Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(59 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(63 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(64 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(69 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(57 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(75 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(63 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(69 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(57 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(64 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(72 People Used) Visit Login
Preview
Show more
See Also: Login Faq(71 People Used) Visit Login
The new classification and measurement guidance was effective for both US GAAP and IFRS as of January 1, 2018, and the similarities and differences are covered in detail in this section. The new impairment guidance under ASC 326 is not yet effective for US GAAP, while the IFRS 9 impairment guidance was effective as of January 1, 2018.
Under US GAAP, the derecognition framework focuses exclusively on control, unlike IFRS, which requires consideration of risks and rewards. The IFRS model also includes a continuing involvement accounting model that has no equivalent under US GAAP.
Under IFRS, the legal form does not drive classification of debt instruments; rather, the nature of the cash flows of the instrument and the entity’s business model for managing the debt instruments are the key considerations for classification.
Classification is not driven by legal form under IFRS, whereas legal form drives the classification of debt instruments under US GAAP. The potential classification differences drive subsequent measurement differences under IFRS and US GAAP. IFRS vs US GAAP Financial assets