’s ordinary activities.
BC62 Some respondents to the exposure draft of 2002 argued that extraordinary items should be presented in a
separate component of the income statement because they are clearly distinct from all of the other items of
income and expense, and because such presentation highlights to users of financial statements the items of
income and expense to which the least attention should be given when predicting an entity’s future
performance.
BC63 The Board decided that items treated as extraordinary result from the normal business risks faced by an
entity and do not warrant presentation in a separate component of the income statement. The nature or
function of a transaction or other event, rather than its frequency, should determine its presentation within
the income statement. Items currently classified as ‘extraordinary’ are only a subset of the items of income
and expense that may warrant disclosure to assist users in predicting an entity’s future performance.
BC64 Eliminating the category of extraordinary items eliminates the need for arbitrary segregation of the effects
of related external events—some recurring and others not—on the profit or loss of an entity for a period.
For example, arbitrary allocations would have been necessary to estimate the financial effect of an
earthquake on an entity’s profit or loss if it occurs during a major cyclical downturn in economic activity. In
addition, paragraph 97 of IAS 1 requires disclosure of the nature and amount of material items of income
and expense.

Other comprehensive income—related tax effects (paragraphs 90

and 91)

BC65 The exposure draft of 2006 proposed to allow components of ‘other recognised income and expense’ (now
‘other comprehensive income’) to be presented before tax effects (‘gross presentation’) or after their related
tax effects (‘net presentation’). The ‘gross presentation’ facilitated the traceability of other comprehensive
income items to profit or loss, because items of profit or loss are generally displayed before tax. The ‘net
presentation’ facilitated the identification of other comprehensive income items in the equity section of the
statement of financial position. A majority of respondents supported allowing both approaches. The Board
reaffirmed its conclusion that components of other comprehensive income could be displayed either (a) net
of related tax effects or (b) before related tax effects.
BC66 Regardless of whether a pre-tax or post-tax display was used, the exposure draft proposed to require
disclosure of the amount of income tax expense or benefit allocated separately to individual components of
other comprehensive income, in line with SFAS 130. Many respondents agreed in principle with this
disclosure, because they agreed that it helped to improve the clarity and transparency of such information,

8
In January 2008 the IASB issued an amended IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, which amended ‘minority
interest’ to ‘non-controlling interests’. The consolidation requirements in IAS 27 were superseded by IFRS 10 Consolidated
Financial Statements issued in May 2011. The term ‘non-controlling interests’ and the requirements for non-controlling interests
were not changed.

©
20 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

particularly when components of other comprehensive income are taxed at rates different from those
applied to profit or loss.
BC67 However, most respondents expressed concern about having to trace the tax effect for each one of the
components of other comprehensive income. Several observed that the tax allocation process is arbitrary (eg
it may involve the application of subjectively determined tax rates) and some pointed out that this
information is not readily available for some industries (eg the insurance sector), where components of
other comprehensive income are multiple and tax allocation involves a high degree of subjectivity. Others
commented that they did not understand why tax should be attributed to components of comprehensive
income line by line, when this is not a requirement for items in profit or loss.
BC68 The Board decided to maintain the disclosure of income tax expense or benefit allocated to each component
of other comprehensive income. Users of financial statements often requested further information on tax
amounts relating to components of other comprehensive income, because tax rates often differed from those
applied to profit or loss. The Board also observed that an entity should have such tax information available
and that a disclosure requirement would therefore not involve additional cost for preparers of financial
statements.
BC68A In its exposure draft Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income published in May 2010 the
Board proposed requiring that income tax on items presented in OCI should be allocated between items that
will not be subsequently reclassified to profit or loss and those that might be reclassified, if the items in OCI
are presented before tax. Most respondents agreed with this proposal as this would be in line with the
existing options in IAS 1 regarding presentation of income tax on OCI items. Therefore the Board
confirmed the proposal in June 2011.

Reclassification adjustments (paragraphs 92–96)

BC69 In the exposure draft of 2006, the Board proposed that an entity should separately present reclassification
adjustments. These adjustments are the amounts reclassified to profit or loss in the current period that were
previously recognised in other comprehensive income. The Board decided that adjustments necessary to
avoid double-counting items in total comprehensive income when those items are reclassified to profit or
loss in accordance with IFRSs. The Board’s view was that separate presentation of reclassification
adjustments is essential to inform users of those amounts that are included as income and expenses in
different periods—as income or expenses in other comprehensive income in previous periods and as income
or expenses in profit or loss in the current period. Without such information, users may find it difficult to
assess the effect of reclassifications on profit or loss and to calculate the overall gain or loss associated with
available-for-sale financial assets,9 cash flow hedges and on translation or disposal of foreign operations.
BC70 Most respondents agreed with the Board’s decision and believe that the disclosure of reclassification
adjustments is important to understanding how components recognised in profit or loss are related to other
items recognised in equity in two different periods. However, some respondents suggested that the Board
should use the term ‘recycling’, rather than ‘reclassification’ as the former term is more common. The
Board concluded that both terms are similar in meaning, but decided to use the term ‘reclassification
adjustment’ to converge with the terminology used in SFAS 130.
BC71 The exposure draft proposed to allow the presentation of reclassification adjustments in the statement of
recognised income and expense (now ‘statement of comprehensive income’) or in the notes. Most
respondents supported this approach.
BC72 Some respondents noted some inconsistencies in the definition of ‘reclassification adjustments’ in the
exposure draft (now paragraphs 7 and 93 of IAS 1). Respondents suggested that the Board should expand
the definition in paragraph 7 to include gains and losses recognised in current periods in addition to those
recognised in earlier periods, to make the definition consistent with paragraph 93. They commented that,
without clarification, there could be differences between interim and annual reporting, for reclassifications
of items that arise in one interim period and reverse out in a different interim period within the same annual
period.
BC73 The Board decided to align the definition of reclassification adjustments with SFAS 130 and include an
additional reference to ‘current periods’ in paragraph 7.

9
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments eliminated the category of available-for-sale financial assets. This paragraph refers to matters
relevant when IAS 1 was issued.

©
IFRS Foundation 21
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Statement of changes in equity

Effects of retrospective application or retrospective restatement

(paragraph 106(b))

BC74 Some respondents to the exposure draft of 2006 asked the Board to clarify whether the effects of
retrospective application or retrospective restatement, as defined in IAS 8, should be regarded as non-owner
changes in equity. The Board noted that IAS 1 specifies that these effects are included in the statement of
changes in equity. However, the Board decided to clarify that the effects of retrospective application or
retrospective restatement are not changes in equity in the period, but provide a reconciliation between the
previous period’s closing balance and the opening balance in the statement of changes in equity.

Reconciliation for each component of other comprehensive

income (paragraphs 106(d)(ii) and 106A)

BC74A Paragraph 106(d) requires an entity to provide a reconciliation of changes in each component of equity. In
Improvements to IFRSs issued in May 2010, the Board clarified that entities may present the required
reconciliations for each component of other comprehensive income either in the statement of changes in
equity or in the notes to the financial statements.

Presentation of dividends (paragraph 107)

BC75 The Board reaffirmed its conclusion to require the presentation of dividends in the statement of changes in
equity or in the notes, because dividends are distributions to owners in their capacity as owners and the
statement of changes in equity presents all owner changes in equity. The Board concluded that an entity
should not present dividends in the statement of comprehensive income because that statement presents
non-owner changes in equity.

Statement of cash flows

IAS 7 Cash Flow Statements (paragraph 111)

BC76 The Board considered whether the operating section of an indirect method statement of cash flows should
begin with total comprehensive income instead of profit or loss as is required by IAS 7 Cash Flow
Statements. When components of other comprehensive income are non-cash items, they would become
reconciling items in arriving at cash flows from operating activities and would add items to the statement of
cash flows without adding information content. The Board concluded that an amendment to IAS 7 is not
required; however, as mentioned in paragraph BC14 the Board decided to relabel this financial statement as
‘statement of cash flows’.

Notes

Structure (paragraphs 112–116)

BC76A The Board is aware that some had interpreted paragraph 114 of IAS 1 as requiring a specific order for the
notes. Paragraph 114 stated that ‘an entity normally presents notes in the [following] order’ and then listed a
particular order for the notes. Some think that the use of ‘normally’ makes it difficult for an entity to vary
the order of the notes from the one that is listed in paragraph 114; for example, by disclosing the notes in
order of importance or disclosing related information together in sections.
BC76B Investors’ feedback indicates that some investors prefer an entity to vary the order of the notes from the one
that is listed in paragraph 114 of IAS 1. Other investors would prefer entities to use that order because they
think it will increase comparability between periods and across entities.

©
22 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC76C The Board considered the use of the word normally in paragraph 114 of IAS 1 and concluded that it was not
intended that entities be required to disclose their notes in that order. Instead, it thinks that the order listed
was intended to provide an example of how an entity could order the notes and that the term normal was not
meant to imply that alternative ordering of the notes is ‘abnormal’. The Board therefore amended IAS 1 to
clarify that the order listed in paragraph 114 is an example of how an entity could order or group its notes in
a systematic manner. The Board also made amendments to clarify that significant accounting policies do not
need to be disclosed in one note, but instead can be included with related information in other notes.
BC76D The Board also noted the requirement in paragraph 113 of IAS 1 for entities to, as far as practicable, present
the notes in a systematic manner. In the Board’s view, this means that there must be a system or reason
behind the ordering and grouping of the notes. For example, notes could be ordered by importance to the
entity, in the order line items are presented in the financial statements or a combination of both. The Board
amended paragraph 113 to clarify that an entity should consider the effect on the understandability and
comparability of its financial statements when determining the order of the notes. The Board acknowledged
that there is a trade-off between understandability and comparability; for example, ordering notes to
increase understandability could mean that comparability, including consistency, between entities and
periods is reduced. In particular, the Board acknowledged that consistency in the order of the notes for a
specific entity from period to period is important. The Board noted that it would generally be helpful for
users of financial statements if the ordering of notes by an entity is consistent and noted that it does not
expect the order of an entity’s notes to change frequently. A change in the order of the notes previously
determined to be an optimal mix of understandability and comparability should generally result from a
specific event or transaction, such as a change in business. The Board also noted that the existing
requirements in paragraph 45 of IAS 1 for consistency of presentation still apply.
BC76E The Board also observed that electronic versions of financial statements can make it easier to search for,
locate and compare information within the financial statements, between periods and between entities.

Disclosure of accounting policies (paragraphs 117–121)

BC76F Paragraph 117 of IAS 1 requires significant accounting policies to be disclosed and gives guidance, along
with paragraphs 118–124 of IAS 1, about what a significant accounting policy could be. That guidance
includes, as examples of significant accounting policies, the income taxes accounting policy and the foreign
currency accounting policy.
BC76G Some suggested that it is not helpful to provide the income taxes accounting policy as an example of a
policy that users of financial statements would expect to be disclosed. Being liable to income taxes is
typical for many entities and it was not clear, from the example, what aspect of the entity’s operations
would make a user of financial statements expect an accounting policy on income taxes to be disclosed.
Consequently, the example does not illustrate why an accounting policy on income taxes is significant. The
Board also thought that the foreign currency accounting policy example in paragraph 120 of IAS 1 was
unhelpful for the same reasons and therefore deleted the income taxes and foreign currency examples.

Disclosure of the judgements that management has made in the

process of applying the entity’s accounting policies (paragraphs
122–124)

BC77 The revised IAS 1 requires disclosure of the judgements, apart from those involving estimations, that
management has made in the process of applying the entity’s accounting policies and that have the most
significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements (see paragraph 122). An example of
these judgements is how management determines whether financial assets are held-to-maturity
investments.10 The Board decided that disclosure of the most important of these judgements would enable
users of financial statements to understand better how the accounting policies are applied and to make
comparisons between entities regarding the basis on which managements make these judgements.
BC78 Comments received on the exposure draft of 2002 indicated that the purpose of the proposed disclosure was
unclear. Accordingly, the Board amended the disclosure explicitly to exclude judgements involving
estimations (which are the subject of the disclosure in paragraph 125) and added another four examples of
the types of judgements disclosed (see paragraphs 123 and 124).

10
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments eliminated the category of held-to-maturity financial assets. This paragraph refers to matters relevant
when IAS 1 was issued.

©
IFRS Foundation 23
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Disclosure of major sources of estimation uncertainty (paragraphs

125–133)

BC79 IAS 1 requires disclosure of the assumptions concerning the future, and other major sources of estimation
uncertainty at the end of the reporting period, that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to
the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next financial year. For those assets and liabilities,
the proposed disclosures include details of:
(a) their nature; and
(b) their carrying amount as at the end of the reporting period (see paragraph 125).
BC80 Determining the carrying amounts of some assets and liabilities requires estimation of the effects of
uncertain future events on those assets and liabilities at the end of the reporting period. For example, in the
absence of recently observed market prices used to measure the following assets and liabilities, future-
oriented estimates are necessary to measure the recoverable amount of classes of property, plant and
equipment, the effect of technological obsolescence of inventories, provisions subject to the future outcome
of litigation in progress, and long-term employee benefit liabilities such as pension obligations. These
estimates involve assumptions about items such as the risk adjustment to cash flows or discount rates used,
future changes in salaries and future changes in prices affecting other costs. No matter how diligently an
entity estimates the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities subject to significant estimation uncertainty at
the end of the reporting period, the reporting of point estimates in the statement of financial position cannot
provide information about the estimation uncertainties involved in measuring those assets and liabilities and
the implications of those uncertainties for the period’s profit or loss.
BC81 The Framework states that ‘The economic decisions that are made by users of financial statements require
an evaluation of the ability of an entity to generate cash and cash equivalents and of the timing and certainty
of their generation.’ The Board decided that disclosure of information about assumptions and other major
sources of estimation uncertainty at the end of the reporting period enhances the relevance, reliability and
understandability of the information reported in financial statements. These assumptions and other sources
of estimation uncertainty relate to estimates that require management’s most difficult, subjective or complex
judgements. Therefore, disclosure in accordance with paragraph 125 of the revised IAS 1 would be made in
respect of relatively few assets or liabilities (or classes of them).
BC82 The exposure draft of 2002 proposed the disclosure of some ‘sources of measurement uncertainty’. In the
light of comments received that the purpose of this disclosure was unclear, the Board decided:
(a) to amend the subject of that disclosure to ‘sources of estimation uncertainty at the end of the
reporting period’; and
(b) to clarify in the revised Standard that the disclosure does not apply to assets and liabilities
measured at fair value based on recently observed market prices (see paragraph 128 of IAS 1).
BC83 When assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on the basis of recently observed market prices, future
changes in carrying amounts would not result from using estimates to measure the assets and liabilities at
the end of the reporting period. Using observed market prices to measure assets or liabilities obviates the
need for estimates at the end of the reporting period. The market prices properly reflect the fair values at the
end of the reporting period, even though future market prices could be different. The objective of fair value
measurement is to reflect fair value at the measurement date, not to predict a future value. 11
BC84 IAS 1 does not prescribe the particular form or detail of the disclosures. Circumstances differ from entity to
entity, and the nature of estimation uncertainty at the end of the reporting period has many facets. IAS 1
limits the scope of the disclosures to items that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to
the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next financial year. The longer the future period to
which the disclosures relate, the greater the range of items that would qualify for disclosure, and the less
specific are the disclosures that could be made about particular assets or liabilities. A period longer than the
next financial year might obscure the most relevant information with other disclosures.

Disclosures about capital (paragraphs 134 and 135)

BC85 In July 2004 the Board published an exposure draft—ED 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. As part of
that project, the Board considered whether it should require disclosures about capital.

11
IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

©
24 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC86 The level of an entity’s capital and how it manages capital are important factors for users to consider in
assessing the risk profile of an entity and its ability to withstand unexpected adverse events. The level of
capital might also affect the entity’s ability to pay dividends. Consequently, ED 7 proposed disclosures
about capital.
BC87 In ED 7 the Board decided that it should not limit the requirements for disclosures about capital to entities
that are subject to external capital requirements (eg regulatory capital requirements established by
legislation or other regulation). The Board believes that information about capital is useful for all entities, as
is evidenced by the fact that some entities set internal capital requirements and norms have been established
for some industries. The Board noted that the capital disclosures are not intended to replace disclosures
required by regulators. The Board also noted that the financial statements should not be regarded as a
substitute for disclosures to regulators (which may not be available to all users) because the function of
disclosures made to regulators may differ from the function of those to other users. Therefore, the Board
decided that information about capital should be required of all entities because it is useful to users of
general purpose financial statements. Accordingly, the Board did not distinguish between the requirements
for regulated and non-regulated entities.
BC88 Some respondents to ED 7 questioned the relevance of the capital disclosures in an IFRS dealing with
disclosures relating to financial instruments. The Board noted that an entity’s capital does not relate solely
to financial instruments and, thus, capital disclosures have more general relevance. Accordingly, the Board
included these disclosures in IAS 1, rather than IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures, the IFRS
resulting from ED 7.
BC89 The Board also decided that an entity’s decision to adopt the amendments to IAS 1 should be independent
of the entity’s decision to adopt IFRS 7. The Board noted that issuing a separate amendment facilitates
separate adoption decisions.

Objectives, policies and processes for managing capital

(paragraph 136)

BC90 The Board decided that disclosure about capital should be placed in the context of a discussion of the
entity’s objectives, policies and processes for managing capital. This is because the Board believes that such
a discussion both communicates important information about the entity’s capital strategy and provides the
context for other disclosures.
BC91 The Board considered whether an entity can have a view of capital that differs from what IFRSs define as
equity. The Board noted that, although for the purposes of this disclosure capital would often equate with
equity as defined in IFRSs, it might also include or exclude some components. The Board also noted that
this disclosure is intended to give entities the opportunity to describe how they view the components of
capital they manage, if this is different from what IFRSs define as equity.

Externally imposed capital requirements (paragraph 136)

BC92 The Board considered whether it should require disclosure of any externally imposed capital requirements.
Such a capital requirement could be:
(a) an industry-wide requirement with which all entities in the industry must comply; or
(b) an entity-specific requirement imposed on a particular entity by its prudential supervisor or other
regulator.
BC93 The Board noted that some industries and countries have industry-wide capital requirements, and others do
not. Thus, the Board concluded that it should not require disclosure of industry-wide requirements, or
compliance with such requirements, because such disclosure would not lead to comparability between
different entities or between similar entities in different countries.
BC94 The Board concluded that disclosure of the existence and level of entity-specific capital requirements is
important information for users, because it informs them about the risk assessment of the regulator. Such
disclosure improves transparency and market discipline.
BC95 However, the Board noted the following arguments against requiring disclosure of externally imposed
entity-specific capital requirements.
(a) Users of financial statements might rely primarily on the regulator’s assessment of solvency risk
without making their own risk assessment.

©
IFRS Foundation 25
IAS 1 BC (2018)

(b) The focus of a regulator’s risk assessment is for those whose interests the regulations are intended
to protect (eg depositors or policyholders). This emphasis is different from that of a shareholder.
Thus, it could be misleading to suggest that the regulator’s risk assessment could, or should, be a
substitute for independent analysis by investors.
(c) The disclosure of entity-specific capital requirements imposed by a regulator might undermine
that regulator’s ability to impose such requirements. For example, the information could cause
depositors to withdraw funds, a prospect that might discourage regulators from imposing
requirements. Furthermore, an entity’s regulatory dialogue would become public, which might
not be appropriate in all circumstances.
(d) Because different regulators have different tools available, for example formal requirements and
moral suasion, a requirement to disclose entity-specific capital requirements could not be framed
in a way that would lead to the provision of information that is comparable across entities.
(e) Disclosure of capital requirements (and hence, regulatory judgements) could hamper clear
communication to the entity of the regulator’s assessment by creating incentives to use moral
suasion and other informal mechanisms.
(f) Disclosure requirements should not focus on entity-specific capital requirements in isolation, but
should focus on how entity-specific capital requirements affect how an entity manages and
determines the adequacy of its capital resources.
(g) A requirement to disclose entity-specific capital requirements imposed by a regulator is not part
of Pillar 3 of the Basel II Framework developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
BC96 Taking into account all of the above arguments, the Board decided not to require quantitative disclosure of
externally imposed capital requirements. Rather, it decided to require disclosures about whether the entity
complied with any externally imposed capital requirements during the period and, if not, the consequences
of non-compliance. This retains confidentiality between regulators and the entity, but alerts users to
breaches of capital requirements and their consequences.
BC97 Some respondents to ED 7 did not agree that breaches of externally imposed capital requirements should be
disclosed. They argued that disclosure about breaches of externally imposed capital requirements and the
associated regulatory measures subsequently imposed could be disproportionately damaging to entities. The
Board was not persuaded by these arguments because it believes that such concerns indicate that
information about breaches of externally imposed capital requirements may often be material by its nature.
The Framework states that ‘Information is material if its omission or misstatement could influence the
economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements.’ Similarly, the Board decided not
to provide an exemption for temporary non-compliance with regulatory requirements during the year.
Information that an entity is sufficiently close to its limits to breach them, even on a temporary basis, is
useful for users.

Internal capital targets

BC98 The Board proposed in ED 7 that the requirement to disclose information about breaches of capital
requirements should apply equally to breaches of internally imposed requirements, because it believed the
information is also useful to a user of the financial statements.
BC99 However, this proposal was criticised by respondents to ED 7 for the following reasons:
(a) The information is subjective and, thus, not comparable between entities. In particular, different
entities will set internal targets for different reasons, so a breach of a requirement might signify
different things for different entities. In contrast, a breach of an external requirement has similar
implications for all entities required to comply with similar requirements.
(b) Capital targets are not more important than other internally set financial targets, and to require
disclosure only of capital targets would provide users with incomplete, and perhaps misleading,
information.
(c) Internal targets are estimates that are subject to change by the entity. It is not appropriate to
require the entity’s performance against this benchmark to be disclosed.
(d) An internally set capital target can be manipulated by management. The disclosure requirement
could cause management to set the target so that it would always be achieved, providing little
useful information to users and potentially reducing the effectiveness of the entity’s capital
management.

©
26 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC100 As a result, the Board decided not to require disclosure of the capital targets set by management, whether
the entity has complied with those targets, or the consequences of any non-compliance. However, the Board
confirmed its view that when an entity has policies and processes for managing capital, qualitative
disclosures about these policies and processes are useful. The Board also concluded that these disclosures,
together with disclosure of the components of equity and their changes during the year (required by
paragraphs 106–110), would give sufficient information about entities that are not regulated or subject to
externally imposed capital requirements.

Puttable financial instruments and obligations arising on

liquidation

BC100A The Board decided to require disclosure of information about puttable instruments and instruments that
impose on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity
only on liquidation that are reclassified in accordance with paragraphs 16E and 16F of IAS 32. This is
because the Board concluded that this disclosure allows users of financial statements to understand the
effects of any reclassifications.
BC100B The Board also concluded that entities with puttable financial instruments classified as equity should be
required to disclose additional information to allow users to assess any effect on the entity’s liquidity arising
from the ability of the holder to put the instruments to the issuer. Financial instruments classified as equity
usually do not include any obligation for the entity to deliver a financial asset to another party. Therefore,
the Board concluded that additional disclosures are needed in these circumstances. In particular, the Board
concluded that entities should disclose the expected cash outflow on redemption or repurchase of those
financial instruments that are classified as equity and information about how that amount was determined.
That information allows liquidity risk associated with the put obligation and future cash flows to be
evaluated.

Presentation of measures per share

BC101 The exposure draft of 2006 did not propose to change the requirements of IAS 33 Earnings per Share on
the presentation of basic and diluted earnings per share. A majority of respondents agreed with this
decision. In their opinion, earnings per share should be the only measure per share permitted or required in
the statement of comprehensive income and changing those requirements was beyond the scope of this
stage of the financial statement presentation project.
BC102 However, some respondents would like to see alternative measures per share whenever earnings per share is
not viewed as the most relevant measure for financial analysts (ie credit rating agencies that focus on other
measures). A few respondents proposed that an entity should also display an amount per share for total
comprehensive income, because this was considered a useful measure. The Board did not support including
alternative measures per share in the financial statements, until totals and subtotals, and principles for
aggregating and disaggregating items, are addressed and discussed as part of the next stage of the financial
statement presentation project.
BC103 Some respondents also interpreted the current provisions in IAS 33 as allowing de facto a display of
alternative measures in the income statement. In its deliberations, the Board was clear that paragraph 73 of
IAS 33 did not leave room for confusion. However, it decided that the wording in paragraph 73 could be
improved to clarify that alternative measures should be shown ‘only in the notes’. This will be done when
IAS 33 is revisited or as part of the annual improvements process.
BC104 One respondent commented that the use of the word ‘earnings’ was inappropriate in the light of changes
proposed in the exposure draft and that the measure should be denominated ‘profit or loss per share’,
instead. The Board considered that this particular change in terminology was beyond the scope of IAS 1.

Transition and effective date

BC105 The Board is committed to maintaining a ‘stable platform’ of substantially unchanged standards for annual
periods beginning between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008. In addition, some preparers will need
time to make the system changes necessary to comply with the revisions to IAS 1. Therefore, the Board
decided that the effective date of IAS 1 should be annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009, with
earlier application permitted.

©
IFRS Foundation 27
IAS 1 BC (2018)

BC105A The exposure draft Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income published in May 2010 proposed
changes to presentation of items of OCI. The Board finalised these changes in June 2011 and decided that
the effective dates for these changes should be for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2012, with
earlier application permitted. The Board did not think that a long transition period was needed as the
changes to presentation are small and the presentation required by the amendments is already allowed under
IAS 1.
BC105B The Board had consulted on the effective date and transition requirements for this amendment in its Request
for Views on Effective Dates and Transition Requirements in October 2010 and the responses to that
document did not give the Board any reason to reconsider the effective date and the transition requirements.

Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to IAS 1)

BC105C The Board decided that Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to IAS 1) should be applied for annual periods
beginning on or after 1 January 2016 with early application permitted.
BC105D The Board noted that these amendments clarify existing requirements in IAS 1. They provide additional
guidance to assist entities to apply judgement when meeting the presentation and disclosure requirements in
IFRS. These amendments do not affect recognition and measurement. They should not result in the
reassessment of the judgements about presentation and disclosure made in periods prior to the application of
these amendments.
BC105E Paragraph 38 of IAS 1 requires an entity to present comparative information for all amounts reported in the
current period financial statements and for narrative or descriptive information ‘if it is relevant to
understanding the current period’s financial statements’. If an entity alters the order of the notes or the
information presented or disclosed compared to the previous year, it also adjusts the comparative
information to align with the current period presentation and disclosure. For that reason, IAS 1 already
provides relief from having to disclose comparative information that is not considered relevant in the
current period and requires comparative information for new amounts presented or disclosed in the current
period.
BC105F The March 2014 Exposure Draft proposed that if an entity applies these amendments early that it should
disclose that fact. However, the Board removed this requirement and stated in the transition provisions that
an entity need not disclose the fact that it has applied these amendments (regardless of whether the
amendments have been applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016 or if they have been
applied early). This is because the Board considers that these amendments are clarifying amendments that
do not directly affect an entity’s accounting policies or accounting estimates. Similarly, an entity does not
need to disclose the information required by paragraphs 28–30 of IAS 8 in relation to these amendments.
The Board noted that if an entity decides to change its accounting policies as a result of applying these
amendments then it would be required to follow the existing requirements in IAS 8 in relation to those
accounting policy changes.

Differences from SFAS 130

BC106 In developing IAS 1, the Board identified the following differences from SFAS 130:
(a) Reporting and display of comprehensive income Paragraph 22 of SFAS 130 permits a choice
of displaying comprehensive income and its components, in one or two statements of financial
performance or in a statement of changes in equity. IAS 1 (as revised in 2007) does not permit
display in a statement of changes in equity.
(b) Reporting other comprehensive income in the equity section of a statement of financial
position Paragraph 26 of SFAS 130 specifically states that the total of other comprehensive
income is reported separately from retained earnings and additional paid-in capital in a statement
of financial position at the end of the period. A descriptive title such as accumulated other
comprehensive income is used for that component of equity. An entity discloses accumulated
balances for each classification in that separate component of equity in a statement of financial
position, in a statement of changes in equity, or in notes to the financial statements. IAS 1 (as
revised in 2007) does not specifically require the display of a total of accumulated other
comprehensive income in the statement of financial position.
(c) Display of the share of other comprehensive income items of associates and joint ventures
accounted for using the equity method Paragraph 82 of IAS 1 (as revised in 2007) requires the
display in the statement of comprehensive income of the investor’s share of the investee’s other
comprehensive income. Paragraph 122 of SFAS 130 does not specify how that information

©
28 IFRS Foundation
 IAS 1 BC (2018)

should be displayed. An investor is permitted to combine its proportionate share of other

comprehensive income amounts with its own other comprehensive income items and display the
aggregate of those amounts in an income statement type format or in a statement of changes in
equity.

©
IFRS Foundation 29
IAS 1 BC (2018)

Appendix
Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs

This appendix contains amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs that are necessary in order to ensure
consistency with the revised IAS 1. Amended paragraphs are shown with the new text underlined and deleted text
struck through.

*****

The amendments contained in this appendix when this Standard was revised in 2007 have been incorporated into the
relevant IFRSs published in this volume.

©
30 IFRS Foundation