ipsas outlook (july 2015) - de.ey.com fileipsas outlook july 2015 | 3 ipsasb publishes recommended...

July 2015

ContentsThe IPSASB maps out futurestrategy and work plan p2

IPSASB publishes RPG 3 p3

IPSAS 35 – an overview p5

IPSASB update p7

Resources p11

The IPSASB maps out future strategy and work planFollowing a public consultation in 2014, the Board has published the decisionsreached on its strategy and future work plan, which we outline in this article.

IPSASB publishes recommended practice guidelineon reporting service performance informationRPG 3 Reporting Service Performance Information aims to help users to evaluatethe services provided by public sector entities. Read our overview of the RPG here.

IPSAS 35 Consolidated Financial Statements – an overviewIPSAS 35 is developed based on IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements andonly departs from IFRS 10 on public sector-specific circumstances. This articleoutlines the requirements of IPSAS 35.

IPSASB updateLook here for an update on the active projects on the IPSASB’s agenda.

ResourcesLook here for our IPSAS resources.

A message from Thomas Müller-Marqués Berger

Welcome to this month’s edition of IPSAS Outlook, which will bringyou insights into recent IPSAS developments and emergingissues. In addition, we will bring you regular reports on IPSASprojects from around the world as we share some of theexperiences of our Global IPSAS network. I hope you will find thisof assistance to your organization.

We welcome your feedback on IPSAS Outlook. Please contact usat [email protected].

Thomas Müller-Marqués Berger, IPSAS Global Leader

IPSAS OutlookIPSAS issues for public financemanagement executives

2 | IPSAS Outlook July 2015

The IPSASB maps out future strategyand work planFollowing a public consultation in 2014, the IPSASB has published its future strategy and work plan for 2015and beyond. In this article, we look at the decisions the Board has made.

Background

In March 2014, the IPSASB issued for public consultation, theIPSASB Strategy Consultation, which closed for comments atthe end of July 2014. Through the consultation, the Boardsought input on its strategy and the priority of individualprojects in the IPSASB’s work program from 2015-2019. Afterconsideration and deliberation of the feedback received, thestrategy was subsequently approved by the Board at itsDecember 2014 meeting, and the work plan was approved atthe March and June 2015 meetings.

Strategy

The vast majority of respondents supported the strategicobjective proposed in the strategy consultation document,which is:

“Strengthening public financial management andknowledge globally through increasing adoption ofaccrual-based IPSASs by:

► Developing high-quality public sector financialreporting standards

► Developing other publications for the public sector

► Raising awareness of the IPSASs and the benefits oftheir adoption”

The IPSASB in their strategy also identified the inputs, outputsand outcome of achieving its strategic objective.

Work plan

In order to achieve the desired strategic outcome, the Boardneeds to establish a work plan for developing high qualitypublic sector financial reporting standards and other guidancefor public sector entities.

The IPSASB considers a number of factors when making itsdecision on whether to initiate a project and assessing itsrelative priority:

► Significance for the public sector

► Urgency of the issue

► Gaps in standards

► IFRS convergence

► Alignment with Government Finance Statistics (GFS)

Considering these factors, together with resource limitations,the Board decided to add the following projects to its work plan:

► Cash basis IPSAS review

► Employee benefits (IPSAS 25 Employee Benefits update)

► Exchange and non-exchange revenue

► Non-exchange expenses

► Framework consequential amendments

► Public sector measurement

► Heritage assets

► Infrastructure assets

• Developing high-qualityfinancial reportingstandards and otherpublications for thepublic sector

• Undertakingpresentations, speechesand other outreachactivities in order toengage withstakeholders

• Funding

• Staff

• IPSASB members

• Stakeholder input

• Operational procedures

That decision-making andaccountability of publicsector entities areimproved and global fiscalstability and sustainabilityare enhanced by credibleand transparent financialreporting that results fromthe adoption of accrual-based IPSASs

Strengthening public financial management and knowledge globallythrough increasing adoption of accrual-based IPSASs

INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOME

Source: IPSASB Strategy and Work Plan Feedback

IPSAS Outlook July 2015 | 3

IPSASB publishes recommendedpractice guideline on reporting serviceperformance informationOn 31 March 2015, the IPSASB published Recommended Practice Guideline 3 Reporting Service PerformanceInformation (RPG or RPG 3). Service performance information is important to users for their evaluation of theservices provided by public sector entities. It also helps users to assess the entities’ efficient and effective use ofresources to deliver those services. RPG 3 provides guidance to support the quality of service performanceinformation reported by entities and offers guidance for entities planning to start their report of service performanceinformation. This article provides an overview of RPG 3.

Background

The objective of the IPSASB is to provide entities that reportservice performance information in general purpose financialreports with a principles-based framework. Public sectorentities worldwide provide constituents with a huge varietyof services across jurisdictions. These entities operate underdifferent legislative requirements and reporting frameworksand have varied levels of experience with such reporting.Therefore, the RPG is intentionally non-prescriptive and moreprinciples-based so as to facilitate adoption and adaptation bypublic sector entities.

Reporting and presenting service performanceinformation

Entities are not required to comply with this RPG to becompliant with IPSASs. Nevertheless, they are encouragedto follow this RPG when they report service performanceinformation.

Presentation of service performance information should beappropriate to the entity’s service performance objectivesand should meet the qualitative characteristics of financialreporting. In addition, a service performance report wouldenable a user to assess the extent, efficiency and effectivenessof the entity’s service performance.

When used in combination with the information in an entity’sfinancial statements, service performance information shouldenable users to assess the entity’s finances in the context of itsachievement of service performance objectives and vice versa.

Types of performance indicators

In the RPG, five different types of performance indicators aredefined and described as follows:

Inputs: the resources used by an entity to provide outputs

Outputs: the services provided by an entity to recipientsexternal to the entity

Outcomes: the impacts on society, which occur as a result of,or are reasonably attributable to, the entity’s outputs

Efficiency: the relationship between (a) inputs and outputs; or(b) inputs and outcomes

Effectiveness: the relationship between actual results andservice performance objectives

The resources used by an entity may include human resources,capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, and vehicles), cash, otherfinancial assets and intangible assets (e.g., intellectualproperty). Inputs may be reported in terms of costs incurredor quantities used to produce outputs. The receipt of servicesby external recipients is a critical factor in deciding whetherservices are outputs (rather than services consumedinternally).

Impacts on society may include, for instance, impact oneducational achievement, poverty levels, crime rates and thehealth of different groups within a society. The efficiency of anentity is deemed to have improved if the same quantity andquality of outputs can be produced at a lower cost than before.If an entity operates effectively as a service provider, theactual results will be better compared with its planned results.


Display or disclosure1

The RPG distinguishes between information for display andinformation for disclosure.

The following information should be displayed for eachrelevant service:

► Service performance objectives

► Performance indicators

► Total costs of services

Information should be disclosed so that users:

► Understand the basis of displayed service performanceinformation

► Receive a concise overview of the entity’s serviceperformance, which highlights the main issues relevant totheir assessment of that service performance

Organization of service performance information

An entity may choose to present its service performanceinformation either together with the financial statements orseparately. However, there are several factors to beconsidered when making this decision:

► The extent to which service performance information needsto be reviewed within the context of financial statements

► Whether users’ needs are met if the information is locatedseparately

► Whether the qualitative characteristics of financialreporting are enhanced

► Jurisdiction-specific requirements

► Whether there are any cost constraints

Additionally, the connection between displayed informationand disclosed information must be clear to a user. Ultimately,the information presented by an entity should convey acoherent, integrated view of the entity’s service performance.

1 Paragraph 8.15 of the IPSASB’s Conceptual Framework states thatinformation selected for display communicates key messages in aGPFR, while information selected for disclosure makes displayedinformation more useful by providing detail that will help users tounderstand the displayed information.

How we see it

Although the principles-based approach that the IPSASB tookon service performance reporting could reduce comparabilitybetween entities, the guidance would allow entities to tailorthe type of information that they need to report to theirstakeholders within the framework of RPG 3. The nature ofservices provided by these entities is likely to be highlydiverse, therefore, the performance indicators (quantitativeand qualitative) would likely differ between entities in anycase.


IPSAS 35 Consolidated FinancialStatements – an overviewIn January 2015, the IPSASB issued IPSASs 34-38, which replaced IPSASs 6-8, as part of their ongoing convergencewith IFRS. IPSAS 35 Consolidated Financial Statements is developed based on IFRS 10 Consolidated FinancialStatements and only departs from IFRS 10 in respect of public sector-specific circumstances. This article outlinesthe requirements of IPSAS 35.

Scope

IPSAS 35 applies to all controlling entities, unless they meetthe exceptions specified in the standard (including theinvestment entity exception).

One of the issues that the Board spent a considerable amountof time deliberating is the application of the consolidationrequirement for public sector entities.

The scale and complexity of public sector entities’ involvementwith other entities has increased significantly in recent years.Government intervention has been a contributory factor togovernments (and other public sector entities) having a broadrange of interests in other entities, some of which would giverise to control, as defined in IPSAS 35.

The implications of consolidating controlled entities conductingprivate sector activities, or where control is intended to betemporary, has led some constituents to question whetherconsolidation of all controlled entities was justified,considering the costs and benefits of the exercise.Nevertheless, consolidated financial statements would provideusers with a panoramic view of a government’s activities andbalance sheet, including the risks associated with agovernment’s holdings and its performance on a whole.

IPSAS 6 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, thepredecessor standard to IPSAS 35, allowed entities to accountfor controlled entities as financial instruments if control wasintended to be temporary. However, that proved to be highlyjudgemental and users of financial statements were concernedwhether that reflected the risk exposures from thoseinvestments.

After considering the arguments for and against consolidationof such temporarily controlled entities, the Board eventuallydecided not to require a different accounting treatment forsuch entities. In other words, temporarily controlled entitieswould have to be consolidated if deemed to be controlled bythe government in accordance with IPSAS 35, as this approachwould provide stakeholders and users with more usefulinformation for accountability and decision-making purposes.In the scoping section of the standard, the IPSASB explicitlyreferred to the consolidation of for-profit government businessenterprises (GBEs), with no exception provided.

Determining control and power

An entity controls another entity when it is exposed, or hasrights, to variable benefits from its involvement with the otherentity and has the ability to affect the nature and amount ofthose benefits through its power over the other entity. Thus,an entity controls another entity if, and only if, the entity hasall of the following:

► Power over the other entity

► Exposure, or rights, to variable benefits from itsinvolvement with the other entity

► The ability to use its power over the other entity to affectthe nature or amount of the benefits from its involvementwith the other entity

An entity has power over another entity when it has existingrights that give it the current ability to direct the relevantactivities, i.e., the activities that significantly affect the natureor amount of the benefits from its involvement with the otherentity. The right to direct the financial and operating policiesof another entity indicates that an entity has the ability todirect the relevant activities of another entity; this isfrequently the way in which power is demonstrated in thepublic sector.

Power arises from rights. In some cases, assessing power isstraightforward, such as when power over another entity isobtained directly and solely from the voting rights granted byequity instruments such as shares, and can be assessed byconsidering the voting rights from those shareholdings.

However, public sector entities often obtain power overanother entity from rights other than voting rights. An entitymay have rights conferred by binding arrangements. Theserights may give an entity power to require the other entityto deploy assets or incur liabilities in a way that affects thenature or amount of benefits received by the first-mentionedentity. The assessment of whether such rights give rise topower over another entity may be complex and requireconsideration of the various factors collectively.

An entity can have power over another entity even if it doesnot have responsibility for the day-to-day operation of theother entity or the manner in which prescribed functions areperformed by that other entity. Legislation may give statutorybodies or statutory officers, powers to carry out their


functions independently of government. The existence ofstatutory powers to operate independently does not, of itself,preclude an entity having the ability to direct the operatingand financial policies of another entity with statutory powersso as to obtain benefits. For example, the independence of acentral bank in relation to monetary policy does not precludethe possibility of the central bank being controlled. All factsand circumstances must be considered.

The standard also clarifies that regulatory control alone doesnot necessarily give rise to power. For example, governmentsmay enact regulations to protect the health and safety of thecommunity by restricting the sale or use of dangerous goods,but such conditions would not typically give rise to powerunder IPSAS 35. In addition, economic dependence alone, doesnot give rise to power as defined in this standard. For example,an entity’s activities may predominantly be funded by grantsfrom a single entity, but this has to be considered togetherwith the other factors of control before concluding that theentity is controlled by its grantor.

Benefits in the public sector context

The second criterion for control is the exposure, or rights,to variable benefits from the other entity. Benefits could befinancial, non-financial, or both. Financial benefits includereturns on investment such as dividends or similardistributions and are sometimes referred to as “returns”.In the public sector, non-financial benefits might be morecommon than financial benefits, and can include:

► The ability to benefit from the specialized knowledge ofanother entity

► The value to the entity of the other entity undertakingactivities that assist the entity in achieving its objectives

► Improved outcomes

► More efficient delivery of outcomes

► More efficient or effective production and delivery of goodsand services

► Having an asset and related services available earlier thanwould otherwise be the case

► Having a higher level of service quality than wouldotherwise be the case

In the public sector context, the assessment of variable non-financial benefits could be challenging as non-financial benefitsmay be difficult to identify. An entity needs to consider thesubstance of the arrangement with the other entity, regardlessof the legal form of the benefits.

Link between power and benefits

An entity controls another entity if it not only has power overthe other entity being assessed for control and exposure orrights to variable benefits from its involvement with the otherentity, but also has the ability to use its power to affect thenature or amount of the benefits from its involvement with theother entity being assessed for control.

Delegated power

It is common for public sector entities to be responsible forcarrying out government policy. In some cases they may havethe authority to act in their own right, therefore would beacting as a principal. In other cases, they may act as an agentfor a government minister or another entity. For example, agovernment department may operate under a delegation ofpower from a government minister. The department uses itsown discretion in making decisions and taking actions and isnot subject to direction from the minister. In such cases, thedepartment is acting in its own right and would need to applythe other requirements of IPSAS 35 to determine whether itcontrols another entity. The scope of the department’sdecision-making authority over another entity would be asignificant factor in distinguishing whether it is acting as anagent or as a principal.

Transition and effective date

IPSAS 35 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning onor after 1 January 2017, with earlier application permitted. Ifan entity early adopts this standard, it must adopt IPSASs 34,36, 37 & 382 at the same time. Retrospective application ofIPSAS 35 is required.

How we see it

Compared to IPSAS 6, IPSAS 35 provides moreprescriptive guidance and the definition of control hasbeen revised significantly. Furthermore, the exemptionfrom consolidation of temporarily controlled entities doesnot exist in IPSAS 35. Therefore, entities ought to assessthe changes between IPSAS 6 and IPSAS 35 thoroughly toensure that the requirements in the new standard areapplied appropriately.

2 IPSAS 34 Separate Financial Statements; IPSAS 36 Investments inAssociates and Joint Ventures; IPSAS 37 Joint Arrangements;IPSAS 38 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities


IPSASB updateWhat’s new?The IPSASB has recently issued the following publications:

Projects Publication

Consultation paper (CP):Recognition andmeasurement of socialbenefits

On 29 July 2015, the IPSASB issued the CP on recognition and measurement of social benefitsfor comment. This CP builds on the IPSASB’s previous work on accounting for social benefits whilealso developing new ideas. The CP is open for comment until 31 January 2016.

Exposure draft 56: TheApplicability of IPSASs

ED 56 was issued on 29 July 2015 and proposes to revise the preface to IPSASs to provide thecharacteristics of public sector entities for which IPSASs are intended. It also proposes to deletethe definition of GBEs. The comment period of the ED ends on 30 November 2015.

RPG 3 Reporting ServicePerformance Information

On 31 March 2015, the IPSASB issued RPG 3. See page 3 for further details of this RPG.

IPSASB Strategy 2015Forward: An Overview

On 17 March 2015, the IPSASB published an Overview of its Strategy 2015 Forward.See page 2 for further details.

IPSASB Meeting June 2015

Projects Summary of current discussions

Social benefits The IPSASB discussed, and approved, the draft CP on social benefits at this meeting. The CPoutlines the accounting treatment of social benefits and the Board’s preliminary views on eachof these approaches:

► Obligating event approach

► Social contract approach

► Insurance approach

The CP is issued end of July 2015 with a six-month comment period.

Cash basis IPSAS review At this meeting, the IPSASB considered possible approaches to overcome obstacles to theadoption of the cash basis IPSAS Financial Reporting Under the Cash Basis of Accounting, thatarise as a result of the requirements relating to consolidation, external assistance and thirdparty payments.

The IPSASB also confirmed that the role of the Cash Basis IPSAS is as an intermediate step foran entity to transit to accrual basis IPSAS, rather than an end in itself. Therefore, the role ofthe encouraged disclosures in the standard is to support an entity’s transition to compliancewith the accrual basis IPSASs.

Consequential changesfrom Chapters 1-4 of theConceptual Framework

The IPSASB agreed to revise IPSAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, as follows:

► Deletion of the appendix to IPSAS 1, which consists of a summary of consequentialchanges (QCs) and constraints on relevant and reliable information. These QCs andconstraints were drawn from the International Accounting Standards Committee’s 1989Conceptual Framework.

► Update the sections of IPSAS 1 dealing with the hierarchy of sources for the selection ofaccounting policies when there is no IPSAS that specifically applies to a transaction, eventor condition. These revisions will acknowledge the IPSASB’s Conceptual Framework andthe QCs and constraints in the Framework.



Revenue The IPSASB considered an issues paper (IP) about the performance obligation approach toaccounting for revenue. The IP explained why a performance obligation approach was areasonable basis for accounting for some (but not all) revenue transactions in the publicsector. The IPSASB agreed that the performance obligation approach should be furtherexplored for accounting for some public sector revenue.

The IPSASB also agreed that IPSAS 23 Revenue from Non-Exchange Transactions (Taxes andTransfers) was likely to be a useful starting point for revenue transactions, for which there areno performance obligations. However, the IPSASB noted that there are a number of issueswith IPSAS 23 that would need to be considered as part of that process. A further IP about theperformance obligation approach to accounting for some public sector revenue will bepresented at the next meeting.

Non-exchange expenses The IPSASB started discussion on the non-exchange expenses project at this meeting.

Project scopeThe IPSASB considered a number of factors that should be considered in establishing theproject scope, including: performance obligations; eligibility requirements; appropriations;social risks; and the recipients of government transfers.

Recognition of non-exchange expensesThe IPSASB discussed possible approaches to the recognition of non-exchange expenses andconsidered the possibility of adopting the basic approaches that will be proposed in the socialbenefits CP for this project.

The IPSASB staff was directed to develop an IP for the next meeting to further address scopeof the project, definition of non-exchange transactions, and specific recognition andmeasurement issues, including the potential of developing symmetrical accounting for non-exchange expenses and revenues.

Public sector financialinstruments

The IPSASB discussed the following at this meeting:

► Scope of the CP - The IPSASB agreed that a comprehensive CP would take too long todevelop and concluded that staff should proceed to develop a CP covering monetary gold,currency in circulation and IMF-related transactions. These issues relate primarily tomonetary authorities and, therefore, are relevant to a different constituency than theother issues in the scope of the project - statutory receivables, statutory payables andpublic sector specific securitizations. These issues will be addressed in a separate project.

► Measurement approaches of monetary gold

► Definition and measurement of currency in circulation

Government businessenterprises

The IPSASB approved for issue, ED 56 The Applicability of IPSASs at this meeting.

The objective of this ED is to remove the GBE definition in IPSAS 1 and propose consequentialamendments in IPSASs and RPGs. The definition of GBE has been criticised by constituents asambiguous and difficult to implement. Therefore, the IPSASB is proposing to remove thedefinition of GBE and provide a description of the characteristics of public sector entities forwhich IPSASs are intended.

The ED is expected to be issued in Q3 2015 with a comment period of four months.

Public sector combinations The IPSASB discussed classification of public sector combinations by reference to both controland a range of other factors, including:

► Consideration paid would be an indicator of an acquisition, whereas no consideration paidwould be an indicator of an amalgamation

► Decision-making is a factor to be taken into account, and encompasses compulsion,citizens’ rights (such as a referendum) and common control

► Accountability is not a factor in its own right, but something that is referred to in assessingwhether the overall classification decision is appropriate

► Both a change of sector and ownership interests, are part of the control criteria, and neednot be considered independently



The IPSASB also discussed various scenarios of combinations and their preliminary views aresummarized in the following table:

Scenario Classification

Purchases at market value Acquisition

Bargain purchase Acquisition if transferred from private sectorentity; may be amalgamation if transferredfrom not-for-profit entity

Donated operations Acquisition if transferred from privatesector; may be amalgamation if transferredfrom not-for-profit

Nationalizations Acquisition

Bail-outs Acquisition

Public sector combinations wholly in the publicsector but not under common control:

► The transfer of operations from onelevel of government to another existinglevel of government

► Territorial boundaries being rearranged tocreate three municipalities out of twooriginal municipalities

► Two municipalities combining to form asingle municipality (includes creation of anew municipality)

► Acquisition (view expressed by someBoard members)

► Amalgamation

► Amalgamation

Public sector combinations under commoncontrol

Amalgamation

Emissions trading schemes The IPSASB considered the following for development of the Emissions Trading Schemes(ETS) CP:

► Three accounting approaches were reviewed relating to an administrator’s involvement inETS. Approach 1 treats emissions allowances (EAs) as similar to issued currency, Approach2 treats EAs as similar to intangible assets such as a licenses or permits, while Approach 3focuses exclusively on revenue from cash flows generated by selling EAs (or transferringEAs for a subsidized price).

► Four approaches for participants’ accounting were also discussed. These were developedthrough collaboration with International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) staff. TheIASB had discussed the same four approaches at its June meeting, and identified onefurther approach. The IPSASB directed its staff to continue to work closely with IASB staffto identify and evaluate approaches for consideration at the next IPSASB meeting.

► The IPSASB also decided that the CP should discuss ETS accounting issues raised byinternational agreements and the role of agents administering an ETS on behalf of an ETSadministrator.

The next steps are for staff to develop, with input from the task-based group (TBG), a firstdraft of the ETS CP and a further IP for the next Board meeting.



Work plan The Board approved the following projects at this meeting:

► Public sector measurement

► Infrastructure assets

► Heritage assets

The project on public sector measurement will be carried out in two phases. Initially, theproject will identify the measurement requirements in the current suite of IPSASs, except forthose IPSASs dealing with financial instruments, and assess the extent to which they are inaccordance with the Framework. The second phase will determine priorities for addressingdislocations between current IPSASs and the Framework and the approach to implementationguidance.

The projects on heritage assets and infrastructure assets will develop accountingrequirements and guidance, including disclosures, for these classes of asset, which haveparticular significance in the public sector. The heritage assets project will commence inQ3, 2015. The infrastructure assets project will be aligned with the public sectormeasurement project and is not projected to commence until Q3 2016.

IPSASB governance update The Board was provided with an update on the development of the new governancearrangement of the Board. The Public Interest Committee (PIC) held its first meeting in March2015. The PIC comprises representatives of the World Bank, the Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), the IMF and the International Organization of SupremeAudit Institutions. The PIC will review the IPSASB’s governance arrangements and advise theIPSASB on the public interest responsiveness of the processes and structures of the IPSASB;and promote the public interest in the standard-setting activities of the IPSASB.

The IPSASB and IFAC will also set up a Consultative Advisory Group (CAG). The CAG willprovide advice on matters such as the IPSASB’s strategy, work program and agenda, includingproject priorities, and advice on projects, including views on technical issues that may impedethe adoption of IPSASs. The IPSASB approved the terms of reference for the CAG. The aim isfor this oversight infrastructure to be in place in 2016.


ResourcesIPSAS TrainingEY, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA), and IASeminars jointly offer a comprehensive range oftraining courses on IPSAS. The following table provides an overview of the upcoming IPSAS courses in 2015:

Course Date Place

Course 3020: IPSAS Fundamentals - Accruals Basis (4 days) 17 Aug—20 Aug 2015 Zanzibar

Course 3000: IPSAS (Accruals Basis) - Immersion Workshop (8 days) 18 Aug—27 Aug 2015 London

Course 3011: IPSAS Fundamentals - Comprehensive Workshop (5 days) 14 Sep-18 Sep 2015 Lagos

Course 3011: IPSAS Fundamentals - Comprehensive Workshop (5 days) 19 Oct-23 Oct 2015 London

Course 3081: IPSAS - Technical Update (1 day) 26 Oct-26 Oct 2015 London

Course 3401: IPSAS - Presentation, Disclosure and Financial Reports (2 days) 27 Oct-28 Oct 2015 London

Course 3500: IPSAS - First-Time Adoption, Transition and Implementation (2 days) 27 Oct-28 Oct 2015 London

Course 3220: IPSAS - For Revenues (1 day) 29 Oct-29 Oct 2015 London

Course 3285: IPSAS - For Employee Benefits and Provisions (1 day) 30 Oct-30 Oct 2015 London

Course 3011: IPSAS Fundamentals - Comprehensive Workshop (5 days) 16 Nov-20 Nov 2015 Accra

Course 3011: IPSAS Fundamentals - Comprehensive Workshop (5 days) 23 Nov-27 Nov 2015 Nairobi

Course 3081: IPSAS - Technical Update (1 day) 30 Nov-30 Nov 2015 Nairobi

Course 3011: IPSAS Fundamentals - Comprehensive Workshop (5 days) 07 Dec-11 Dec 2015 Cape Town

Course 3130: IPSAS (Accruals Basis) - Overview (2 days) 07 Dec-08 Dec 2015 London

Course 3500: IPSAS - First-Time Adoption, Transition and Implementation (2 days) 14 Dec-15 Dec 2015 Cape Town

Course 3081: IPSAS - Technical Update (1 day) 16 Dec-16 Dec 2015 Cape Town

For registration and further details of courses offered in 2015 and 2016, visithttp://www.iaseminars.com/courses/partners/CIPFA


The publications below are available on ey.com/ipsas

IPSAS Explained

We have published an updated second edition of ourpractical guide to IPSAS, IPSAS Explained. This guideprovides decision-makers in the public sector with anoverview of IPSAS and the International Public SectorAccounting Standards Board. This book is available forpurchase from Wiley, at www.ey.com/ipsas

Toward transparency

EY has undertaken a study to assess the current state ofpublic sector accounting from a global perspective. Thisnew research provides a better understanding of whatgovernments are doing well, and where there is scope forimprovement.

A snapshot of GAAP differences betweenIPSAS and IFRS

This publication summarizes the key differences betweenIPSAS and IFRS. It further explains the sources and reasonsfor differences between the two frameworks.

Model Public Sector Group

The aim of this set of financial statements is to bridge thegap between the ’theory’, as outlined in the standards andthe way such information needs to be presented in thefinancial statements.

This first edition of illustrative annual consolidated financialstatements of Model Public Sector Group are prepared inaccordance with IPSAS in issue at 30 June 2013 andeffective for annual periods beginning on 1 January 2013.


www.publicfinanceinternational.org

��Public Finance International is a website supported by EY anddeveloped in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of PublicFinance and Accountancy to provide informed news andcomment on �� developments in public financial managementinternationally, raise awareness of the need for goodgovernance and connect a global community of like-mindedpublic financial management professionals.

IPSAS Poster

Since 2010 EY has published a poster outlining key facts aboutIPSASs and ongoing IPSASB projects.

EY’s Public Sector Accounting webcast: IPSASUpdate 2014

We hosted a discussion on the latest developments in the areaof international public sector accounting back in December2014. In this webcast, we provide a progress update on keyprojects currently on the IPSAS Board’s agenda, as well asdevelopments in its governance and oversight.

We also cover IPSAS adoption and implementation aroundthe world, including the status of EPSAS (European PublicSector Accounting Standards) for EU Member States and NewZealand’s progress on implementing IPSAS.

For the archived on-demand version of this webcast, visithttp://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/webcast_2014-12-03-1600_international-public-sector-accounting-ipsas-update-2014-live

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions |Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax,transaction and advisory services. Theinsights and quality services we deliver helpbuild trust and confidence in the capitalmarkets and in economies the world over. Wedevelop outstanding leaders who team todeliver on our promises to all of ourstakeholders. In so doing, we play a criticalrole in building a better working world for ourpeople, for our clients and for ourcommunities.

EY refers to the global organization and mayrefer to one or more of the member firms ofErnst & Young Global Limited, each of whichis a separate legal entity. Ernst & YoungGlobal Limited, a UK company limited byguarantee, does not provide services toclients. For more information about ourorganization, please visit ey.com.

The move to International Public SectorAccounting Standards (IPSAS) is animportant initiative in public sectoraccounting, the impact of which stretches farbeyond accounting to affect every keydecision you make, not just how you report it.We have developed the global resources —people and knowledge — to support our clientteams. And we work to give you the benefitof our broad sector experience, our deepsubject matter knowledge and the latestinsights from our work worldwide. It’s howErnst & Young makes a difference.

© 2015 EYGM Limited.All Rights Reserved.

EYG No. AU3366

ED None

In line with EY’s commitment to minimize its impact onthe environment, this document has been printed onpaper with a high recycled content.

This material has been prepared for generalinformational purposes only and is not intended to berelied upon as accounting, tax, or other professionaladvice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice.

ey.com

ipsas outlook (july 2015) - de.ey.com fileipsas outlook july 2015 | 3 ipsasb publishes recommended...

Documents