This topic includes FAQs relating to the following IFRS standards, IFRIC Interpretations and SIC Interpretations:
IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements IFRIC 5 Rights to Interests arising from Decommissioning, Restoration and Environmental Rehabilitation Funds IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non‑cash Assets to Owners |
Other resources
Sub-topic within this main topic are set out below, with links to IFRS Interpretation Committee agenda decisions and BDO IFRS FAQs relating to that sub-topic below each sub-topic:
| Sub-topic Number | Sub-topic and Related FAQ |
| 401.1 | Scope and definitions |
| |
| 401.2 | The control model |
| |
| 401.3 | Relevant activities |
| 401.4 | Power |
| |
| |
| 401.5 | Power: voting rights |
| 401.6 | Returns |
| 401.7 | Linkage between power and returns |
| 401.8 | Silos |
| 401.9 | Special relationships |
| 401.10 | Structured entities |
| 401.11 | Franchises |
| 401.12 | Consolidation procedures: general |
| 401.13 | Consolidation procedures: special topics |
| 401.14 | Non-controlling interest |
| |
| |
| |
| 401.15 | Change in ownership interest while retaining control |
| 401.16 | Loss of control |
| |
| 401.17 | Continuous assessment of control |
| 401.18 | Investment entities: exception to consolidation |
| |
| |
| 401.19 | Other issues |
|
FAQ# | Title | Text of FAQ | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Financial Instruments puttable at an amount other than Fair Value | January 2007 - The IFRIC received a submission regarding the classification in the financial statements of the holders of financial instruments puttable at the option of the holders at an amount other than fair value (the puttable instruments). The submission noted that the issuer’s contractual obligation to deliver cash requires the issuer to recognise financial liabilities in its financial statements in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The issues are:
Regarding the first issue, ... Regarding the second issue, the IFRIC noted that the control of a subsidiary, and the resulting requirement for a parent to present consolidated financial statements in accordance with IAS 27 [These requirements are now in IFRS 10] (including the requirement to recognise goodwill in accordance with IFRS 3) does not necessarily depend on the parent’s owning equity instruments of the subsidiary. The IFRIC, therefore, decided not to take the second issue onto the agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Identification of the acquirer in accordance with IFRS 3 and the parent in accordance with IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements in a stapling arrangement’ | May 2014 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the interaction of the requirements in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) for identifying an acquirer with the requirements in IFRS 10 for deciding whether control exists. More specifically, the submitter is seeking clarification of whether an acquirer identified for the purpose of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) is a parent for the purpose of IFRS 10 in circumstances in which a business combination is achieved by contract alone, such as a stapling arrangement, with no combining entity obtaining control of the other combining entities. IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) defines a business combination as “a transaction or other event in which an acquirer obtains control of one or more businesses”. In addition, IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) refers to IFRS 10 for the meaning of the term ‘control’. IFRS 10 states that an investor controls an investee when it is exposed, or has rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee and has the ability to affect those returns through its power over the investee. Hence, the Interpretations Committee observed that an investment is not needed in order for an entity to control another entity. The definition of a business combination in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) includes transactions in which an acquirer obtains control of one or more businesses. It also includes transactions that are sometimes referred to as ‘true mergers’ or ‘mergers of equals’. In other words, it includes transactions in which none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities. The Interpretations Committee discussed a stapling arrangement and noted that if the stapling arrangement combines separate entities and businesses by the unification of ownership and voting interests in the combining entities, then such a transaction is a business combination as defined by IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008). Notwithstanding the fact that IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) includes business combinations in which none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities, the Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 6 of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) requires that one of the combining entities in a business combination must be identified as the acquirer. Paragraphs B14–B18 of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) provide additional guidance for identifying the acquirer if the guidance in IFRS 10 does not clearly indicate which combining entity is the acquirer. The Interpretations Committee also noted that paragraph B15(a) of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) provides guidance on identifying the acquirer by assessing the relative voting rights in the combined entity after the combination—this guidance explains that the acquirer is usually the combining entity whose owners, as a group, receive the largest portion of the voting rights in the combined entity. This guidance is consistent with the Interpretations Committee’s observation that the definition of a business combination includes transactions in which none of the combining entities or businesses are identified as having control of the other combining entities. The Interpretations Committee thought that this guidance would be relevant to identifying which of the combining entities is the acquirer in the stapling transaction considered. The Interpretations Committee noted that the IASB stated in the IASB Update for September 2004 that the intended interaction between IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) and IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements is that an entity that is identified as the ‘acquirer’ of another entity in accordance with IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) is a ‘parent’ for the purposes of IAS 27. The Interpretations Committee noted that the meaning of the term ‘acquirer’ has not changed since 2004 and that the term ‘control’ is used consistently between IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. It also noted that the notion in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) that a business combination could occur even if none of the combining entities obtains control of the other combining entities has not changed from IFRS 3 (issued in 2004). Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee observed that the IASB’s statement on the interaction between IFRS 3 (issued in 2004) and IAS 27 remains valid in respect of the interaction between IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee observed that the combining entity in the stapling arrangement that is identified as the acquirer for the purpose of IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) should prepare consolidated financial statements of the combined entity in accordance with IFRS 10.
The Interpretations Committee noted that there is little diversity in practice for the accounting for business combinations achieved by contract alone. It further noted that it does not expect diversity to emerge in the future on the basis of the analysis on the requirements and guidance in IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) and IFRS 10. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Effect of protective rights on an assessment of control | September 2013 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the guidance in IFRS 10. The query relates to protective rights and the effect of those rights on the power over the investee. More specifically, the submitter asked whether the assessment of control should be reassessed when facts and circumstances change in such a way that rights, previously determined to be protective, change (for example upon the breach of a covenant in a borrowing arrangement that causes the borrower to be in default) or whether, instead, such rights are never included in the reassessment of control upon a change in facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee observed that paragraph 8 of IFRS 10 requires an investor to reassess whether it controls an investee if facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. The Interpretations Committee also observed that a breach of a covenant that results in rights becoming exercisable constitutes such a change. It noted that the Standard does not include an exemption for any rights from this need for reassessment. The Interpretations Committee also discussed the IASB's redeliberations of this topic during the development of IFRS 10 and concluded that the IASB's intention was that rights initially determined to be protective should be included in a reassessment of control whenever facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the three elements of control. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee noted that the conclusion about which party controlled the investee would need to be reassessed after the breach occurred. It also noted that the reassessment may or may not result in a change to the outcome of the assessment of control, depending on the individual facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee also concluded that it did not expect significant diversity in practice to develop following the implementation of the Standard. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Single-asset, single lessee lease vehicles | May 2015 - The Interpretations Committee received two requests for clarification about the interaction of IFRS 10 and IAS 17 Leases. In both examples, a structured entity (SE) is created to lease a single asset to a single lessee. In one submission the lease is an operating lease; in the other it is a finance lease. In the case of the operating lease, the question was whether the lessee should consolidate the SE. In the case of the finance lease, the question was whether the lender should consolidate the SE. In both examples, the consolidation decision would be based on an assessment of whether the entity controls the SE. In particular, the submitters asked whether the lessee’s use of the leased asset is a relevant activity of the SE when assessing power over the SE. The Interpretations Committee noted that an entity has power over an investee when it has rights that give it the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the entity, ie the activities that significantly affect the investee’s returns. On entering into a lease, regardless of whether it is a finance lease or an operating lease, the SE (the lessor) would have two rights—a right to receive lease payments and a right to the residual value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Consequently, the activities that would affect the SE’s returns would relate to managing the returns derived from these rights; for example, managing the credit risk associated with the lease payments and any other guaranteed payments or managing the leased asset at the end of the lease term (for example, managing its sale or re-leasing). How the decision-making relating to these activities would significantly affect the SE’s returns would depend on the particular facts and circumstances. The Interpretations Committee was of the view that the lessee’s right to use the leased asset for a period of time would not, in isolation, typically give the lessee decision-making rights over these relevant activities of the SE and hence would not typically be a relevant activity of the SE. However, it noted that this conclusion does not mean that a lessee can never control the lessor. For example, a parent that controls another entity for other reasons can lease an asset from that entity. It also noted that, in assessing control, an entity would consider all of the rights that it has in relation to the investee to determine whether it has power over the investee. This would include rights in contractual arrangements other than the lease contract, such as contractual arrangements for loans made to the lessor, as well as rights included within the lease contract, including those that go beyond simply providing the lessee with the right to use the asset. As a result of its discussions, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the principles and guidance within IFRS 10 would enable a determination of control to be made in a specific scenario based on the relevant facts and circumstances of that scenario. The Interpretations Committee also noted that it is not its practice to give case-by-case advice on individual fact patterns. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee thought that neither an Interpretation of nor an amendment to a Standard is required and decided not to add these issues to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Transaction costs for non-controlling interest | July 2009 - The IFRIC received a request to clarify the guidance in IAS 27 (as amended in 2008) for accounting for transaction costs incurred in the acquisition or disposal of non-controlling interest (NCI) that does not result in the loss of control of an entity. The IFRIC noted that the amended IAS 27 requires transactions with NCI to be treated as equity transactions. Paragraphs 106(d)(iii) and 109 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements state that changes in equity resulting from transactions with owners in their capacity as owners (such as equity contributions, reacquisitions of the entity’s own equity instruments and dividends) and transaction costs directly related to such transactions are not part of the income and expense generated by the entity’s activities during that period. Accordingly, the IFRIC concluded that relevant guidance exists in IFRSs applicable to such transactions. Because it did not expect significant divergence in practice given the existing guidance, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Non-cash acquisition of a non-controlling interest by a controlling shareholder in the consolidated financial statements | January 2013 - The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on the accounting for the purchase of a non-controlling interest (NCI) by the controlling shareholder when the consideration includes non-cash items. More specifically, the submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to clarify whether the difference between the fair value of the consideration given and the carrying amount of such consideration should be recognised in equity or in profit or loss. The submitter asserted that, according to paragraph 31 of IAS 27 (paragraph 31 of IAS 27 has been superseded by paragraph B96 of IFRS 10), the difference described should be recognised in equity, whereas applying IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners by analogy the difference should be recognised in profit or loss. The submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to resolve this apparent conflict between IAS 27 (superseded by IFRS 10) and IFRIC 17. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 31 of IAS 27 (paragraph 31 of IAS 27 has been superseded by paragraph B96 of IFRS 10) deals solely with the difference between the carrying amount of NCI and the fair value of the consideration given; this difference is required to be recognised in equity. This paragraph does not deal with the difference between the fair value of the consideration given and the carrying amount of such consideration. The difference between the fair value of the assets transferred and their carrying amount arises from the derecognition of those assets. IFRSs generally require an entity to recognise, in profit or loss, any gain or loss arising from the derecognition of an asset. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee concluded that in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, an interpretation or an amendment to Standards was not necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Classification of puttable instruments that are non-controlling interests | November 2013 - The Interpretations Committee discussed a request for guidance on the classification, in the consolidated financial statements of a group, of puttable instruments that are issued by a subsidiary but that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The submitter asked about puttable instruments classified as equity instruments in the financial statements of the subsidiary in accordance with paragraphs 16A–16B of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation (‘puttable instruments’) that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The question asked was whether these instruments should be classified as equity or liability in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The submitter claims that paragraph 22 of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements is not consistent with paragraph AG29A of IAS 32, because:
The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraphs 16A–16D of IAS 32 state that 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 meet the definition of a financial liability. These instruments are classified as equity in the financial statements of the subsidiary as an exception to the definition of a financial liability if all relevant requirements are met. Paragraph AG29A clarifies that this exception applies only to the financial statements of the subsidiary and does not extend to the parent’s consolidated financial statements. Consequently, these financial instruments should be classified as financial liabilities in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The Interpretations Committee therefore concluded that in the light of the existing guidance in IAS 32, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting for loss of control transaction | July 2016 - The Interpretations Committee discussed whether an entity should remeasure its retained interest in the assets and liabilities of a joint operation when the entity loses control of a business, or an asset or group of assets that is not a business. In the transaction discussed, the entity either retains joint control of a joint operation or is a party to a joint operation (with rights to assets and obligations for liabilities) after the transaction. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraphs B34–B35 of IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements specify that an entity recognises gains or losses on the sale or contribution of assets to a joint operation only to the extent of the other parties’ interests in the joint operation. The requirements in these paragraphs could be viewed as conflicting with the requirements in IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, which specify that an entity remeasures any retained interest when it loses control of a subsidiary. The Interpretations Committee observed that the Board issued amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures in September 2014 to address the accounting for the sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture. Those amendments address a similar conflict that exists between the requirements in IFRS 10 and IAS 28. The Board decided to defer the effective date of the amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28 and further consider a number of related issues at a later date. The Interpretations Committee observed that the Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 would provide the Board with an opportunity to consider loss of control transactions and a sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture. Because of the similarity between the transaction discussed by the Interpretations Committee and a sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the accounting for the two transactions should be considered concurrently by the Board. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda but, instead, to recommend that the Board consider the issue at the same time the Board further considers the accounting for the sale or contribution of assets to an associate or a joint venture. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Investment Entities Amendments—the definition of investment-related services or activities | March 2014 - he Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the definition of ‘investment-related services or activities’ as it relates to subsidiaries that act as intermediate holding companies ('intermediate subsidiaries') and are established for ‘tax optimisation’ purposes. An investment entity is permitted to provide investment-related services or activities, either directly or through a subsidiary. If an investment entity provides investment-related services or activities through a subsidiary, the investment entity shall consolidate that subsidiary. Some investment entities establish wholly-owned intermediate subsidiaries in some jurisdictions, which own all or part of the portfolio of investments in the group structure. The sole purpose of the intermediate subsidiaries is to minimise the tax paid by investors in the ‘parent’ investment entity. There is no activity within the subsidiaries and the tax advantage comes about because of returns being channelled through the jurisdiction of the intermediate subsidiary. The submitter asked whether the ‘tax optimisation’ described should be considered investment-related services or activities. The Interpretations Committee noted that, according to paragraph BC272 of IFRS 10, the IASB thinks that fair value measurement of all of an investment entity’s subsidiaries would provide the most useful information, except for subsidiaries providing investment-related services or activities. In addition, the Interpretations Committee noted that the IASB had considered requiring an investment entity to consolidate investment entity subsidiaries that are formed for tax purposes, but had decided against this. The Interpretations Committee noted that one of the characteristics of ‘tax optimisation’ subsidiaries described in the submission is “that there is no activity within the subsidiary”. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee considers that the parent should not consolidate such subsidiaries, because they do not provide investment-related services or activities, and do not meet the requirements to be consolidated in accordance with paragraph 32 of IFRS 10. The parent should therefore account for such an intermediate subsidiary at fair value. On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Investment entities and subsidiaries | March 2017 - The Committee received a request regarding the investment entity requirements in IFRS 10, including how an entity applies the requirements in paragraphs 27 and 28 of IFRS 10, and how an investment entity assesses whether it consolidates a subsidiary applying paragraph 32 of IFRS 10 in specified circumstances. The Committee discussed the following questions:
Question a Paragraph 27 of IFRS 10 lists the three elements an entity must possess to qualify as an investment entity. Paragraph B85A of IFRS 10 emphasises the importance of considering all facts and circumstances when assessing whether an entity is an investment entity, and notes that an entity that possesses the three elements of the definition of an investment entity in paragraph 27 is an investment entity. Paragraphs B85B-B85M then describe the elements of the definition in more detail. Paragraph 28 of IFRS 10 lists typical characteristics that an entity considers in assessing whether it possesses all three elements in paragraph 27, and says that the absence of any of these characteristics does not necessarily disqualify an entity from being an investment entity. Paragraph B85N of IFRS 10 clarifies that the absence of one or more of the typical characteristics of an investment entity listed in paragraph 28 of IFRS 10 indicates that additional judgement is required in determining whether the entity is an investment entity. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an entity that possesses all three elements of the definition of an investment entity in paragraph 27 of IFRS 10 is an investment entity. This is the case even if that entity does not have one or more of the typical characteristics of an investment entity listed in paragraph 28 of IFRS 10. Question b Paragraph 27(a) of IFRS 10 requires an investment entity to provide investors with investment management services. IFRS 10 does not specify how the investment entity must provide these services, and does not preclude it from outsourcing the performance of these services to a third party. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity responsible for providing investment management services to its investors can engage another party to perform some or all of these services on its behalf (ie it can outsource the performance of some or all of these services). Question c Paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 10 requires that the business purpose of an investment entity is to invest solely for capital appreciation, investment income, or both. Paragraph B85C of IFRS 10 says that an investment entity may provide investment-related services, either directly or through a subsidiary, to third parties as well as to its investors (even if those activities are substantial to the entity), subject to the entity continuing to meet the definition of an investment entity. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity may provide investment-related services to third parties, either directly or through a subsidiary, as long as those services are ancillary to its core investing activities and thus do not change the business purpose of the investment entity. The Committee observed that an investment entity assesses whether the investment management services provided by a subsidiary, including those provided to third parties, relate to the investment entity’s investment activities. If so, the investment entity includes these services when assessing whether the investment entity itself possesses the element of the investment entity definition in paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 10. The Committee also noted that, applying paragraph 32 of IFRS 10, an investment entity consolidates any non-investment entity subsidiaries whose main purpose and activities are providing services that relate to the investment entity’s investment activities. Question d The Committee observed that it had previously discussed a question similar to Question d. At its meeting in March 2014, the Committee issued an agenda decision noting its conclusion that a subsidiary does not provide investment-related services or activities if the subsidiary holds investments for tax optimisation purposes and there is no activity within the subsidiary. Similarly, the Committee concluded that an investment entity does not consider the holding of investments by a subsidiary as beneficial owner (and recognised in the subsidiary’s financial statements) to be a service that relates to the parent investment entity’s investment activities (as specified in paragraph 32 of IFRS 10). For all four questions (ie Questions a–d), the Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the appropriate accounting in each of the specified circumstances. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda. | |||||||||
IFRIC Agenda Decision - Transition provisions in respect of impairment, foreign exchange and borrowing costs | November 2013 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the transition provisions of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements. The transition provisions of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 include exemptions from retrospective application in specific circumstances. However, the submitter observes that IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 do not provide specific exemptions from retrospective application in respect of the application of IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, IAS 23 Borrowing Costs or IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. The submitter thinks that retrospective application of these Standards could be problematic when first applying IFRS 10 and IFRS 11.
The Interpretations Committee noted that when IFRS 10 is applied for the first time, it must be applied retrospectively, except for the specific circumstances for which exemptions from retrospective application are given. It also noted that when IFRS 10 is applied retrospectively, there may be consequential accounting requirements arising from other Standards (such as IAS 21, IAS 23 and IAS 36). These requirements must also be applied retrospectively in order to measure the investee’s assets, liabilities and non-controlling interests, as described in paragraph C4 of IFRS 10, or the interest in the investee, as described in paragraph C5 of IFRS 10. The Interpretations Committee observed that if retrospective application of the requirements of IFRS 10 is impracticable because it is impracticable to apply retrospectively the requirements of other Standards, then IFRS 10 (paragraphs C4A and C5A) provides exemption from retrospective application. The Interpretations Committee noted that although the meaning of the term ‘joint control’ as defined in IFRS 11 is different from its meaning in IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures (2003) because of the new definition of ‘control’ in IFRS 10, nevertheless the outcome of assessing whether control is held ‘jointly’ would in most cases be the same in accordance with IFRS 11 as it was in accordance with IAS 31. As a result, the Interpretations Committee observed that, typically, the changes resulting from the initial application of IFRS 11 would be to change from proportionate consolidation to equity accounting or from equity accounting to recognising a share of assets and a share of liabilities. In those situations, IFRS 11 already provides exemption from retrospective application. The Interpretations Committee concluded that in most cases the initial application of IFRS 11 should not raise issues in respect of the application of other Standards. On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that the existing transition requirements of IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 provide sufficient guidance or exemptions from retrospective application and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda. |
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.
The BDO network (referred to as the ‘BDO network’ or the ‘Network’) is an international network of independent public accounting, tax and advisory firms which are members of BDO International Limited and perform professional services under the name and style of BDO (hereafter ‘BDO member firms’). BDO International Limited is a UK company limited by guarantee. It is the governing entity of the BDO network.
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.
Service provision within the BDO network in connection with IFRS (comprising International Financial Reporting Standards, International Accounting Standards, and Interpretations developed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee), and other documents, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, is provided by BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. Service provision within the BDO network is coordinated by Brussels Worldwide Services BV, a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium.
Each of BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and the BDO member firms is a separate legal entity and has no liability for another entity’s acts or omissions. Nothing in the arrangements or rules of the BDO network shall constitute or imply an agency relationship or a partnership between BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and/or the BDO member firms. Neither BDO International Limited nor any other central entities of the BDO network provide services to clients.
BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.