BC131 The Board observed that the third and fourth components conceptually are not part of goodwill and not assets, whereas the first and second components conceptually are part of goodwill. The Board described those first and second components as 'core goodwill', and focused its analysis first on whether core goodwill should be recognised as an asset.
BC132 An asset is defined in the Framework as a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity. Paragraph 53 of the Framework states that "The future economic benefit embodied in an asset is the potential to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the flow of cash and cash equivalents to the enterprise.' The Board concluded that core goodwill represents resources from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity. In considering whether core goodwill represents a resource controlled by the entity, the Board considered the assertion that core goodwill arises, at least in part, through factors such as a well-trained workforce, loyal customers etc, and that these factors cannot be regarded as controlled by the entity because the workforce could leave and the customers go elsewhere. However, the Board concluded that in the case of core goodwill, control is provided by means of the acquirer's power to direct the policies and management of the acquiree. Therefore, the Board concluded that core goodwill meets the Framework's definition of an asset.
BC133 The Board then considered whether including the third and fourth components identified in paragraph BC130 in the measurement of acquired goodwill should prevent goodwill from being recognised by the acquirer as an asset. To the extent that acquired goodwill includes those components, it includes items that are not assets. Thus, including them in the asset described as goodwill would not be representationally faithful.
BC134 The Board observed that it would not be feasible to determine the amount attributable to each of the components of acquired goodwill. Although there might be problems with representational faithfulness in recognising all of the components as an asset labelled goodwill, there are corresponding problems with the alternative of recognising all of the components immediately as an expense. In other words, to the extent that the measurement of acquired goodwill includes core goodwill, recognising that asset as an expense is also not representationally faithful.
BC135 The Board concluded that goodwill acquired in a business combination and measured as a residual is likely to consist primarily of core goodwill at the acquisition date, and that recognising it as an asset is more representationally faithful than recognising it as an expense.
Subsequent accounting for goodwill
BC136 ED 3 proposed, and the IFRS requires, goodwill acquired in a business combination to be carried after initial recognition at cost less any accumulated impairment losses. Therefore, the goodwill is not permitted to be amortised and instead must be tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that it might be impaired, in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. IAS 22 required acquired goodwill to be amortised on a systematic basis over the best estimate of its useful life. There was a rebuttable presumption that its useful life did not exceed twenty years from initial recognition. If that presumption was rebutted, acquired goodwill was required to be tested for impairment in accordance with the previous version of IAS 36 at least at each financial year-end, even if there was no indication that it was impaired.
BC137 In considering the appropriate accounting for acquired goodwill after its initial recognition, the Board examined the following three approaches:
(a) straight-line amortisation but with an impairment test whenever there is an indication that the goodwill might be impaired;
(b) non-amortisation but with an impairment test annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the goodwill might be impaired; and
(c) permitting entities a choice between approaches (a) and (b).
BC138 The Board concluded, and the respondents to ED 3 that expressed a clear view on this issue generally agreed, that entities should not be allowed a choice between approaches (a) and (b). Permitting such choices impairs the usefulness of the information provided to users of financial statements because both comparability and reliability are diminished.
BC139 The respondents to ED 3 that expressed a clear view on this issue generally supported approach (a). They put forward the following arguments in support of that approach:
(a) acquired goodwill is an asset that is consumed and replaced with internally generated goodwill. Amortisation therefore ensures that the acquired goodwill is recognised in profit or loss and no internally generated goodwill is recognised as an asset in its place, consistently with the general prohibition in IAS 38 on the recognition of internally generated goodwill.
(b) conceptually, amortisation is a method of allocating the cost of acquired goodwill over the periods it is consumed, and is consistent with the approach taken to other intangible and tangible fixed assets that do not have indefinite useful lives. Indeed, entities are required to determine the useful lives of items of property, plant and equipment, and allocate their depreciable amounts on a systematic basis over those useful lives. There is no conceptual reason for treating acquired goodwill differently.
(c) the useful life of acquired goodwill cannot be predicted with a satisfactory level of reliability, nor can the pattern in which that goodwill diminishes be known. However, systematic amortisation over an albeit arbitrary period provides an appropriate balance between conceptual soundness and operationality at an acceptable cost: it is the only practical solution to an intractable problem.
BC140 In considering these comments, the Board agreed that achieving an acceptable level of reliability in the form of representational faithfulness, while at the same time striking some balance between what is practicable, was the primary challenge it faced in deliberating the subsequent accounting for goodwill. The Board observed that the useful life of acquired goodwill and the pattern in which it diminishes generally are not possible to predict, yet its amortisation depends on such predictions. As a result, the amount amortised in any given period can at best be described as an arbitrary estimate of the consumption of acquired goodwill during that period. The Board acknowledged that if goodwill is an asset, in some sense it must be true that goodwill acquired in a business combination is being consumed and replaced by internally generated goodwill, provided that an entity is able to maintain the overall value of goodwill (by, for example, expending resources on advertising and customer service). However, consistently with the view it reached in developing ED 3, the Board remained doubtful about the usefulness of an amortisation charge that reflects the consumption of acquired goodwill, whilst the internally generated goodwill replacing it is not recognised. Therefore, the Board reaffirmed the conclusion it reached in developing ED 3 that straight-line amortisation of goodwill over an arbitrary period fails to provide useful information. The Board noted that both anecdotal and research evidence supports this view.
BC141 In considering respondents' comments summarised in paragraph BC139(b), the Board noted that although the useful lives of both goodwill and tangible fixed assets are directly related to the period over which they are expected to generate net cash inflows for the entity, the expected physical utility to the entity of a tangible fixed asset places an upper limit on the asset's useful life. In other words, unlike goodwill, the useful life of a tangible fixed asset could never extend beyond the asset's expected physical utility to the entity.
BC142 The Board reaffirmed the view it reached in developing ED 3 that if a rigorous and operational impairment test could be devised, more useful information would be provided to users of an entity's financial statements under an approach in which goodwill is not amortised, but instead tested for impairment annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the goodwill might be impaired. After considering respondents' comments to the Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to IAS 36 on the form that such an impairment test should take, the Board concluded that a sufficiently rigorous and operational impairment test could be devised. Its deliberations on the form that the impairment test should take are included in the Basis for Conclusions on IAS 36.
Excess of acquirer's interest in the net fair value of acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities over cost (paragraphs 56 and 57)
BC143 In some business combinations, the acquirer's interest in the net fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities exceeds the cost of the combination. That excess, commonly referred to as negative goodwill, is referred to below as the excess.
BC144 ED 3 proposed, and the IFRS requires, that if an excess exists, the acquirer should:
(a) first reassess the identification and measurement of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities and the measurement of the cost of the combination; and
(b) recognise immediately in profit or loss any excess remaining after that reassessment.
BC145 Respondents to ED 3 generally did not support the proposal to recognise immediately in profit or loss any excess remaining after the reassessment. Their objections were based on the following views:
(a) any such excess is likely to arise because of expectations of future losses and expenses.
(b) recognising the excess immediately in profit or loss would not be representationally faithful to the extent it arises because of measurement errors or because of a requirement in an accounting standard to measure identifiable net assets acquired at an amount that is not fair value, but is treated as though it is fair value for the purpose of allocating the cost of the combination.
(c) the proposal is inconsistent with historical cost accounting.
BC146 In considering respondents' comments, the Board agreed that most business combinations are exchange transactions in which each party receives and sacrifices equal value. As a result, the existence of an excess might indicate that:
(a) the values attributed to the acquiree's identifiable assets have been overstated;
(b) identifiable liabilities and/or contingent liabilities of the acquiree have been omitted or the values attributed to those items have been understated; or
(c) the values assigned to the items comprising the cost of the business combination have been understated.
BC147 The Board reaffirmed its previous conclusions that an excess should rarely remain if the valuations inherent in the accounting for a business combination are properly performed and all of the acquiree's identifiable liabilities and contingent liabilities have been properly identified and recognised. Therefore, when such an excess exists, the acquirer should first reassess the identification and measurement of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities and the measurement of the cost of the business combination.
BC148 The Board further observed that any excess remaining after the reassessment could comprise one or more of the following components:
(a) errors that remain, notwithstanding the reassessment, in recognising or measuring the fair value of either the cost of the combination or the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities or contingent liabilities.
(b) a requirement in an accounting standard to measure identifiable net assets acquired at an amount that is not fair value, but is treated as though it is fair value for the purpose of allocating the cost of the combination.
(c) a bargain purchase. This might occur, for instance, when the seller of a business wishes to exit from that business for other than economic reasons and is prepared to accept less than its fair value as consideration.
BC149 The Board disagreed with the view that expectations of future losses and expenses could give rise to an excess. Although expectations of future losses and expenses have the effect of depressing the price that an acquirer is prepared to pay for the acquiree, the net fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities will be similarly affected. For example, assume the present value of the expected future cash flows of a business is 100 provided 20 is spent on restructuring the business, but only 30 if no restructuring is done. Assume also there is no goodwill in the business. Any acquirer would therefore be prepared to pay 80 to acquire the business, provided it too could generate the additional cash flows as a result of the restructuring. The fair value of the business is therefore 80. This amount is compared with the net fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities. The net fair value of those items is also 80 and not 100, because the costs of 20 needed to generate the value of 100 have not yet been incurred. In other words, expectations of future losses and expenses are reflected in the fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities. The Board observed that a possible cause of the errors referred to in paragraph BC148(a) is a failure to reflect correctly the fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities or contingent liabilities in their current location and condition, reflecting their current level of performance.
BC150 In developing ED 3 and the IFRS, the Board considered the appropriate treatment for an excess comprising the components identified in paragraph BC148 by assessing whether it should be recognised:
(a) as a reduction in the values attributed to some of the acquiree's identifiable net assets (for example, by reducing proportionately the values attributed to the acquiree's identifiable assets without readily observable market prices);
(b) as a separate liability; or
(c) immediately in profit or loss.
Recognising the excess as a reduction in the values attributed to some net assets
BC151 The Board considered the view that recognising an excess by reducing the values attributed to the acquiree's identifiable net assets is appropriate because it is consistent with the historical cost accounting method, in that it does not recognise the total net assets acquired above the total cost of those assets. The Board rejected this view, noting that, to the extent the excess comprises the first and third components in paragraph BC148, the reduction in the values allocated to each of the acquiree's identifiable net assets would inevitably be arbitrary and, therefore, not representationally faithful. The resulting amount recognised for each item would not be cost, nor would it be fair value. Such an approach raises further issues in respect of the subsequent measurement of those items. For example, if the acquirer reduces proportionately the fair values attributed to the acquiree's identifiable assets without readily observable market prices, that reduction would be immediately reversed for any of those assets that are measured after initial recognition on a fair value basis.
BC152 To the extent the excess comprises the second component in paragraph BC148, reducing the values assigned to the acquiree's identifiable net assets that are required to be initially measured by the acquirer at their fair values also would not be representationally faithful.
BC153 The Board observed that although conceptually any guidance on determining the values to be assigned by the acquirer to the acquiree's identifiable net assets should be consistent with a fair value measurement objective, this is not currently the case under IFRSs. Allocating an excess comprising the second component in paragraph BC148 to those items that are not initially measured by the acquirer at their fair values would nonetheless result in those items being initially recognised by the acquirer at their fair values at the acquisition date. However, the Board decided that such an approach would not be appropriate at this time because:
(a) it is reconsidering as part of the second phase of its Business Combinations project those requirements in IFRSs that result in the acquirer initially recognising identifiable net assets acquired at amounts that are not fair values but are treated as though they are fair values for the purpose of allocating the cost of the combination.
(b) it would raise further issues in respect of the subsequent measurement of those items similar to those identified in paragraph BC151. For example, measuring the acquiree's deferred tax assets at their fair values at the acquisition date would involve discounting the nominal tax benefits to their present values. This is inconsistent with IAS 12 Income Taxes, which requires deferred tax assets to be measured at nominal amounts. Therefore, the effect of the discounting would be immediately reversed by IAS 12.
Recognising the excess as a separate liability
BC154 The Board observed that an excess comprising any of the components identified in paragraph BC148 does not meet the definition of a liability and that its recognition as such would not be representationally faithful. The Board also observed that recognition as a liability also raises the issue of when, if ever, the credit balance should be reduced.
Recognising the excess immediately in profit or loss
BC155 The Board concluded that the most representationally faithful treatment of that part of an excess arising from a bargain purchase is immediate recognition in profit or loss. The Board further concluded that separately identifying the amount of an excess that is attributable to each of the first and second components identified in paragraph BC148 is not feasible.
BC156 As a result, the Board concluded that:
(a) the most appropriate treatment for any excess remaining after the acquirer performs the necessary reassessments is immediate recognition in profit or loss; and
(b) for each business combination occurring during the reporting period, the acquirer should be required to disclose the amount and a description of the nature of any such excess.
Business combination achieved in stages (paragraphs 58-60)
BC157 The IFRS carries forward the requirements in paragraphs 36-38 of IAS 22 on the accounting for business combinations achieved in stages by, for example, successive share purchases. The Board will reconsider those requirements as part of the second phase of its Business Combinations project.
BC158 However, the Board received a large number of requests from its constituents for guidance on the practical application of paragraphs 36-38 of IAS 22. As a result, the Board:
(a) clarified in the IFRS that accounting for adjustments to the fair values of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities as revaluations to the extent that they relate to the acquirer's previously held ownership interests does not signify that the acquirer has elected to apply an accounting policy of revaluing those items after initial recognition.
(b) developed an example illustrating the application of the requirements in paragraphs 58-60 of the IFRS. That example is included in the Illustrative Examples accompanying the IFRS.
Initial accounting determined provisionally (paragraphs 61-65)
BC159 The IFRS changes the requirements in paragraphs 71-74 of IAS 22 on the subsequent recognition of, or changes in the values assigned to, the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities. When the initial accounting for a business combination can be determined only provisionally by the end of the reporting period in which the combination occurs, ED 3 proposed, and IFRS 3 requires, the acquirer to account for the combination using those provisional values. This will be the case if either the fair values to be assigned to the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities or contingent liabilities or the cost of the combination can be determined only provisionally by the acquirer by the end of the reporting period in which the combination occurs. The IFRS also requires:
(a) any adjustments to those provisional values as a result of completing the initial accounting to be recognised from the acquisition date and within twelve months of the acquisition date.
(b) with a few specified exceptions, adjustments to the initial accounting for a combination after that initial accounting is complete to be recognised only to correct an error in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. Therefore, the initial accounting for the combination cannot be amended for the effects of changes in accounting estimates after the combination.
BC160 In contrast, IAS 22 required:
(a) the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities that did not satisfy the criteria for separate recognition at the time of initially accounting for a business combination to be subsequently recognised by the acquirer when they satisfy those criteria; and
(b) the values assigned to the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities to be adjusted by the acquirer when additional evidence became available to assist with estimating the values of those items at the acquisition date.
In accordance with IAS 22, the acquirer recognised any such adjustment by adjusting the amount assigned to goodwill or negative goodwill, but only provided the adjustment was made by the end of the first annual reporting period that began after the business combination, and only to the extent the adjustment did not increase the carrying amount of goodwill above its recoverable amount. Otherwise, the adjustment was required to be recognised in profit or loss.
BC161 In developing ED 3 and the IFRS, the Board observed that one of the objectives of accounting for a business combination is for the acquirer to recognise all of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities that existed and satisfied the criteria for separate recognition at the acquisition date at their fair values at that date. The Board concluded that the requirements in IAS 22 for subsequently recognising the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities could, in some instances, have resulted in a business combination being accounted for in a way that was inconsistent with this objective. This would have been the case if, for example, an asset of the acquiree that did not satisfy the criteria for recognition separately from goodwill at the time of initially accounting for the combination subsequently satisfied those criteria because of an event taking place after the acquisition date but before the end of the first annual reporting period beginning after the combination.
BC162 However, the Board also observed that normally it is not possible for an acquirer to obtain before the acquisition date all of the information necessary to achieve, immediately after the acquisition date, the objective described in paragraph BC161. Consequently, it is often not possible for an acquirer to finalise the accounting for the combination for some time thereafter. The Board therefore concluded that the IFRS should, without modifying the objective described in paragraph BC161, provide an acquirer with some period of time after the acquisition date to finalise the accounting for a business combination. The Board also concluded that a maximum time period in which to finalise that accounting, although arbitrary, is necessary to prevent the accounting from being adjusted indefinitely. The Board concluded that a 12-month maximum period is reasonable.
BC163 Respondents to ED 3 generally supported the above approach. The minority that disagreed questioned whether a 12-month period for completing the initial accounting would be sufficient. However, there was no clear consensus amongst respondents as to what an appropriate alternative period might be, nor did the respondents clarify why their proposed alternatives might be any less arbitrary than that proposed by the Board in ED 3.
Adjustments after the initial accounting is complete (paragraphs 63-65)
BC164 The Board began its deliberations on when adjustments to the initial accounting for a business combination after that accounting is complete should be required by first considering the other circumstances in which IFRSs require or permit the accounting for a transaction to be retrospectively adjusted. In accordance with IAS 8, in the absence of a change in an accounting policy, an entity is required to adjust its financial statements retrospectively only to correct an error. The Board concluded that it would be inconsistent for the IFRS to require or permit retrospective adjustments to the accounting for a business combination other than to correct an error. Therefore, the Board decided that, with the three exceptions discussed in paragraphs BC165-BC169, the IFRS should require an acquirer to adjust the initial accounting for a combination after that accounting is complete only to correct an error in accordance with IAS 8. Almost all of the respondents to ED 3 supported such a requirement.
BC165 Two of the three exceptions to this requirement relate to adjustments to the cost of a business combination after the initial accounting for the combination is complete. Those exceptions are discussed in paragraphs BC166 and BC167. The third relates to the subsequent recognition by the acquirer of the acquiree's deferred tax assets that did not satisfy the criteria for separate recognition when initially accounting for the business combination. This exception is discussed in paragraphs BC168 and BC169.
Adjustments to the cost of a business combination after the initial accounting is complete
BC166 When a business combination agreement provides for an adjustment to the cost of the combination contingent on future events, paragraph 32 of the IFRS requires the amount of the adjustment to be included in the cost of the combination at the acquisition date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In accordance with paragraph 33, if the amount of the adjustment is included in the cost of the combination at the time of initially accounting for the combination but the future events do not occur or the estimate needs to be revised, the cost of the combination must be adjusted accordingly. In accordance with paragraph 34, if the amount of the adjustment is not included in the cost of the combination at the time of initially accounting for the combination and the adjustment subsequently becomes probable and can be measured reliably, the cost of the combination must also be adjusted accordingly. The requirements in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the IFRS are two exceptions to the principle adopted by the Board that the initial accounting for a business combination should be adjusted after that accounting is complete only to correct an error.
BC167 As noted in paragraph BC67, the IFRS carries forward from IAS 22, without reconsideration, the requirements on adjustments to the cost of a business combination contingent on future events. The Board is reconsidering those requirements, and therefore the two related exceptions to the principle that the initial accounting for a business combination can be adjusted only to correct an error, as part of the second phase of its Business Combinations project.
Recognition of deferred tax assets after the initial accounting is complete (paragraph 65)
BC168 IAS 22 contained an exception to the requirements outlined in paragraph BC160 for the subsequent recognition of the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities. That exception arose because of the accounting required by IAS 22 when the potential benefit of the acquiree's income tax loss carry-forwards or other deferred tax assets not satisfying the criteria for separate recognition when the business combination was initially accounted for was subsequently realised.
BC169 Paragraph 65 of the IFRS carries forward from IAS 22, without reconsideration, the requirements for accounting for the subsequent realisation of such potential tax benefits. These requirements:
(a) are also an exception to the principle adopted by the Board that the initial accounting for a business combination should be adjusted after that accounting is complete only to correct an error; and
(b) are being reconsidered by the Board as part of the second phase of its Business Combinations project.
Disclosure (paragraphs 66-77)
BC170 In line with the Board's aim of articulating in IFRSs the broad principles underpinning a required accounting treatment, the Board decided that the IFRS should state explicitly the objectives that the various disclosure requirements are intended to meet. To that end, the Board identified the following three disclosure objectives:
(a) to provide the users of an acquirer's financial statements with information that enables them to evaluate the nature and financial effect of business combinations that were effected during the reporting period or after the balance sheet date but before the financial statements are authorised for issue.
(b) to provide the users of an acquirer's financial statements with information that enables them to evaluate the financial effects of gains, losses, error corrections and other adjustments recognised in the current period that relate to business combinations that were effected in the current period or in previous periods.
(c) to provide the users of an acquirer's financial statements with information that enables them to evaluate changes in the carrying amount of goodwill during the period.
BC171 The Board began its discussion of the disclosure requirements necessary to meet these objectives by assessing the disclosure requirements in SIC-28 Business Combinations—"Date of Exchange" and Fair Value of Equity Instruments and IAS 22. The Board concluded that information disclosed in accordance with SIC-28 about equity instruments issued as part of the cost of a business combination helps to meet the first of the three objectives outlined above. Therefore, the Board decided to carry forward to the IFRS the disclosure requirements in SIC-28.
BC172 The Board also concluded that information previously disclosed in accordance with IAS 22 about business combinations classified as acquisitions and goodwill helps to meet the objectives outlined above. Therefore, the Board decided to carry forward to the IFRS the related disclosure requirements in IAS 22, amended as necessary to reflect the Board's other decisions in this project. For example, IAS 22 required disclosure of the amount of any adjustment during the period to goodwill or negative goodwill resulting from subsequent identification or changes in value of the acquiree's identifiable assets and liabilities. In line with the Board's decision that an acquirer should, with specified exceptions, adjust the initial accounting for a combination after that accounting is complete only to correct an error (see paragraphs BC164-BC169), the IAS 22 disclosure requirement has been amended in the IFRS to require disclosure of information about error corrections required to be disclosed by IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors.
BC173 The Board then assessed whether any additional disclosure requirements should be included in the IFRS to ensure that the three disclosure objectives outlined in paragraph BC170 are met. Mindful of the aim to seek international convergence on the accounting for business combinations, the Board, in making its assessment, considered the disclosure requirements in the corresponding domestic standards of each of its partner standard-setters.
BC174 As a result, and after considering respondents' comments on ED 3, the Board identified, and decided to include in the IFRS, the following additional disclosure requirements that it concluded would help to meet the first of the three disclosure objectives outlined in paragraph BC170:
(a) for each business combination that was effected during the period:
(i) the amounts recognised at the acquisition date for each class of the acquiree's assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities, and, unless disclosure would be impracticable, the carrying amounts of each of those classes, determined in accordance with IFRSs, immediately before the combination. If such disclosure would be impracticable, that fact must be disclosed, together with an explanation of why this is the case.
(ii) a description of the factors that contributed to a cost that results in the recognition of goodwill—including a description of each intangible asset that was not recognised separately from goodwill and an explanation of why the intangible asset's fair value could not be measured reliably—or a description of the nature of an excess (ie an excess of the acquirer's interest in the net fair value of the acquiree's identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities over the cost).
(iii) the amount of the acquiree's profit or loss since the acquisition date included in the acquirer's profit or loss for the period, unless disclosure would be impracticable. If such disclosure would be impracticable, that fact must be disclosed, together with an explanation of why this is the case.
(b) the information required to be disclosed for each business combination that was effected during the period in aggregate for business combinations that are individually immaterial.
(c) the revenue and profit or loss of the combined entity for the period as though the acquisition date for all business combinations that were effected during the period had been the beginning of that period, unless such disclosure would be impracticable.
BC175 The Board further decided that, to aid in meeting the second disclosure objective outlined in paragraph BC170, the IFRS should also require disclosure by the acquirer of the amount and an explanation of any gain or loss recognised in the current period that:
