FRC approves new UK GAAP

At its board meeting on 5 March 2013, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) finally approved FRS 102 ‘The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland’.

From 1 January 2015, the new version will replace all existing financial FRSs, SSAPs and UITFs, bringing an end to several years of uncertainty about the direction of UK GAAP. The FRC is expected to issue the new standard in the next couple of weeks. 

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
Nigel Hughes's picture

FRSSE 2015

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Steve

I've been trying to search the fairly opaque FRC website for a draft of FRSSE 2015, to no avail. Does it exist yet?

Steve Collings's picture

FRSSE    1 thanks

Steve Collings | | Permalink

Hi Nigel

Yes, it is in FRS 100 on page 9 headed 'Consequential Amendments to the FRSSE'.

Happy reading!

All the best

Steve

John Stokdyk's picture

Comment from Grant Thornton

John Stokdyk | | Permalink

Earlier today we received the following statement from Joyce Grant, technical partner at Grant Thornton UK:

"Whilst the hard work of the standard setters is all but over, the hard work for preparers is just beginning. Although the headline issues from two years ago have been resolved, such as revaluation of fixed assets, the majority of companies will still find that they need to make changes to their accounts. The difficulty is that these differences may not always be obvious but could have the potential to alter profits, which will in turn affect a myriad of different aspects of a business, for instance banking covenants, tax bills and profit-related bonuses.

"What people need to figure out is precisely how this standard will affect their business, and what they can do to minimise potential negative impacts; this takes planning. One of the most talked about changes is the introduction of more fair value accounting, in particular for instruments such as foreign exchange forward contracts and interest rate swaps.

"Whilst we welcome this change as introducing greater transparency in the accounting for such instruments, there are likely to be real costs associated with the need to prepare, and have audited, valuations for these instruments.

"Companies with December year ends will need to be prepared to re-state their December 2013 balance sheet under the new standard, so where there could be measurement problems these will need to be tackled before the end of this year."

Nigel Hughes's picture

Thanks

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Thanks Steve, I'm looking forward to it!

N

Nigel Hughes's picture

Dog's Breakfast    1 thanks

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

I'm sure that Joyce is right in that there may be any number of unexpected and probably unintended consequences of this dog's breakfast. However, the fact remains that it is a shorter dog's breakfast than the one it replaces.

It would be so good if the thinking could be joined up so that the CA regulations could be changed as well, the language aligned, and the structure for Micros and small companies all set up and harmonised at the same time. World peace and an end to poverty would be pretty good too!

George Gretton's picture

Does it address the issue of "Global" false accounting?

George Gretton | | Permalink

I'll look forward to seeing if it addresses the issue of: 

"False Accounting in the Acceptance as Valid of Wholly Unrealistic and Inflated Management Charges and Transfer Prices from Overseas Connected (or not; it doesn't actually matter) Parties.

We are talking about the well-recognised shifting of Profits between Tax Legislations, from higher rate set-ups to lower rate set-ups; as in Starbucks, Google, Amazon, the Holding Company for Boots, etc, etc.

The remedy doesn't need any additional legislation; it just calls for the curtailment of False Accounting; Such False Accounting consists of accepting charges from overseas  that bear no relationship to the benefits received. 

We have been known to witter on in accounts about "Related Party Transactions" within  the UK. The general drift must be that you don't shift profits (or slush funds) around anywhere by entering into transactions where the organisation totally evidently does not get value for money, or indeed instead gets a value that is hugely inflated. 

If a single Transit Van is bought for £150,000, then investigate and qualify. It reeks of financial manure.

Yours, George Gretton, Friday 8th March 2013, 11:14 London (UK) Time

 

 

pembo's picture

don't be silly George    1 thanks

pembo | | Permalink

if any of these new standards addressed such matters it would create a real issue for the poor old auditors who will of course have advised them for £squillions with their consultancy hat on to buy those 100 transit vans at £150k a pop off that BVI subsidiary manned when hes not attending to the swimming pool by the guy who looks after the apartment block. Meanwhile the rest of us who live in the real world of transparent balance sheets thankfully will only have to deal with the revised FRSSE 2015 where of course such activity is condemned sine die under threat of an appearance at Moorgate Place.

more confusion    1 thanks

arshadali | | Permalink

So now we have FRS 100, 101, 102 where we can use IFRS, FRSSE or full standards as before? Along with the new rules with EU groups where the parent resides in EU then the sub needs no audit as they will guarantee it etc etc, seems to me its getting more complex, lets just have an audit for everything and anything and get it over with.

Nigel Hughes's picture

In yer dreams!

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Come on George, of course it doesn't!

Why bother with the transit vans when a management charge will usually do the trick?

FRS 102

liaqat38 | | Permalink

Is final version of FRS 102 avaiable to download?

Wahts the weblink?

Nigel Hughes's picture

Not yet as far as I'm aware Liaqat

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

They say in a couple of weeks

Rehan1's picture

FRSSE 2008 & FRSSE 2012

Rehan1 | | Permalink

I Can't wait to see where the differences lay between the two ?

Hopefully, we will get in 2 weeks.

Steve Collings's picture

FRSSE

Steve Collings | | Permalink

Not really a great deal to look forward to!

Textual amendments include removing reference to FRSs/SSAPs/UITFs and incorporating FRS 102 and of course changing FRSSE (effective April 2008) to FRSSE (effective January 2015).

Goodwill/intangibles amortised over a 5-year life (rather than 20 years) where the directors cannot assign a useful economic life to such assets.

Some related party issues have been redefined.

Citations of an example where a product has become obsolete or seen a fall in demand has been deleted in paragraph 6.45.

I'm expecting FRSSE to be further amended in the future to be aligned to FRS 102 but in a nutshell that's your lot.

Steve

Nigel Hughes's picture

And it's likely to change anyway

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

The EU is currently reworking its company law directives, aims to combine the 2 existing directives into 1 and has said that it will make huge cuts in the disclosure requirements for small companies - i.e. those covered by the FRSSE.

It has said that disclosures should be restricted to about 10 things and that it will be illegal for individual member states to insist on greater disclosure. ICAEW has some pretty good FAQs about it.

This is supposed to happen in 2013, but as we know speedy change is not exactly the EU's strong suit.

We shall see.

Nigel Hughes's picture

FRSSE Amendments

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Steve

I've become a FRSSE Geek!

Para 2.6 of the FRSSE and its footnote amended to change the wording on a small company's balance sheet, but they haven't changed para 2.30 which covers the same ground. Do they know it's never going to see the light of day?

Nigel

Steve Collings's picture

FRSSE Amendments (well spotted!!)

Steve Collings | | Permalink

HI Nigel

I agree with you - definitely never going to see the light of day!

Possibly worth mentioning it to them, perhaps?  Though if they don't change it I don't see much consequence to preparers.  It may well be that during a file review, an eagle-eyed reviewer may spot the different wording (if software providers change both 2.6 and 2.30 to be consistent).  I know some reviewers do spot inconsistent wording for things like footnotes in the balance sheet but if I'm honest (our software company did this), I've just told the software company in the hope they do something about it and that's as far as I've gone.  Clients definitely couldn't care less!

An interesting couple of years ahead I reckon.......

Nigel Hughes's picture

Unfortunately......

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Practitioners do notice and if it says one thing in one place in a standard and something else in another place, they're going to come to you or me for advice, and they tend not to believe us when we say "Er.........they got it wrong when they drafted the standard!"

ASB should have realised in 2008 that the small company regime does not represent "special provisions". Grrr.

I suppose if small company accounts are only going to be filed in abbreviated form, usually directly in iXBRL or via the COHo website, there aren't going to be many accounts rejected by CoHo.

However I still wonder about how it is that FRC can spell it out in such painstaking detail, whilst knowing it's likely to be superseded before it goes live, and then still make mistakes in the drafting. Ah well

FRS102

liaqat38 | | Permalink

Lucky we

Nigel Hughes's picture

Yes indeed!

Nigel Hughes | | Permalink

Aren't we just?

Clarification please!

holliemaree | | Permalink

Can someone please clarify: 

 

I am an Australian accounting student doing an assignment on the reporting systems in the UK. Now i believe listed companies are required to report based on IFRS as of 2005. Are the GAAP and the new standards relevant to listed companies or just small to medium?