Question

Question 2 - 1,500 words

The Senior Partner of the firm you work for has appointed you to a new role. It is now your responsibility to review upcoming accounting standards and provide a report to the partners on the proposed standard and the opinions of other industry players on the changes.

Firstly, you are required to find a current exposure draft or proposal for a new accounting standard which has been opened for public comments. (These can be found on the websites of most standard-setting organisations, such as the IASB, AASB and FASB. Hint: These websites can be quite difficult to navigate, so as a first step try typing “IASB exposure draft and comment letters”/”FASB exposure draft and comment letters” into Google or other search engine of your choice). Read a sample of the comments from a range of respondents. Select four respondents, ideally from different types of organisations for example, from accounting bodies, industry, companies or corporate bodies. If you are having a problem finding suitable comments letters then contact your subject coordinator.

In your own words, supporting your evaluation with appropriate citations, appropriately referenced in APA 6 style, you are required to include the following information in the report.

• An outline of the major issues covered in the exposure draft (what is the exposure draft introducing or changing?).
• An assessment as to whether (or not) the behaviour of the regulator in introducing the exposure draft can be explained by public interest theory.
• An outline of the views presented in the comments letters which highlights the areas of agreement and disagreement with the exposure draft.
• An application of each of the theories of regulation (public interest, private interest and capture) to the comments letters and a justification as to which theory(ies) best explains the comments.

Please note: you need to attach the comment letters you selected for your report (there is no need to attach the exposure draft

Answer 1

Answer :

Question 2 :

Dear Mr Hoogervorst

Presentation draft 2017/4 Property, Plant and Equipment – Proceeds before Intended Use (Proposed revisions to IAS 16)

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited is satisfied to react to the International Accounting Standards Board's ('the IASB's) presentation draft Property, Plant and Equipment – Proceeds before Intended Use (Proposed revisions to IAS 16) ('the introduction draft').

We don't concur with the proposed change to IAS 16 and offer a considerable lot of the worries communicated in the Alternative View on the presentation draft. As expressed in our reaction to the IFRS Interpretations Committee's speculative motivation choice on this issue in July 2014, we don't trust that the acknowledgment of income with no devaluation and practically no other related expense would be a fitting result and, reliable with Mr Zhang, we don't trust that utilization of property, plant and hardware being developed can be thought to be 'insignificant

The proposed revision is probably going to have an impact principally on elements working in the vitality and extractives enterprises, where development of a benefit can be a long and complex procedure with numerous expenses (counting those of testing) inferable from conveying the advantage for the condition fundamental for it to be equipped for working in the way planned by the board. Continues from, for instance, control created amid the appointing of another power station, valuable metals delivered before finish of a handling plant or minerals extricating amid development of an underground shaft for a mining activity can be noteworthy and can emerge over an all-encompassing time frame.

We suggest that an exhaustive thought of the issues emerging from such exercises (for instance, the unit of record for property, plant and hardware identifying with an expansive mining advancement and the time when such a benefit is resolved to be accessible for use) and comparative issues emerging in different enterprises is essential preceding making alterations to explicit IFRS's as a restricted extension change, for example, the one proposed in the presentation draft can't address those issues and conveys the danger of unintended results.

Yours truly