Welcome to the website of the IFRS Foundation and the IASB

Wednesday 22 May 2013

Search
Banner graphic

Skip Navigation LinksProjectsWork plan for IFRSsAcquisition of an Interest in a Joint OperationDue process steps

Acquisition of an Interest in a Joint Operation


Due process steps

Current stage

 

Step Required/
OptionalMetrics or
evidenceProtocol for and evidence
provided to DPOCActions
Board meetings held in public, with papers available for observers. All decisions are made in public session.

Required

Meetings held to discuss topic.

Project website contains a full description with up-to-date information on the project.

Meeting papers posted in a timely fashion.

Members of the IASB discuss with DPOC progress on major projects, in relation to the due process being conducted.

DPOC reviews comments from interested parties on IASB due process as appropriate.

This issue was discussed on the basis of publicly available agenda papers at the Interpretations Committee meetings in:

  • July 2011;
  • September 2011;
  • November 2011;
  • January 2011; and
  • March 2011.

The Interpretations Committee webpages were updated by the staff after every meeting in which this issue was discussed.

A project webpage was created after the September 2012 IASB meeting.

The results of the discussions of the Interpretations Committee were also summarised in the IFRIC Update for each meeting.

Afterwards, the IASB discussed the issue at its September 2012 meeting and decided to add this issue to its agenda and to propose the amendment to IFRS 11 and IFRS 1 as set out in the Exposure Draft.

Formal consultation with the Trustees and the IFRS Advisory Council

Required

Discussions with the IFRS Advisory Council on topic.

DPOC meets with the Advisory Council to understand perspectives of stakeholders on due process of IASB.

IFRS Advisory Council Chair invited to Trustees’ meetings and meetings of DPOC

This proposed amendment is part of the IASB’s and the Interpretations Committee’s work on maintenance of IFRSs.

The issue relates to a lack of guidance in IFRSs that is leading to significant diversity in practice.

The proposed amendment is narrow in scope and occupies little of the IASB’s time. Given the limited nature of the project and the narrow scope of the proposed amendment, the IASB does not undertake a separate consultation with the Advisory Council.

Analysis of likely effects of the forthcoming IFRS or major amendment, for example, costs or on-going associated costs.

Required

Publication of effect analysis

IASB reviews with DPOC results of effect analysis and how it has considered such findings in proposed IFRS.

IASB provides a copy of the effect analysis to the DPOC at the point of standard’s publication.

Given the narrow scope and the expected limited consequences of the proposed amendment, an effects analysis is not prepared.

Consultative groups utilised, if formed

Optional

Number of consultative group meetings, and evidence of substantive involvement in issues

Consultative group review of draft Exposure Draft

DPOC receives report of consultative group activity from IASB.

N/A

Fieldwork undertaken in analysing proposals

Optional

IASB describes approach taken on fieldwork

IASB explains why it does not believe fieldwork is warranted, if that is the preferred path

Number of field tests

DPOC to review the IASB’s explanation if fieldwork is deemed by IASB as not required and have the opportunity to discuss the explanation with IASB

DPOC receives a report on fieldwork activities and how findings have been taken into consideration by IASB

N/A

Outreach meetings with a broad range of stakeholders, with special effort for investors

Optional

Number of meetings held and location

Evidence of specific targeted efforts for investors

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities and IASB reviews with DPOC outreach plan for the ED and its approach to the optional steps to ensure extensive outreach and public consultation

The staff did conduct outreach with the IFASS group and interested parties, in particular preparers from extractive industries and large firms.

The results from the outreach were discussed by the Interpretations Committee at its meeting in November 2011.

Webcasts and podcasts to provide interested parties with high level updates or other useful information about specific projects.

Optional

Number of and participation in webcasts

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities

N/A

Public discussions with representative groups.

Optional

Number of discussions held

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities

N/A

Online survey to generate evidence in support of or against a particular approach.

Optional

Number and results of surveys

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities

N/A

Regional discussion forums, where possible, with national standard-setters with the IASB.

Optional

Schedule of meetings held in these forums

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities DPOC receives a report on outreach activities

N/A

Round tables between external participants and members of the IASB.

Optional

Number of meetings held

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities

N/A

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate

Required

Translations team included in review process.

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an exposure draft is issued.

Translations team has reviewed and formatting changes will be made as a result of their review.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate

Required

XBRL team included in review process.

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an exposure draft is issued.

XBRL team reviewed pre-ballot draft, and will also review ballot draft

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate

Optional

External reviewers used to review drafts and comments collected and considered by the IASB

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an Exposure Draft is issued, including the extent to which external reviewers have been used in the drafting process.

No fatal flaw review is done because:

  • it is an Exposure Draft; and
  • the drafting was already discussed with Interpreta-tions Committee members and IASB members in the course of the meetings when the issue was discussed.

 

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate

Optional

Review draft made available to members of IFASS and comments collected and considered by the IASB

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an exposure draft is issued.

N/A

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate

Optional

Review draft posted on project website.

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an exposure draft is issued.

N/A

Due process steps reviewed by IASB

Required

Summary of all due process steps discussed by the IASB before an IFRS is issued

DPOC receives summary report on due process steps before an exposure draft is issued.

This step will be met by this Staff Paper.

Exposure draft has appropriate comment period.

Required

IASB sets comment period for response.

Any period outside the normal comment period requires explanation from IASB to DPOC, and subsequent approval.

DPOC receives notice of any change in comment period length and approval if required.

The IASB agreed at the September 2012 meeting that a comment period of not less than the standard comment period of 120 days will be used for this exposure draft.

Press release to announce publication of exposure draft.

Optional

Press release published

Media coverage

DPOC informed of the release of the exposure draft.

Press release will be prepared and will be ready to be published with Exposure Draft.

Snapshot document to explain the rationale and basic concepts included in the exposure draft.

Optional

Snapshot posted on IASB website

DPOC receives a report on outreach activities.

Snapshot sent to DPOC members.

N/A

Exposure Draft published

Required

Exposure draft posted on IASB website

DPOC informed of the release of the exposure draft.

Exposure Draft will be made available on the public website on publication date.