Book Read Free

International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards

Page 550

by International GAAP 2019 (pdf)


  capital enhancements created in the trust by the sale of equity instruments at a severely

  discounted amount.

  When the reporting entity finances the arrangement, the finance is generally interest-

  free or at a lower than market interest rate. The debt is serviced with the dividends

  received and, at the end of the repayment period, any outstanding balance can be

  treated in various ways; refinanced or waived by the reporting entity, or settled by the

  return of a number of shares equal to the outstanding value.

  In summary, the BEE party generally injects only a notional amount of capital into the

  trust, which obtains financing to acquire the shares in the reporting entity and uses the

  dividend cash flows to service the debt it has raised. In such generic schemes, the BEE

  party faces a typical option return profile: the maximum amount of capital at risk is

  notional and the potential upside increase in value of the shares of the reporting entity

  accrues to the BEE party through the party’s beneficial rights in the trust.

  15.5.2

  Measurement and timing of the accounting cost

  If the analysis under 15.5.1 above is that the trust should be consolidated, the transfer of

  equity instruments to that entity is essentially the same as a transfer of own equity to an

  employee benefit trust, as discussed at 12.3 above. Such a transfer, considered alone, is

  an intra-entity transaction and therefore does not give rise to a charge under IFRS 2.

  The equity instruments held by the trust are therefore treated as treasury shares, and

  no non-controlling interests are recognised.

  It is only when the trust itself makes an award to a third party that a charge arises, which

  will be measured at the time at which the grant to the third party occurs. In a rising stock

  market this will lead to a higher charge than would have occurred had there been a

  grant, as defined in IFRS 2, on the date that the equity instruments were originally

  transferred to the trust. Generally, the value of the award is based on an option pricing

  model and the BEE party is treated as the holder of an option.

  Where the trust is not consolidated, the presumption will be that the transfer of equity

  instruments to the trust crystallises an IFRS 2 charge at the date of transfer. However, it

  is important to consider the terms of the transaction in their totality. For example, if the

  entity has the right to buy back the equity instruments at some future date, the benefit

  transferred may in fact be an economic interest in the equity instruments for a limited

  period. This may, depending on the method used to determine the buy-back price,

  influence the measurement of any IFRS 2 charge (which would normally be based on

  the presumption that the benefits of a vested share had been passed in perpetuity).

  2756 Chapter 30

  Some have sought to argue that BEE credentials result in the recognition of an intangible

  asset rather than an expense. In order to be recognised as an asset, an entity must have

  control over the resource as a result of a past event. Paragraphs 13 and 16 of IAS 38 –

  Intangible Assets – indicate that control over an intangible asset may be evidenced in

  two ways:

  • as legal rights that are enforceable by law; or

  • as exchange transactions for the same or similar non-contractual customer

  relationships.

  In BEE transactions, a contract is usually entered into with a BEE partner. The contract

  between the entity and the BEE partner may include a contractual lock-in period or a clause

  that only allows the transfer of such equity instruments to another BEE partner, usually with

  the lock-in provision also transferred to the buyer. However, the contract does not provide

  the entity with legal rights that give it the power to obtain the future economic benefits

  arising from the BEE transaction, nor the ability to restrict the access of others to those

  benefits. Therefore BEE credentials do not qualify for recognition of intangible assets and

  the difference between the fair value of the award and the consideration received should

  be expensed. This is consistent with guidance issued by SAICA.38

  An issue to be considered in determining the timing of the IFRS 2 expense is that many

  BEE transactions require the BEE party to be ‘locked into’ the transaction for a pre-

  determined period. During this period the BEE party or trust is generally prohibited

  from selling or transferring the equity instruments. As no specific performance is

  generally required during this period, it is not considered part of the vesting period

  (see 3.3 and 6.1 above). Rather, the post-vesting restrictions would be taken into account

  in calculating the fair value of the equity instruments (see 8.4.1 above). This is illustrated

  in the following example (based in part on Example 5 in the SAICA guidance).

  Example 30.66: Receipt of BEE credentials with no service or performance

  condition

  Entity A grants shares with a fair value of $1,000,000 to a BEE consortium for no consideration. As a result

  of the BEE ownership entity A obtains BEE credentials. The BEE consortium are entitled to the shares

  immediately and not required to perform any services to entity A nor are any performance conditions required

  to be met. However in order to secure the BEE credentials, the consortium may not sell their shares for a

  period of 7 years from grant date.

  In this transaction shares have been issued at a discount to fair value in return for BEE credentials and would

  fall into the scope of IFRS 2. As there is neither a service nor a performance condition, the fair value of the

  shares given should be expensed at grant date. The restriction on the transfer of the shares would be treated

  as a post-vesting restriction and taken into account when estimating the fair value of the equity instruments

  granted. If the shares in this example were listed, the listed price would not necessarily be the fair value as

  the fair value would need to be adjusted for the restriction of transfer.

  15.5.3

  Classification of awards as equity- or cash-settled

  Certain schemes, particularly where the reporting entity is not listed, give the BEE party the

  right to put the shares back to the entity (or another group entity) after a certain date. This

  is often done to create liquidity for the BEE parties, should they decide to exit the scheme.

  Such a feature would require the scheme to be classified as cash-settled (see 9.1 above).

  Share-based

  payment

  2757

  Similarly, where the BEE transaction is facilitated through a trust, the trust may have

  granted awards to beneficiaries in the form of units in the trust. The trustees may have

  the power to reacquire units from beneficiaries in certain circumstances (e.g. where the

  beneficiaries are employees, when they leave the employment of the entity). Where the

  trust does not have sufficient cash with which to make such payments, the reporting

  entity may be obliged, legally or constructively, to fund them.

  Such arrangements may – in their totality – create a cash-settled scheme from the

  perspective of the reporting entity. In analysing a particular scheme, it should be

  remembered that, under IFRS 2, cash-settled schemes arise not only from legal

  liabilities, but also from constructive or commer
cial liabilities (e.g. to prevent a former

  employee having rights against what is essentially an employee trust) – see 10.2 above.

  Finally, a transaction may be structured in such a way that the trust holds equity

  instruments of the reporting entity for an indefinite period. Dividends received by the

  trust may be used to fund certain expenses in a particular community in which the

  reporting entity operates (e.g. tuition fees for children of the reporting entity’s

  employees or the costs of certain community projects). The scheme may even make

  provision for the shares to be sold after a certain period with the eventual proceeds

  being distributed amongst members of the community.

  In such a case it is necessary to consider the nature of the distribution requirement

  and whether or not the reporting entity (through the trust) has a legal or constructive

  obligation under the scheme to make cash payments based on the price or value of

  the shares held by the trust. Where there is such an obligation, the arrangement would

  be classified as a cash-settled scheme. If however the trust merely acts as a conduit

  through which:

  • dividend receipts by the trust are paid out to beneficiaries with the shares never

  leaving the trust; or

  • proceeds from the sale of shares are distributed to beneficiaries,

  the precise terms of the arrangement should be assessed to determine whether or not

  the arrangement meets the definition of a cash-settled share-based payment (see 15.4.6

  above for a discussion of similar considerations in the context of ‘drag along’ and ‘tag

  along’ rights).

  Any dividend payments by the Group for the period that the trust is consolidated should

  be treated as an equity distribution or as an expense, as appropriate, in accordance with

  the principles discussed at 15.3 above.

  16

  FIRST-TIME ADOPTION AND TRANSITIONAL

  PROVISIONS

  16.1 First-time adoption provisions

  The requirements of IFRS 1 – First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting

  Standards – in relation to share-based payment arrangements are discussed in

  Chapter 5 at 5.3. However, one provision may remain relevant for entities that have

  already adopted IFRS and would no longer generally be considered ‘first-time adopters’.

  2758 Chapter 30

  IFRS 1 does not require an entity to account for equity-settled transactions:

  • granted on or before 7 November 2002; or

  • granted after 7 November 2002 but vested before the later of the date of transition

  to IFRS and 1 January 2005.

  However, where such an award is modified, cancelled or settled, the rules regarding

  modification, cancellation and settlement (see 7 above) apply in full unless the

  modification occurred before the date of transition to IFRS. [IFRS 1.D2]. The intention of

  this provision is to prevent an entity from avoiding the recognition of a cost for a new

  award by structuring it as a modification to an earlier award not in the scope of IFRS 2.

  There is slight ambiguity on this point in the wording of IFRS 1, paragraph D2 of which

  refers only to the modification of such awards. However, paragraph D2 also requires an

  entity to apply ‘paragraphs 26-29’ of IFRS 2 to ‘modified’ awards. Paragraphs 26-29 deal

  not only with modification but also with cancellation and settlement, and indeed

  paragraphs 28 and 29 are not relevant to modification at all. This makes it clear, in our

  view, that the IASB intended IFRS 1 to be applied not only to the modification but also

  to the cancellation and settlement of such awards.

  16.2 Transitional provisions for June 2016 amendments

  As noted at 1.2 above, in June 2016 the IASB amended IFRS 2 in three areas:

  • treatment of vesting and non-vesting conditions in the measurement of a cash-

  settled share-based payment (see 9.3.2 above);

  • classification of share-based payment transactions with a net settlement feature

  for withholding tax obligations (see 14.3.1 above); and

  • modification of a share-based payment from cash-settled to equity-settled

  (see 9.4.2 above).

  The amendments are applicable for accounting periods beginning on or after

  1 January 2018 with earlier application permitted provided it is disclosed. [IFRS 2.63D].

  The amendments have detailed transitional provisions. These begin by stating that prior

  periods should not be restated when an entity first applies the amendments (although

  an entity may elect to apply them retrospectively subject to certain conditions – see

  below). [IFRS 2.59A].

  If an entity does not elect to apply the amendments retrospectively it should apply them

  as follows:

  • the amendment relating to modifications of awards from cash-settled to equity-

  settled applies only to modifications that occur on or after the date that an entity

  first applies the amendments;

  • the amendment relating to the treatment of vesting and non-vesting conditions in

  a cash-settled award applies to share-based payment transactions that are

  unvested at the date that an entity first applies the amendments and to share-based

  payment transactions with a grant date on or after that date of first application. For

  unvested share-based payment transactions with a grant date prior to the date of

  initial application, the entity is required to remeasure the liability at the date it first

  applies the amendment. The effect of the remeasurement should be recognised in

  Share-based

  payment

  2759

  opening retained earnings, or other component of equity, of the reporting period

  in which the amendment is first applied;

  • the amendment relating to awards with a net settlement feature for withholding

  tax obligations applies to share-based payment transactions that are unvested (or

  vested but unexercised) at the date the amendments are first applied and to share-

  based payment transactions with a grant date on or after that date of first

  application. For unvested (or vested but unexercised) share-based payment

  transactions (or components thereof) that were previously classified as cash-

  settled but are now classified as equity-settled in accordance with the

  amendments, the carrying value of the liability should be reclassified to equity at

  the date on which the amendments are first applied. [IFRS 2.59A].

  Notwithstanding the requirements set out above, the amendments may be applied

  retrospectively, subject to the existing transitional provisions set out in paragraphs 53

  to 59 of IFRS 2, in accordance with the requirements of IAS 8, if, and only if, it is

  possible to do so without hindsight. If an entity chooses retrospective application, it

  must do so for all three areas covered by the June 2016 amendments. [IFRS 2.59B].

  16.3 Transitional provisions for references to the 2018 Conceptual

  Framework

  As noted at 1.2 above, the revision of the Conceptual Framework in 2018 led to a minor

  consequential amendment to IFRS 2. The revision amended the footnote to the

  definition of an equity instrument in Appendix A to refer to the revised definition of a

  liability. The definition of an equity instrument remains unchanged. The revision is not

  expected to have a significant effect on IFRS 2 (se
e 1.4.1 above).

  The amendment applies for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2020. Earlier

  application is permitted if at the same time an entity also applies all other amendments

  made by Amendments to References to the Conceptual Framework in IFRS Standards.

  The amendment is to be applied to IFRS 2 retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8,

  subject to the transitional provisions set out in paragraphs 53 to 59 of IFRS 2. [IFRS 2.63E].

  If an entity determines that retrospective application would be impracticable or would

  involve undue cost or effort, the entity should apply the amendment to IFRS 2 by

  reference to paragraphs 23 to 28, 50 to 53 and 54F of IAS 8. [IFRS 2.63E].

  References

  1

  Amendment to International Financial Reporting

  3

  Classification and Measurement of Share-based

  Standards: IFRS

  2 Share-based Payment –

  Payment Transactions, Amendments to IFRS 2,

  Vesting Conditions and Cancellations, IASB,

  IASB, June 2016 (‘June 2016 amendments’).

  January 2008 (‘January 2008 amendment’).

  4

  Amendments to References to the Conceptual

  2

  Group Cash-settled Share-based Payment

  Framework in IFRS Standards, IASB,

  Transactions, Amendments to IFRS 2, IASB,

  March 2018.

  June 2009 (‘June 2009 amendment’).

  5

  IASB Update, May 2015.

  2760 Chapter 30

  6 IASB Update, November 2015.

  23 IFRIC Update, July 2006.

  7 Agenda Paper 16, IASB, November 2015.

  24 IFRIC Update, March 2011.

  8

  IASB Update, May 2016.

  25 More detailed guidance on this may be found in

  9

  http://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/share-

  a publication such as Options, Futures, and

  based-payment, 9 September 2018.

  Other Derivatives, John C. Hull.

  10 For convenience, throughout this chapter we

  26 FASB Staff Position 123(R)-4, Classification

  refer to the recognition of a cost for share-based

  of Options and Similar Instruments Issued as

  payments. In some cases, however, a share-based

  Employee Compensation That Allow for Cash

  payment transaction may initially give rise to an

 

‹ Prev