Exposure Draft

(Defined Benefit Plans)

1.	목적 및 주요내용

2.  현행 실무에의 주요 영향

3.	향후진행사항

4.	담당자

5.  Summary of questions for respondents

1.	목적 및 주요내용

■ 종업원급여의 인식, 표시 및 공시와 관련된 회계처리의 개선

2008년 토론서에 대해 개진된 외부의견을 고려하여 퇴직급여 등 종업원급여의 인식, 표시, 공시 등 회계처리를 근본적으로 개선하기 위하여 이 공개초안을 제안하였으며, 이 제안의 결과로 확정급여제도가 기업의 재무상태, 경영성과 및 현금흐름에 미치는 영향을 재무제표 이용자가 보다 쉽게 이해할 수 있을 것으로 기대하고 있음.

■ 주요내용

(1) 퇴직급여채무․사외적립자산의 모든 변동을 발생 기간에 인식

□ 범위접근방식 등 미인식항목*의 이연인식방법을 삭제하고, 미가득      과거근무원가(unvested past service cost)도 제도의 도입․ 변경시      점에 일시 인식

* 보험수리적손익, 과거근무원가, 경과부채

(2) 퇴직급여부채(자산)의 변동 중 현행근무원가와 순이자수익(비용)은     당기손익으로, 재측정에 따른 손익*은 기타포괄손익으로 포괄손익     계산서에 표시

* 보험수리적손익, 사외적립자산의 수익(순이자수익(비용)에 포함된 금액        제외), 청산손익, 자산인식상한에 따른 손익

□ 순이자수익(비용)은 퇴직급여채무의 측정에 사용한 할인율을 이용하     여 결정

(3) 확정급여제도에 대한 공시요구사항을 개선

□ 공시목적, 확정급여제도의 특성, 재무제표상 관련 금액, (계량적․기     술적) 위험정보(민감도분석 포함), 복수사용자제도에 대한 참여 등      과 관련된 공시사항을 신설하거나 개선

(4) 기타

□ 범위접근방법과 일부 공시요구사항(5개 회계연도분 확정급여채무,      사외적립자산 등의 공시)이 삭제됨에 따라 최초채택기업에 대한       IFRS 1의 선택적 면제 규정을 삭제

□ 최소적립요건과 자산인식상한의 상호관계를 규정한 IFRIC 14를         IAS 19에 통합

2.	현행 실무에의 주요 영향

■ 보험수리적손익에 대한 범위접근방식(corridor Approach) 규정의 삭제 및 재측정에 따른 손익을 기타포괄손익으로 인식함에 따라 기업간 비교가능성과 회계처리의 간편성을 높일 수 있을 것임.

■ 다만, 이연인식방법이 삭제됨에 따라 당기 손익 또는 총포괄손익의 변동성은 커질 수 있음.

3.	향후진행사항

■	IASB는 2010년 9월 6일까지 의견을 수렴하여, 2011년 1사분기에 IAS 19의 개정을 확정할 예정임.

4.	담당자

■	IASB:	Andrea Pryde (Senior Technical Manager, apryde@iasb.org)

Jae Ho Kim (Visiting Fellow, jhkim@iasb.org)

Manuel Kapsis (Assistant Technical Manager, mkapsis@iasb.org)

■ KAI:	박세환 (수석연구원, shpark@kasb.or.kr)

이진영 (연구원, jinyounglee@samil.com)

5.	Summary of Qeestions for respondents

Question 1. Recognition

The exposure draft proposes that entities should recognise all changes in the present value of the defined benefit obligation and in the fair value of plan assets when they occur. (Paragraphs 54, 61 and BC9–BC12) Do you agree? Why or why not?

Question 2. Recognition

Should entities recognise unvested past service cost when the related plan amendment occurs? (Paragraphs 54, 61 and BC13) Why or why not?

Question 3. Disaggregation

Should entities disaggregate defined benefit cost into three components: service cost, finance cost and remeasurements? (Paragraphs 119A and BC14–BC18) cost, finance cost and remeasurements? (Paragraphs 119A and BC14–BC18)

Question 4. Defining the service cost component

Should the service cost component exclude changes in the defined benefit obligation resulting from changes in demographic assumptions? (Paragraphs 7 and BC19–BC23) Why or why not?

Question 5. Defining the finance cost component

The exposure draft proposes that the finance cost component should comprise net interest on the net defined benefit liability (asset) determined by applying the discount rate specified in paragraph 78 to the net defined benefit liability (asset). As a consequence, it eliminates from IAS 19 the requirement to present an expected return on plan assets in profit or loss.

Should net interest on the net defined benefit liability (asset) be determined by applying the discount rate specified in paragraph 78 to the net defined benefit liability (asset)? Why or why not? If not, how would you define the finance cost component and why? (Paragraphs 7, 119B, 119C and BC23–BC32)

Question 6. Presentation

Should entities present:

(a) service cost in profit or loss?

(b) net interest on the net defined benefit liability (asset) as part of finance costs in profit or loss?

(c) remeasurements in other comprehensive income? (Paragraphs 119A and BC35–BC45) Why or why not?

Question 7. Settlements and curtailments

(a) Do you agree that gains and losses on routine and non-routine settlement are actuarial gains and losses and should therefore be included in the remeasurement component? (Paragraphs 119D and BC47) Why or why not?

(b) Do you agree that curtailments should be treated in the same way as plan amendments, with gains and losses presented in profit or loss?(Paragraphs 98A, 119A(a) and BC48)

(c) Should entities disclose (i) a narrative description of any plan amendments, curtailments and non-routine settlements, and (ii) their effect on the statement of comprehensive income? (Paragraphs 125C(c), 125E, BC49 and BC78) Why or why not?

Question 8. Disclosures: Defined benefit plans

The exposure draft states that the objectives of disclosing information about an entity’s defined benefit plans are:

(a) to explain the characteristics of the entity’s defined benefit plans;

(b) to identify and explain the amounts in the entity’s financial statements arising from its defined benefit plans; and

(c) to describe how defined benefit plans affect the amount, timing and variability of the entity’s future cash flows. (Paragraphs 125A and BC52–BC59) Are these objectives appropriate? Why or why not? If not, how would you amend the objectives and why?

Question 9. Disclosures

To achieve the disclosure objectives, the exposure draft proposes new disclosure requirements, including:

(a) information about risk, including sensitivity analyses (paragraphs 125C(b), 125I, BC60(a), BC62(a) and BC63–BC66);

(b) information about the process used to determine demographic actuarial assumptions (paragraphs 125G(b) and BC60(d) and (e));

(c) the present value of the defined benefit obligation, modified to exclude the effect of projected salary growth (paragraphs 125H and BC60(f));

(d) information about asset-liability matching strategies (paragraphs 125J and BC62(b)); and

(e) information about factors that could cause contributions to differ from service cost(paragraphs 125K and BC62(c)).

Are the proposed new disclosure requirements appropriate? Why or why not? If not, what disclosures do you propose to achieve the disclosure objectives?

Question 10. Disclosures: Multi-employer plans

The exposure draft proposes additional disclosures about participation in multi-employer plans. Should the Board add to, amend or delete these requirements? (Paragraphs 33A and BC67–BC69) Why or why not?

Question 11. Disclosures: State plans and defined benefit plans that share risks between various entities under common control

The exposure draft updates, without further reconsideration, the disclosure requirements for entities that participate in state plans or defined benefit plans that share risks between various entities under common control to make them consistent with the disclosures in paragraphs 125A–125K. Should the Board add to, amend or delete these requirements? (Paragraphs 34B, 36, 38 and BC70) Why or why not?

Question 12. Other issues

The exposure draft also proposes to amend IAS 19 as summarised below:

(a) The requirements in IFRIC 14 IAS 19—The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction, as amended in November 2009, are incorporated without substantive change. (Paragraphs 115A–115K and BC73)

(b) ‘Minimum funding requirement’ is defined as any enforceable requirement for the entity to make contributions to fund a post-employment or other long-term defined benefit plan. (Paragraphs 7 and BC80)

(c) Tax payable by the plan shall be included in the return on plan assets or in the measurement of the defined benefit obligation, depending on the nature of the tax. (Paragraphs 7, 73(b), BC82 and BC83)

(d) The return on plan assets shall be reduced by administration costs only if those costs relate to managing plan assets. (Paragraphs 7, 73(b), BC82 and BC84–BC86)

(e) Expected future salary increases shall be considered in determining whether a benefit formula expressed in terms of current salary allocates a materially higher level of benefits in later years. (Paragraphs 71A and BC87–BC90)

(f) The mortality assumptions used to determine the defined benefit obligation are current estimates of the expected mortality rates of plan members, both during and after employment. (Paragraphs 73(a)(i) and BC91)

(g) Risk-sharing and conditional indexation features shall be considered in determining the best estimate of the defined benefit obligation.(Paragraphs 64A, 85(c) and BC92–BC96)

Do you agree with the proposed amendments? Why or why not? If not, what alternative(s) do you propose and why?

Question 13. Other issues: Multi-employer plans

IAS 19 requires entities to account for a defined benefit multi-employer plan as a defined contribution plan if it exposes the participating entities to actuarial risks associated with the current and former employees of other entities, with the result that there is no consistent and reliable basis for allocating the obligation, plan assets and cost to individual entities participating in the plan. In the Board’s view, this would apply to many plans that meet the definition of a defined benefit multiemployer plan. (Paragraphs 32(a) and BC75(b))

Please describe any situations in which a defined benefit multi-employer plan has a consistent and reliable basis for allocating the obligation, plan assets and cost to the individual entities participating in the plan. Should participants in such multi-employer plans apply defined benefit accounting? Why or why not?

Question 14. Transition

Should entities apply the proposed amendments retrospectively? (Paragraphs 162 and BC97–BC101) Why or why not?

Question 15. Benefits and costs

In the Board’s assessment:

(a) the main benefits of the proposals are:

(i) reporting changes in the carrying amount of defined benefit          obligations and changes in the fair value of plan assets in a more understandable way.

(ii) eliminating some presentation options currently allowed by IAS 19, thus improving comparability.

(iii) clarifying requirements that have resulted in diverse practices.

(iv) improving information about the risks arising from an entity’s involvement in defined benefit plans.

(b) the costs of the proposal should be minimal, because entities are already required to obtain much of the information required to apply the proposed amendments when they apply the existing version of IAS 19.

Do you agree with the Board’s assessment? (Paragraphs BC103–BC107) Why or why not?