The Board addressed the original request for clarification by removing 『unconditional』 in the fourth criterion in paragraph 69, which states that a liability is current if an entity 『does not have an unconditional right to defer settlement of the liability for at least twelve months』. The Board explained that a right to defer settlement is rarely unconditional, as such rights often are conditional on compliance with covenants. Therefore, the Board decided that if an entity’s right to defer settlement of a liability is subject to the entity complying with specified conditions, the entity has a right to defer settlement of the liability at the end of the reporting period if it complies with those conditions at that date.
審計委員會處理了最初的澄清要求，刪除了第69段第四項標準中的「無條件」規定，如果一個實體「沒有無條件的權利將債務推遲至少12個月清償」，則負債是流動的。委員會解釋說，推遲結算的權利很少是無條件的，因為這種權利往往是以遵守契約為條件的。因此，審計委員會決定，如果一個實體推遲清償債務的權利取決於該實體是否符合特定條件，則該實體有權在報告期結束時推遲清償債務，前提是該實體在該日符合這些條件。
Under current practice, 『an unconditional right』 is interpreted to have a similar meaning to the meaning of 『right』 in the amended standard. As such, a right conditional on compliance with covenants in future periods is considered 『unconditional』 if the entity is in compliance with those conditions at the end of the reporting period. Therefore, we do not expect that this clarification will significantly impact current practice. Existence at the end of the reporting period The amendments also clarify amendments that the requirement for the right to exist at the end of the reporting period applies regardless of whether the lender tests for compliance at that date or at a later date. The Board considered whether to provide guidance on how management would assess an entity’s compliance at the end of the reporting date if a condition related to cumulative performance in a period, for instance, a profit measure, and the period extended beyond the reporting period. The Board agreed that, in such cases, an entity would have to estimate future performance beyond the end of the reporting period, or, alternatively, adjust the benchmark to the performance period up to the end of the reporting period, to make them comparable. Only if comparable, will they be relevant in determining whether the entity would be in compliance with the applicable conditions. However, acknowledging that different facts and circumstances will apply in each case, the Board decided not to specify a method to apply when adjusting for comparability.
根據現行慣例，「無條件權利」的含義與修訂後的《標準》中「權利」的含義類似。因此，如果實體在報告期結束時遵守這些條件，以在未來期間遵守契約為條件的權利被視為「無條件的」。因此，我們預計這一澄清不會對目前的做法產生重大影響。報告期結束時的存在性修正案還澄清了在報告期結束時存在權的要求適用的修正案，無論貸款人是在該日或以後的日期進行合規性測試。董事會審議了是否就管理層如何在報告日結束時評估一個實體的合規性提供指導，如果條件與一個時期內的累積業績有關，例如利潤計量，以及超出報告期的期間。審計委員會一致認為，在這種情況下，一個實體必須估計報告期結束後的未來業績，或者將基準調整到截至報告期結束的業績期間，使之具有可比性。只有在具有可比性的情況下，它們才有助於確定實體是否符合適用條件。然而，董事會承認，每一案件都適用不同的事實和情況，因此決定不具體說明在調整可比性時應採用的方法。
The Board also considered whether events after the reporting period, such as breaches of covenant or early repayments by the entity, would affect the classification of the liability. IAS 1.75A has been added to clarify that the 『Classification of a liability is unaffected by the likelihood that the entity will exercise its right to defer settlement of the liability for at least twelve months after the reporting period』. Therefore, any expectations about events after the reporting period (and prior to the authorisation of financial statements) do not impact the assessment made at the end of the reporting period as to the classification of the liability. Thus, although management may intend to settle a financial liability shortly after the end of the reporting period, as long it has a right to defer settlement for at least twelve months, the liability is classified as non-current. This applies even if settlement has occurred when the financial statements are authorised for issuance. It should be noted, however, that there may be disclosure requirements in accordance with IAS 10 Events after the reporting period relating to the change in circumstances of the liability, such as a settlement of the liability. How we see it
審計委員會還審議了報告所述期間之後發生的事件，如該實體違反盟約或提前還款，是否會影響負債的分類。增加了國際會計準則第1.75A條，以澄清「負債的分類不受實體在報告期後至少十二個月行使其推遲清償債務權利的可能性的影響」。因此，對報告期後（以及財務報表授權之前）事件的任何預期，不影響在報告期結束時對負債分類所作的評估。因此，儘管管理層可能打算在報告期結束後不久結清金融負債，但只要它有權將結算推遲至少12個月，該負債就被歸類為非流動負債。即使在授權發布財務報表時結算已經發生，這一點也適用。但是，應當指出的是，根據國際會計準則第10號，在報告期後可能會有與負債情況變化有關的披露要求，例如債務的清償。
Generally, we do not expect the clarifications regarding management expectations and intentions to have a significant impact on practice, since most entities consider the right as at the end of the reporting date as determining the classification, under current practice. However, we are aware that some entities have considered management expectations and intentions when determining whether a liability is current or non-current. Meaning of the term 『settlement』 The Board added two new paragraphs (paragraphs 76A and 76B) to IAS 1 to clarify what is meant by 『settlement』 of a liability. The Board concluded that it was important to link the settlement of the liability with the outflow of resources of the entity. As such, paragraph 76A states: 『For the purpose of classifying a liability as current or non-current, settlement refers to a transfer to the counterparty that results in the extinguishment of the liability. The transfer could be of: a) cash or other economic resources—for example, goods or services; or b) the entity’s own equity instruments, unless paragraph 76B applies.』 Many liabilities are settled by the transfer of cash from the entity. Some liabilities are settled by the transfer of resources other than cash, such as goods or services, or an entity’s own equity instruments.
一般來說，我們不認為有關管理層期望和意圖的澄清會對實踐產生重大影響，因為大多數實體認為，在報告日期結束時，根據現行做法，這一權利是確定分類的。然而，我們知道，一些實體在確定負債是流動負債還是非流動負債時考慮了管理層的期望和意圖。「結算」一詞的含義美聯儲委員會在《國際會計準則第1號》中增加了兩個新的段落（第76A和76B段），以澄清負債「結算」的含義。審計委員會的結論是，必須將債務的清償與該實體的資源外流聯繫起來。因此，第76A段規定：「為了將負債分為流動負債或非流動負債，結算是指將債務轉移給交易對手，從而導致債務消滅。轉移可以是：a）現金或其他經濟資源，例如貨物或服務；或b）實體自身的權益工具，除非第76B款適用。「許多負債通過從實體轉移現金來結算。有些負債是通過轉移現金以外的資源來結算的，如貨物或服務，或實體自身的權益工具。