Presentation of Items of

Other Comprehensive Income

Proposed amendments to IAS 1

1.  Project의 진행상황

2.	목적

3.  ED의 주요내용

4.	향후 일정

5.	담당자

6.	Questions for Respondents

1.  Project의 진행상황

재무제표 표시 과제의 일정은 다음과 같으며, 본 ED는 ‘Presentation of items of other comprehensive income’에 해당함.

재무제표 표시 관련 업무일정(IASB Work plan-project timetable as at 5 May 2010)

2.	목적

IAS 1에 대한 제한적인 개정을 통해 포괄손익 항목의 표시에 일관성과 명료성을 증진시키기 위한 것임(To improve the consistency and clarity of the presentation of items of comprehensive income)

○ 이 공개초안의 제안은 금융상품*과 종업원급여** 프로젝트의 제안과 중요한 관련성이 있음(The proposals have important interactions with proposals that are part of the IASB’s projects on financial instruments and post-employment benefits).

* IFRS 9에서는 단기매매 목적이 아닌 지분상품의 경우에 공정가치변동을 기타포괄손익에 표시('기타포괄손익인식항목')하는 취소불가능한 선택을 할 수 있도록 허용(IFRS 9 permits an entity to make an irrevocable election to present in OCI changes in the fair value of any investment in equity instruments that is not held for trading.)

** 공개초안은 보험수리적 손익의 회계처리에 범위접근법을 사용할 수 있는 선택권을 삭제하여 이러한 항목에 대한 기타포괄손익의 사용이 증가하게 됨(The exposure draft also proposes to remove the option of using the corridor approach to account for actuarial gains and losses, thereby increasing the use of OCI for those items.)

3.	ED의 주요 내용

공개초안은 구분된 두 부문 - 당기손익과 기타포괄손익 항목을 포함한 단일의 ‘당기손익 및 기타포괄손익 보고서(a statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income)’를 작성하도록 요구함.

‘당기손익 및 기타포괄손익 보고서’에서 기타포괄손익 항목 중 후속적으로 당기손익으로 재분류(recycled)될 수 있는 항목과 당기손익으로 재분류되지 않는 항목을 구분하여 표시하도록 함.

기타포괄손익에 표시된 항목을 법인세 효과 반영 전 금액으로 표시하는 경우 이에 대한 법인세는 후속적으로 당기손익으로 재분류될 수 있는 항목과 당기손익으로 재분류되지 않는 항목에 배분하도록 함.

4. 향후 일정

IASB는 2010년 9월 30일까지 외부의견을 접수할 예정임.

한국회계기준원 조사연구실은 이 ED를 검토·분석하여 잠정적 검토의견이 포함된 검토보고서를 추후 배포하고 이에 대한 외부의견을 수렴하여 검토의견서(Comment Letter)를 2010년 9월 중 IASB에 송부할 예정임.

5.	담당자

■ KASB: 권성수 (수석연구원, sskwon@kasb.or.kr)

양정아 (선임연구원, yja518@kasb.or.kr)

6.	Questions for Respondents

상기3 ‘ED의 주요내용’에 대하여 동의하는지를 묻는 질문(Q1~Q4)과 공개초안 제안의 효익과 원가에 대한 IASB의 평가에 대해 동의여부(Q5)를 묻고 있음.

Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income

Question 1

The Board proposes to change the title of the statement of comprehensive income to ‘Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income’ when referred to in IFRSs and its other publications. Do you agree? Why or why not? What alternative do you propose?

(See paragraphs 10, BC21)

Question 2

The proposals would require entities to present a statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income with two sections—profit or loss and items of other comprehensive income. The Board believes this will provide more consistency in presentation and make financial statements more comparable. Do you agree? Why or why not? What alternative do you propose?

(See paragraphs 12, 81, BC17–C19)

Presentation of items of other comprehensive income

Question 3

The exposure draft proposes to require entities to present items of other comprehensive income (OCI) that will be reclassified to profit or loss (recycled) in subsequent periods upon derecognition separately from items of OCI that will not be reclassified to profit or loss. Do you support this approach? Why or why not? What alternative do you propose, and why?

(See paragraphs 82A, BC25 and BC26)

Question 4

The exposure draft also proposes to require that income tax on items presented in OCI should be allocated between items that might be subsequently reclassified to profit or loss and those that will not be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss, if the items in OCI are presented before tax. Do you support this proposal? Why or why not? What alternative do you propose and why?

(See paragraphs 91, BC27–C29)

Benefits and costs

Question 5

In the Board’s assessment:

(a) the main benefits of the proposals are:

(See paragraphs BC32–C36)

(i) presenting all non-owner changes in equity in the same statement.

(ii) improving comparability by eliminating options currently in IAS 1.

(iii) maintaining a clear distinction between profit or loss and items of other comprehensive income.

(iv) improving clarity of items presented in OCI by requiring them to be classified into items that might be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss and items that will not be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss.

(b) the costs of the proposals should be minimal because in applying the existing version of IAS 1, entities must have all the information required to apply the proposed amendments.

Do you agree with the Board’s assessment? Why or why not?

Other comments

Question 6

Do you have any other comments on the proposals?