Contingent Liabilities: IASB Proposals Would Create New Differences between IFRS and GAAP

On January 5, 2010, the International Accounting Standards Board re-exposed proposals on measuring liabilities for asset decommissioning, legal disputes and similar items.  This exposure draft follows a 2005 exposure draft which included amendments to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. 

The 2010 proposals were issued to clarify guidance in the original exposure draft.  The new proposal would require an entity to measure a liability at the amount that it would rationally pay at the end of the reporting period to be relieved of the present obligation.

An important aspect of the 2010 exposure draft is that it focuses on measurement guidance, and not recognition guidance for a liability.  Changes to recognition criteria were included in the 2005 exposure draft and were not re-exposed for comment.

Currently, IAS 37 states that provisions should be recognized if it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle an obligation. The term probable in IAS 37 is defined as “more likely than not”.  This guidance is similar to recognition criteria under US GAAP for recognizing contingent liabilities.  However, probable under US GAAP is defined as “likely”, a higher threshold than required under IFRS.

The original 2005 exposure draft proposals would drop the recognition requirement that future outflows had to be “probable” before recording a provision. This means that items that meet the definition of a liability are recognized.  The proposal to drop the probability threshold for recognition is a significant change to how accountants are used to evaluating when to recognize a provision for contingent liabilities.

The direction the IASB is going with this standard will result in important changes to existing guidance and create new differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. This project is one that the IASB believes is needed to improve the standards, but is not part of the convergence program with the U.S.  Despite focused convergence efforts between the IASB and FASB, this is an example that illustrates how full convergence will be difficult to achieve.

Concerns have been expressed about the IASB’s direction on this standard and some have questioned why any changes are needed – especially given other priorities.  (See Confrontation looms over accounting for legal bills, Accountancy Age, April 1, 2010.)  The IASB recently extended its comment period to May 19, but is targeting issuance of an amended standard in the second quarter of this year.

Do you believe that the changes being proposed by the IASB for liability recognition and measurement are improvements?

- Paul Parks | www.IFRS.com

Comments

[Butuan City]

This is such an interesting story at it gives in-depth information to the reader as well. Good thing you have it shared.

[jwh-018]

Such an interesting story to read and I enjoyed reading it as well. Keep up the good work..

[Magvie Kota]

I agree with what you said about IASB proposals creating new differences on IFRS and GAAP. This is such a good thing to hear from.

[Oli Hille]

This takes me back! I remember doing a project on contingent liabilities at college!

Oli Hille
Author

[Financial Accounting]

We sure do believe that the changes being proposed by the IASB for liability recognition and measurement are improvements

[GoodKaren]

Following my exploration, billions of persons all over the world get the loan from well known banks. Thus, there is a good possibility to receive a college loan in every country.

[Jim Martin]

The given definitions of FASB "likely" versus IFRS "more likely, than not" is not a significant departure from each other. They are both still subject to independent bias.

[Christopher Jennings]

The IASB was founded on April 1, 2001 as the successor to the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). It is responsible for developing International Financial Reporting Standards, and promoting the use and application of these standards.

[C. Alarcon]

I think what the IASB proposes can only be known to be successful when enough time has gone by. One have to check the results.