2012-11 Related Party Transactions RESPONSES

Click here to submit
Response Questionnaire
To be considered, comments must be received by
November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Terry Martens, CGA City of Armstrong, B.C. tmartens@cityofarmstrong.bc.ca
General comments:
1.
Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered?
Yes. Qualitative characteristics are irrelevant when determining what is reportable.
2.
Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
Yes.
3.
Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount?
Yes. Financial Statement relevance is enhanced by this treatment.
4.
Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services?
Yes.
5.
Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?
Yes. All of the requirements represent a reasonable balance of effort on the part of the reporting entity and the expectations of statement users and the general public. Paragraph .43 is especially important for very small local governments that have little or no choice but to purchase goods and services from related parties for their routine operations.

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Armand Capisciolto, National Accounting Standards Partner BDO Canada LLP acapisciolto@bdo.ca
General comments: Our main concerns with the proposed standard relate to the definition of exchange amount and proposed standard's interaction with Government Transfers and Tangible Capital Assets (see response to questions 3 and 4).
1.
We do not agree that only quantitative characteristics should be considered. We do not feel fair presentation could be achieved by ignoring qualitative considerations. It is not uncommon for related party transactions to be below a quantitatively determined materiality, however have qualitative aspects which would influence a user of the financial statements. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
We agree with the essential characteristics of related parties.
3.
We agree that related party transactions should be recorded on a gross basis. Our concerns relate to the use of exchange amount and specifically how exchange amount could be the carrying amount,
consideration paid/received or fair value. This will be particularly confusing to government organizations which have recently transition from Part V of the Accounting Handbook to Public Sector Accounting Standards. We agree that, depending on the situation, carrying value, consideration paid/received or fair value may be the appropriate measurement base, we disagree that all three of these amounts should be called exchange amount. In addition, we feel more guidance is needed to assist preparers and auditors in determining whether carrying amount, consideration paid/received or fair value is the appropriate measurement base for a specific transaction. 4. Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services?
Our concerns with this proposal relate to this proposed standards interaction with PS3410, Government Transfers and PS3150, Tangible Capital Assets. In many cases related party transactions will also be government transfers. For example a transfer from the Province of Ontario to an Ontario School Board would be considered both a government transfer and a related party transaction. PS3410.04 scopes in transfers of tangible capital assets and PS3150.14 would require a transfer of a tangible capital asset to be recorded at fair value. This is inconsistent with the proposed standard permitting contributed goods to only be disclosed. We believe the scope of the proposed standard should be clarified to exclude contributed tangible capital assets from the recognition and measurement requirements. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?
We agree with the disclosure requirements.
PO Box 187 1723 Hollis Street Halifax, NS B3J 2N3 (902) 424-7021 wilesm@gov.ns.ca
Department of Finance
Government Accounting
November 21, 2012
Tim Beauchamp Director, Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2
Dear Mr. Beauchamp, RE: Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft. Our thoughts on the proposed standard are below. 1. Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered? Yes, we agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered. However, we do not feel that this position is sufficiently articulated in the proposed standard. Paragraphs .06 to .08 make no mention of quantitative materiality and some of the factors to consider listed in paragraph .08 seem qualitative, rather than quantitative, in nature. The Reportable Transactions section of the standard should clearly identify quantitative materiality as the overriding consideration in determining which transactions between related parties should be disclosed. Perhaps a new paragraph could be inserted between .07 and .08. This paragraph should contain wording similar to that found in the Implications of the Proposals section of the Exposure Draft. For example, it could read: Disclosure of related party transactions is required only when those transactions are material to the financial statements. When assessing whether related party transactions are reportable, the quantitative characteristics of materiality are considered. Certain related party transactions are of such significance that it is essential that they be adequately described in the financial statements in order to provide an understanding of the reporting entitys financial results and position. We believe the addition of such a paragraph would more clearly convey the primary importance of quantitative materiality.
2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parties? We have two concerns with respect to the essential characteristics of related parties. First, we believe the current definition of key management personnel is too broad. In particular, point c) in paragraph .12 seems vague and, as a result, could encompass a number of individuals within the reporting entity. We feel point c) in paragraph .12 should be removed. We believe the intent is to include, as key management personnel, only those individuals who have a significant ability to affect the overall, high-level strategy and direction of the reporting entity. Assuming this is the case, we feel the full spectrum of these individuals is covered in points a) and b) of paragraph .12. Point c) appears only to open the door to parties who were not intended to be considered key management personnel. Our second point relates to the degree of influence concept introduced in paragraph .14. We agree that determining whether an entity is related to a member of key management personnel depends on the degree of influence the individual has over that entity. However, we believe a similar statement needs to appear in relation to close family members of key management personnel. At present, paragraphs .15 and .16 make no mention of degree of influence. We recommend that an additional paragraph be added. This paragraph should be similar to paragraph .14 except that its focus should be on close family members of key management personnel. Alternatively, paragraph .14 could be reworded to include close family members of key management personnel. If this latter option is selected, the paragraph should be moved so that it follows the existing paragraph .16. 3. Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount? We agree that related party transactions should be recognized by both a provider and recipient on a gross basis at the exchange amount and we are in favor of the fact that the standard makes an exception for entities that are acting as principals rather than agents. 4. Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services? Yes, we agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services. However, we believe entities should be required to make a formal policy choice. The standard should direct entities to commit to one approach and apply it consistently from one accounting period to the next. The selected policy should be disclosed in the entitys notes to the financial statements. This will limit the opportunity for manipulation and ensure that the entitys financial results are reported consistently across time. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements? We agree with the proposed disclosure requirements. To improve clarity, we believe these requirements should be linked back to paragraphs .06 to .08 which deal with reportable transactions. We recommend that the opening comment in paragraph .36 be amended as follows:
.36 When a reporting entity has reportable transactions (as defined in paragraphs .06 to .08), it should disclose: . This change will remind readers that the disclosure requirements are only applicable to items identified as reportable transactions. 6. Other comments: From our review of the proposed standard, we feel there is uncertainty regarding how contributed tangible capital assets (TCA) would be accounted for between related parties. In particular, it seems unclear which PSA standard would apply in this type of scenario. PS 3410 suggests the transferor would recognize the transaction at carrying value. PS 3150 suggests the recipient would recognize the transaction at fair value. The proposed exposure draft suggests the transaction would be recognized at exchange value. Guidance is needed in order to determine which of these standards prevail in the case of related party contributions of TCA. This guidance should appear in the scope paragraph(s) of the relevant PSA Handbook sections. For example, if PS 3410 and PS 3150 are meant to take precedence, the scope paragraph in the Related Party Transactions standard should exclude related party contributions of TCA. If the related party standard is meant to take precedence, the scope paragraphs of PS 3410 and PS 3150 should exclude related party contributions of TCA. Finally, minor errors were noted in paragraph .08 of the exposure draft. These are detailed below: .08 (a) whether the transactions are undertaken on different terms and conditions that than would be expected to have been adopted if the parties were dealing at arms length in the same circumstances; (e) the need for the information to enable users to compare the reporting entitys financial position and financial performance with that of other entities. This concludes our thoughts on the Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft. We would be pleased to discuss any questions or comments you may have with respect to this letter. To do so, please contact Jill Devanney (devannjl@gov.ns.ca), Rob Bourgeois (bourgere@gov.ns.ca), or the undersigned.
Regards,
Suzanne Wile, CA Executive Director, Government Accounting Nova Scotia Department of Finance

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Greg MacBeth Office of the Auditor General - Manitoba greg.macbeth@oag.mb.ca
General comments: I am replying on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General - Manitoba. My comments are from the perspective of the public sector within our jurisdiction.
1.
Quantitative characteristics should be considered but other factors should also be considered. We believe this concept is already reflected in paragraph 08.
2.
We agree but the standards should also reflect the concept of substance over form. There may be unusual situations involving several levels of governments and the public sector working together (for example, a P3) in significant projects/ entities but the arrangements do not meet the definition of control or shared control. Significant related party transactions would not be disclosed under the standards as drafted. We also want to ensure that the standards prevent an attempt of getting around related party disclosure by structuring an agreement a certain way. 3. Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount?
Yes.
4.
No, we do not support a choice of either disclosing or recognizing the contributed goods and services. The standards should require recognition when certain specified criteria are met. This would lead to more consistent financial reporting in the public sector. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?
Yes.
November 21, 2012 Mr. Tim Beauchamp, CA Director, Public Sector Accounting Standards Accounting Standards Board 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2 via: ed.psector@cica.ca
Grant Thornton LL 12th Floor 50 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5J 2Z8 T +1 416 366 4240 F +1 416 360 4944 www.GrantThornton.ca
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP Suite 2000 National Bank Tower 600 De La Gauchetire Street West Montral, Qubec H3B 4L8 T + 514 878 2691 F + 514 878 2127 www.rcgt.com
Dear Mr. Beauchamp:

Subject: Exposure Draft: Related Party Transactions (September 2012)
Grant Thornton LLP and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP (we) would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (PSAB) Exposure Draft Related Party Transactions (ED). The changes proposed in the ED are particularly relevant to us because of the large proportion of our clients who are applying Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. We support PSABs decision to issue a standard dealing with recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of related party transactions as the need for such a standard has become even more important due to the transition of many entities to Public Sector Accounting Standards. However, while we agree with the intention of the proposed standard, we have the following responses to your questions and additional comments below: 1. Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered? If the intent of the standard was to convey that only the quantitative characteristics of materiality are considered when determining if a transaction is reportable, then we do not believe that this intent is articulated clearly. We believe paragraphs .06 to .08 on reportable transactions imply that professional judgment is required and that all the factors listed in .08 (which include qualitative ones) are to be considered when determining what to report. We believe the proposed standard also requires the consideration of qualitative characteristics by suggesting in paragraph .08 that it may be necessary to disclose information about unrecognized transactions. If the intent is to only consider quantitative characteristics, then that requirement should be clearly stated; however we recommend that both quantitative and qualitative characteristics be considered when determining which transactions are reportable. We also note that paragraph .08 discusses determining which transactions... to disclose but we believe the intent, based on the placement of this section in the proposed standard and the nature of the guidance provided, is to convey that the concept of a reportable transaction is to act as the filter by which a public sector entity should determine which related party transactions to
Chartered Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
recognize/report in the financial statements, and the remainder of the proposed standard provides additional guidance on recognition, measurement and disclosure of those related party transactions that are determined to be reportable. If this is indeed the intent of the proposed standard, we would recommend that the Board reword this Section to more clearly convey this intent to preparers. If this is not the intent, then we are unsure of the purpose of this segment of the proposed standard in light of the remaining guidance in the proposal and, again, suggest more clarity be added. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities? No, we do not agree with all of the essential characteristics of related parties in the proposed standard. Specifically, we believe that the definition of a related party should exclude the relationships in paragraphs .09(f), .13(b) and (c) and .16(b) and (c). The definition of a related party is mainly defined through control/shared control. We understand that the Board removed the concept of significant influence from its definition of a related party in the proposed standard when it came to entities over which the government entity had influence by only including those entities under control or shared control by the government entity. However, the characteristics of a related party in the paragraphs referenced above would effectively scope in any entities where a key member of management personnel and close family members have any ownership interest or are even just members of management or a governing board that permits participation in the financial or operating decisions of that entity, unless the degree of influence in the financing or operating decisions is remote (paragraph .14). This definition goes beyond even that of significant influence for key members of management personnel and their close family members while only requiring entities that are under control or shared control of the entity itself to be considered related parties. In practice, we believe that the proposed requirement to include these relationships would be too onerous for entities to track and implement. We recommend that the Board change the definition of a related party to be consistent with its treatment of entities that are connected to the reporting entity and, therefore, include only entities that are under control or shared control by the member of key management personnel or close family members in the definition of a related party. 3. Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount? While we agree that the standard should not be overly prescriptive, we strongly believe that the measurement guidance around how the exchange amount should be determined is too broad to prevent inconsistency of application. The proposed standard essentially gives three choices with very little guidance (three examples only) of which measurement option may be the better choice for different situations. In fact, we believe the proposed measurement requirements could be used to manipulate the financial statements; for example, an entity could record a related party transaction at fair value to record a gain in the statement of operations when in fact no real change in ownership has occurred. We understand that the Board tried to move away from the concept of in the normal course of operations stated in Section 3840 of Part II of the CICA Handbook Accounting (Section 3840); however, in doing so, it appears that preparers of the financial statements
have so much latitude in determining the exchange amount that the results may not be meaningful to users. We believe that the Board should incorporate more of the guidance from Section 3840 such that all transactions are at carrying value unless the transactions are in the normal course of the public sector entitys activities, with professional judgment used to determine if a transaction is in the normal realm of what services the public sector entity performs. We propose that the normal operations concepts in Section 3840 can be applied to public sector entities but tailored to how they operate. If the Board decides not to incorporate these concepts, we would strongly suggest that the standard provide more direction in terms of when the various types of exchange amounts are most relevant because the current proposals will not increase reliability (especially representational faithfulness, neutrality, and verifiability), comparability, and understandability. 4. Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services? No, we do not agree with the proposals. We recommend that the Board remove paragraphs .24-.29 of the proposed standard and, instead, permit the guidance related to reportable transactions at the beginning of the standard apply to the recognition of contributed goods and services. If the Board decides to retain the paragraphs, we find the qualitative guidance in paragraph .27 confusing and are unclear how the objectives of general purpose financial statements and legislation or policy to prepare general purpose financial statements apply in determining if contributed goods and services should be recognized. Lastly, we are concerned that the proposals in this section would conflict with PS3150 that requires contributed tangible capital assets to be measured at fair value at the date of contribution. The proposed standard needs to clarify which standard holds precedence. To be consistent with PS3150, we suggest that the Board consider a measurement requirement similar to PS3150, especially since it can be difficult to obtain the carrying value of a service. If an entity cannot obtain the fair value of the service, they can use the nominal value and disclose the transaction so the users can understand the effect on the entity and its resources. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements? No, we disagree with some of the proposed disclosures. Our comments are as follows: We agree with the disclosure requirements in paragraph .36. Paragraph .38 provides factors to consider when determining the level of detail to provide in the disclosure. We suggest that the closeness of the relationship should not be a factor in determining what level of disclosure should be made in the financial statements. If the reporting entity has determined the transaction qualifies as a related party transaction that is reportable, then they should determine what level of detail to disclose based on the other two factors in the paragraph. We believe paragraphs .40-.42 concerning unrecognized transactions are unclear as to which transactions must be disclosed. If an entity employs the concept of reportable transactions to determine which transactions to recognize (as noted in our response
to Question 1), measure and disclose, do paragraphs .40-.42 override the reportable transaction guidance to require the entity to disclose those transactions that were previously determined to be unreportable? If so, what is the purpose for determining which transaction is a reportable transaction? As noted in our response to Question 4, we believe that the Board should use the guidance related to reportable transactions at the beginning of the standard to the recognition of contributed goods and services. If the Board does not accept this recommendation, then perhaps there is a need for disclosure related to unrecognized contributed goods and services. However, we recommend that Board make the standard clearer about the transactions to which it is referring in paragraphs .40-.42: contributed goods and services or something else. Paragraph .40 allows the disclosure requirement for unrecognized transactions to be in the supplementary schedules to the financial statements. We believe this requirement should be removed as it suggests that the disclosure could be included in schedules that may not be part of the financial statements. Further, if the entity is audited, an audit report only covers the financial statements and notes and schedules to which it refers and, as such, all GAAP requirements should be contained within that set of financial statements. The standard should not require a disclosure and then allow it to be included in something that is not part of the financial statements.
Other comments Below we also have a number of comments on specifics in the standards that did not fall under the questions asked in the Exposure Draft: Generally, we recommend that the proposed related party transactions standard for public sector entities should be much closer to Section 3840. We believe measurement guidance similar to Section 3840 would result in less diversity in practice and would be easier to apply than the very broad guidance provided in the current proposed standard. We believe that the scope item in paragraph .04(a) should be removed. Special reports are addressed in the Canadian Auditing Standards and are often, in practice, prepared in accordance with non-GAAP requirements. Other sections of the CICA Handbook do not plan exceptions for special reports that would be prepared in accordance with non-GAAP requirements. We believe that this standard should only address requirements for financial statements that are prepared under full PSAB requirements, similar to any other standard. We believe the scope item in paragraph .04(d), as written, could be misinterpreted. The way the paragraph currently reads, we are unsure if it refers only to transactions with entities within a consolidated reporting entity. If so, it is unclear as to the purpose of the scope exclusion as, generally, such transactions would be eliminated upon consolidation. As it is written, paragraph .04(d) could also be interpreted to mean that an individual entity within a government reporting entity (that was reporting on its own individual financial statements) would not have to report related party transactions with
other entities within the same government reporting entity. We would recommend that the Board clarify the intent in the wording of this paragraph. In paragraph .15, the standard says in most cases, close family members include an individuals spouse etc. We believe the words in most cases should be removed as we could not think of a situation in which the people listed would not be close family members. The paragraphs of the ED relating to cost allocation and recovery (.19 to .23) seems to relate to revenue and expense recognition on a gross or net basis. In our opinion, these requirements do not belong in this Section as they are not specific to related party transactions. We believe that the adoption of these standards should be prospective as it could be costly for entities to go back and restate their past related party transactions. The first sentence of paragraph .45 is missing the word to after the words financial statements. We have identified a translation difference with respect to the French version of the ED; the term utilities has been translated to mean public services. This term should be defined properly in the French version.
If you wish to discuss our comments or concerns, please contact Melanie Joseph, CA (Melanie.Joseph@ca.gt.com, 416-607-2736) or Stephane Landry (landry.stephane@rcgt.com, 418-647-5008) Yours sincerely,
Grant Thornton LLP Melanie Joseph, CA
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP Stephane Landry, CPA auditor, CA

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Ron Williams, CA (Comptroller General of Finance) Government of Newfoundland and Labrador rwilliams@gov.nl.ca
General comments:
1.
It is the Provinces position that both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of materiality should be considered in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable. Professional judgment should be applied in determining whether the omission or misstatement of the information could influence the economic decisions of users of the financial statements. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
The Province agrees with the following characteristics of related parties with reference to the definition of control per PS 1300 and characteristics of shared control per PS 3060: a) entities that control or are controlled by the reporting entity; b) the reporting entity and other entities that are subject to common control; and c) entities that have shared control over or are subject to shared control of the reporting entity. However, the Province does not agree that a related party would include any of the following characteristics: d) an individual that is a member or key management personnel of the reporting entity and a close family member of that individual; e) an entity controlled by, or under shared control of, a member of key management personnel of a reporting entity or a close family member of that individual; and
f) an entity when a member of key management personnel of a reporting entity or a close family member of that individual is a member of the management or governing body of the entity such that they have the ability to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the entity. Consistent with the Provinces previous comments to PSABs Invitation to Comment, Related Party Transactions Definitions and Disclosures, our positions still remain that disclosures relating to key management personnel and close family members of key management personnel would be an onerous task and would outweigh any perceived benefit from such disclosures. Obtaining this information in relation to key management personnel and their close family members is not practical for general purpose financial statements for senior governments. Given the definitions of key management personnel and their close family members as outlined in this ED, the list of possible individuals that would be included is very extensive. An organization would have no practical means of obtaining all such relationships for financial statement disclosure or recognition purposes. In addition, it is not necessary that related party transactions include these parties as government has various legislation and processes in place to protect the integrity of financial transactions and provide accountability to the public.
3.
The Province does not agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount. Although the ED provides guidance on when it would be appropriate to recognize the transaction on a gross basis or a net basis, depending on whether the provider entity acts as a principal or agent respectively, consideration should also be given to the entitys policies regarding particular transactions on whether a gross or net basis would be appropriate. While PSAB is of the view that a standard should not be prescriptive in how related party transactions are measured, the ED defines the exchange amount to be either the carrying amount; consideration paid or received, or fair value and provides guidance as to when each option may be appropriate. It is the Provinces position that PSA Standards currently in place adequately define how particular transactions should be measured. Therefore, the Related Party Transactions standard should not cover this topic. These transactions should be reported at the value determined by government policy or the related parties. Further, in relation to paragraph 33, the Province does not agree with the use of fair value in measuring related party transactions in the context outlined. In the example provided, it states that increasing the rate charged for a service could result in a write up of the value of the underlying assets. If the transfer of the underlying asset (i.e. parking facility) is to another public sector entity for the provision of the same service (i.e. parking) then the purpose of the asset has not changed. Hence, the use of fair value for transferring assets with the public sector reporting entity is not appropriate.
4.
It is the Provinces position that contributed goods and services should not be recognized separately in financial statements since it is an onerous task. However, the entity should disclose information about contributed goods and services only if the transactions are material. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?
Yes, the Province agrees with the proposed disclosure requirements as these disclosures would provide sufficient information about related party transactions and the underlying relationships necessary for users to understand the effect of those transactions on its financial position and performance. The Province also agrees that judgment should be applied to determine the level of detail to be disclosed.
Cliquez ici pour soumettre
Formulaire de rponse
Pour tre pris en considration, les commentaires devront parvenir le 21 novembre 2012 au plus tard.
Oprations entre apparents Expos-sondage

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Simon-Pierre Falardeau, CPA, CA, Contrleur des finances et Andre Miville, CPA, CA, directeur gnral de la pratique professionnelle Contrleur des finances - Qubec simon-pierre.falardeau@cf.gouv.qc.ca et andre.miville@cf.gouv.qc.ca
Commentaires gnraux : Bien que nous jugeons quune norme traitant des apparents soit ncessaire, nous sommes en dsaccord avec certaines propositions de lexpos-sondage, comme mentionn dans nos rponses spcifiques ci-aprs. Par ailleurs, nous sommes davis que certains paragraphes devraient tre clarifis. Ces paragraphes sont les suivants: - .04d) En vertu du le libell propos, les oprations avec des entits comprises dans le mme primtre comptable [] sont exclues du champ dapplication de la norme propose. Selon notre comprhension, ces entits sont des apparents. Toutefois, cest le traitement comptable des oprations et des soldes rciproques aux fins de la prparation des tats financiers consolids qui nest pas trait la norme propose, car il y a dj une norme cet effet, savoir le SP 2500 CONSOLIDATION-PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX. - .04 e) Est-ce que les ententes de partage de frais rfrent celles traites au SP 3410 PAIEMENTS DE TRANSFERT? Si oui, la rfrence ce chapitre devrait tre indique, comme cela est fait pour le paragraphe .04 c) - .04g) Nous ne comprenons pas pourquoi les participations de particuliers dans une entit du secteur public sont exclues? Enfin, le chapitre 3840 du Manuel de l'ICCA - Comptabilit (partie V) devrait clairement tre utilis aux fins de la publication de la norme dfinitive sur les apparents. notre avis, ces recommandations sont bien comprises par les diffrents utilisateurs, lesquels les ont dj appliques ou analyses pendant plusieurs annes avant que les organismes publics adoptent le Manuel de comptabilit de l'ICCA pour le secteur public comme rfrentiel. 1. tes-vous d'accord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de l'importance relative soient pris en considration pour dterminer si une opration entre apparents doit tre communique?
Nous sommes d'accord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de limportance relative soient pris en considration. Cela permettra de simplifier la collecte d'information ainsi que le processus de dtermination de la communication d'une
opration entre apparents. En consquence, le paragraphe .38 propos devra tre modifi pour tre cohrent avec la question pose. 2. tes-vous d'accord avec les caractristiques essentielles d'un apparent?
Tout dabord, il est important de prciser que nous sommes en dsaccord avec linclusion des principaux dirigeants de l'entit publiante et les proches parents de cette personne, titre d'apparents. Comme nous lavions dj mentionn lors de notre rponse l'appel commentaires publi en octobre 2011, les principaux dirigeants des organismes et les ministres lus doivent rendre compte de leurs actes devant l'Assemble lgislative. De plus, il existe au Qubec des lois en matire d'information financire, de conflit d'intrts et d'intgrit telle que la Loi sur la gouvernance des socits d'tat. De plus, les principaux dirigeants sont dj rgis par les lois constitutives de leur organisme. De plus, nous sommes toujours davis que, puisque les principaux dirigeants ne doivent pas tre considrs comme tant des apparents, leurs proches parents ne devraient pas non plus tre considrs comme tels. En effet, dj quil serait difficile de rpertorier l'ensemble des proches parents des principaux dirigeants, l'identification des transactions effectues par le gouvernement avec ceux-ci le serait encore plus, et entranerait ainsi une importante lourdeur administrative. Par ailleurs, si ces lments devaient tre inclus la norme, le paragraphe .15 dfinissant le terme proches parents devrait tre prcis. En comparaison avec cet expos-sondage, le paragraphe 3840.04 f) du Manuel de lICCA-comptabilit prcise davantage le contenu de l'expression proches parents en affirmant : Les proches parents comprennent le conjoint d'une personne et les personnes qui sont la charge soit de la personne dcrite, soit du conjoint de cette personne . La norme IAS 24 reprend elle aussi essentiellement les mmes prcisions. Enfin, nous sommes en accord avec le fait qu'il ne soit pas obligatoire de fournir des informations sur les rgimes de rmunration, les allocations pour frais et les autres paiements semblables couramment consentis aux principaux dirigeants pour services rendus, pour les mmes raisons que celles nonces prcdemment quant linclusion des principaux dirigeants titre dapparents.
3.
tes-vous d'accord pour que les oprations entre apparents, l'exception des apports de biens et de services, doivent tre comptabilises la fois par l'entit prestataire et l'entit bnficiaire pour leur montant brut la valeur d'change?
Tout dabord, nous sommes davis que la norme devrait prciser dans quel contexte les diffrentes valeurs dchange proposes (valeur comptable, contrepartie reue ou paye ou encore la juste valeur) devraient tre utilises. Dailleurs, lutilisation de larbre de dcision du chapitre 3840 OPRATIONS ENTRE APPARENTS du Manuel de lICCA - Comptabilit fournit des indications que nous jugeons tout fait pertinentes et nous croyons que ce dernier devrait tre suivi aux fins de llaboration de la prsente norme. Par ailleurs, nous sommes daccord pour comptabiliser les oprations entre apparents pour leur montant brut, sauf exceptions, tant pour le bnficiaire que pour le prestataire. Ceci est cohrent avec le chapitre SP 1201 PRSENTATION DES TATS FINANCIERS qui mentionne que les revenus et les charges doivent tre prsents leur valeur brute. Toutefois, nous croyons quil serait important de clarifier le paragraphe .19 a) car ce dernier ne prend pas en considration les exceptions qui pourraient survenir et qui sont expliques aux paragraphes .21 et .22 de la norme propose. En consquence, nous proposons dajouter au .19a) sauf dans certaines situations o il peut tre appropri de prsenter un montant net, tel que spcifi aux paragraphes .21 et .22 . Enfin, notre avis, la 1re phrase du paragraphe .21 devrait dbuter la section intitule Attribution et recouvrement des cots .
4.
tes-vous d'accord pour qu'une entit publiante puisse soit fournir des informations sur les apports de biens et de services, soit les comptabiliser?
Nous sommes davis que les apports de biens et services entre apparents ne devraient pas tre comptabiliss. Ces transactions devraient tre prsentes uniquement par voie de note, et ce, sans divulgation des montants affrents. En effet, dans plusieurs situations, la valeur devant leur tre attribue est difficile valuer. galement, le fait de permettre le choix quant leur traitement comptable fait en sorte de nuire la comparabilit des tats financiers prsentant le mme type dopration. Enfin, comme les apports de biens et de services reprsentent des oprations non montaires, nous croyons que les oprations non montaires devraient faire l'objet d'une norme spcifique, laquelle traiterait galement des oprations entre apparents.
5.
tes-vous d'accord avec les obligations d'information proposes?
Nous sommes, de faon gnrale, d'accord sur les obligations d'information proposes. Toutefois, nous croyons que seule limportance relative des montants en cause devrait tre prise en considration dans la dtermination des informations fournir (voir notre rponse la question 1). De plus, nous nous questionnons quant lutilit de la section intitule Oprations effectues dans le cours des activits car elle napporte aucune indication particulire pour les utilisateurs des tats financiers, lexception que lutilisation du jugement est ncessaire pour dterminer les oprations prsenter. Enfin, si cette section demeure dans la norme, le paragraphe .44 devrait tre clarifi car il est spcifi que dans certaines situations, lachat ou la vente de services publics entre apparents nest pas toujours ncessaire mentionner. Nous sommes davis que lappellation services publics devrait tre dfinie afin dviter toute ambigut quant son interprtation.

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Stuart Barr, Assistant Auditor General Office of the Auditor General of Canada stuart.barr@oag-bvg.gc.ca
General comments: We support the Board for its efforts to develop additional guidance for related party transactions. However, in our view, the proposed standard has not sufficiently directed recognition and measurement of related party transactions to achieve consistent financial statement reporting that meets the objectives of the conceptual framework. We believe the recognition and measurement requirements in the proposed standard require further consideration to develop a solution that will be useful to reporting entities. We are concerned by the reference in the proposed standard to reporting objectives not set out in PS 1100, such as assessing accountability for the use of resources within the confines and limits of legislative authorities (see our response to question 3 for more details). Introducing alternative reporting objectives is a significant change that has not been subject to public consultation and due process. It is difficult to reach a conclusion on the appropriateness of the proposed standard without knowing the specific outcome of the above financial reporting objective debate as financial reporting objectives frame judgements concerning the appropriateness of proposed standards. We encourage PSAB to expose and approve changes, if any, to financial reporting objectives prior to concluding its projects on appropriations and related party transactions. In addition to our responses to the specific questions provided below, we have the following comments with respect to certain scope exclusions found at paragraph 4 of the proposed standard: The reference to special purpose reports is not necessary and should be removed because public sector accounting standards issued by PSAB are standards developed for general purpose financial statements. Special purpose reports are by definition prepared to meet the special needs of specific users prepared in accordance with a special purpose framework that can but does not necessarily have to rely on standards issued by PSAB. It is not clear why the scope exclusion for amalgamations and restructuring is included in the proposed standard as we understand these circumstances are not specifically addressed elsewhere in the PSA Handbook. The scope exclusion also appears inconsistent with the concern PSAB expressed in paragraph 27 of the Issue Analysis paper that the application of PS 3150 in restructuring scenarios involving related parties may lead to unintended results. If PSAB is concerned with the recognition of gains and losses on transfers of tangible capital assets between related parties as part of restructuring
transactions, then the new standard on related parties should in fact provide additional guidance in these circumstances rather than scope them out. We encourage PSAB to consider how the proposed standard is addressing the concern noted in the Issue Analysis paper. We question the relevance of the reference to cost-sharing arrangements. A provider and a recipient of funds involved in a cost-sharing arrangement may be related parties and it is not clear why such a transaction, if significant, would be excluded from the scope of the proposed standard. The participation in a cost-sharing agreement by two unrelated providers of funds does not in itself make the two providers related parties and therefore scope exclusion does not appear necessary in this scenario.
1.
While we agree that quantitative characteristics of materiality are a key consideration in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, additional qualitative factors may also be considered. Assessing materiality is a question of judgment and should not only be limited to quantitative aspects. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
Yes, we agree with the essential characteristics of related parties as described in paragraph 9.
3.
Recognition of related party transactions: We agree that related party transactions should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis. However, we do not support the free choice with respect to recording contributed goods and services at paragraph 26 of the proposed standard. Because the decision to recognize contributed goods and services often requires significant judgment, the standard should provide clearer guidance to assist with and encourage a consistent application by reporting entities. We therefore suggest a more directive approach requiring recognition based on an assessment of objective criteria. We find the criteria outlined in IPSAS 23 particularly useful and relevant because they address the specific nature of contributed goods and services and an entitys specific circumstances. We also question the reference in paragraph 26 to government reporting policies as a recognition criteria. Recognition decisions in the context of general purpose financial reporting should rely on the application of objective criteria rather than government policies. We question the usefulness of the criteria listed at paragraph 27 of the proposed standard. For instance, we question the validity of the criterion at 27(a) the objectives of general purpose financial statements because recognition criteria should provide additional guidance specific to contributed goods and services to help achieve the financial statements objectives already established by the framework. Simply repeating objectives of the framework in specific guidance on recognition of goods and services is not useful guidance the proposed standard needs to elaborate further on circumstances that would lead to recognition of goods and services to be useful to reporting entities. The discussion in paragraph 28 of the proposed standard challenges financial statement objectives already established and should not be presented as a discussion in a specific standard. There is currently a project reviewing the conceptual
framework, including financial statement objectives, but until this project is completed, the current framework (and current financial statement objectives) should be the basis for a new standard on related party transactions. The current conceptual framework is clear that financial statements should report government expenses to show the consumption of economic resources in the delivery of services in a period (PS1000.21, PS1100.38). Paragraph 28 introduces an alternative financial reporting objective of assessing accountability for the use of resources within the confines and limits of legislative authorities. Such a reporting objective based on accountability alone is not consistent with the financial statement objectives set out in PS 1000 and 1100. Financial statements prepared in accordance with public sector accounting standards do not limit recognized liabilities and expenses to those that have been funded by legislative authority to date. If the Boards intention is to describe that special purpose financial statements may have an alternative reporting objective such as accountability that impacts financial reporting, the discussion of such an alternative should not be placed within this standard as it confuses its application and use as a standard developed for general purpose financial reporting. Similarly, we question the criterion at paragraph 27(b) on the information needs of users. While users needs should be considered by the standard setter in developing a list of relevant recognition criteria for contributed goods and services, users needs should not themselves be listed as a recognition criterion. Paragraph 27 also refers to the nature of legislative control, legislation or policy requiring an entity to prepare general purpose financial statements, and a reporting entitys established business model. We do not see these aspects as being particularly useful to a reporting entitys decision to recognize contributed goods and services. We encourage PSAB to develop more useful criteria and consider those used in IPSAS 23. Measurement of related party transactions: We have concerns with how paragraph 30 of the proposed standard is currently written. While the exchange amount can be determined to be equal to the transferors carrying amount or fair value, the three terms exchange amount, carrying amount and fair value - have different meanings and are individually defined at paragraph 5 of the proposed standard. If PSABs intent is to allow three measurement bases under various circumstances, we suggest paragraph 30 be re-written to clarify this. In many related party transactions, like contributed goods and services, the exchange amount is nil. In these cases, as currently written, paragraph 30 would require these transactions to be measured at a nil exchange amount, in other words not require recognition. This appears inconsistent with the guidance in paragraph 31. We also find the measurement guidance included in paragraphs 31 to 33 is not sufficient. While the three measurement bases can be appropriate in different circumstances, we believe clearer guidance on the specific circumstances leading to each of the three measurement bases is necessary to encourage consistency in the application of judgment and in financial reporting. Paragraph 31 considers the use of the carrying amount when there is no substantive change in the interest in an item. This concept works well in the context of the transfer of an asset or a liability, but is confusing in the context of the provision of services. For contributed services, it would be more intuitive to refer to the costs incurred by the provider of the service as a basis to measure those services rather than referring to the carrying value, a concept more relevant for assets and liabilities. We suggest paragraph 30 be re-written to more clearly describe the measurement basis of contributed services.
4.
No, we do not support a choice of either disclosing or recognizing the contributed goods and services. PSAB should encourage recognition more strongly when certain criteria are met. This would lead to more consistent financial reporting in the public sector. We find the criteria outlined in IPSAS 23 particularly useful and relevant because they are specific to the nature of the
contributed goods and services and the entitys specific circumstances. We encourage PSAB to develop more useful criteria and consider those used by IPSASB: Control (IPSAS 23.101) Reliable measurement (IPSAS 23.101) Materiality (IPSAS 23.101) Similarity of the services to those that the entity would otherwise acquire if the services in-kind were not available (IPSAS 23.101) The effects of those services in-kind on the financial position, performance, and cash flows of the entity (IPSAS 23.103) The extent to which an entity is dependent on a class of services in kind to meet its objectives (IPSAS 23.103). The practices of similar entities operating in a similar environment (IPSAS 23.103)
5.
Yes, we agree with the proposed disclosure requirements listed at paragraph 36 of the ED as, in our view, it provides sufficient and useful information for users to understand the impact of the related party transactions on the financial position and performance of the entity.
Finance
Comptrollers Division
Comptrollers Office 715 401 York Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P8 Phone: 945-4919 Fax: 948-3539 E-mail: betty-anne.pratt@gov.mb.ca
November 21, 2012
Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2
Dear Mr. Beauchamp: Re: Exposure Draft: Related Party Transactions Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these two documents. The Province of Manitoba (Province) has included responses to the Boards specific questions in the attachment. The Province agrees with PSAB that the recommendations in this exposure draft (ED) will have a minimal effect on our summary financial statements. The Province has legislation and policies in place to minimize the occurrence of material transactions with elected officials, senior civil servants, their close family members and the entities they control. The risk of a material related party transaction occurring and remaining undetected is very low. Members of the Legislative Assembly, including ministers, are required to file a public statement of assets and interests. All civil servants are required to disclose all private or personal interests that results in or creates the appearance of impropriety that could influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. Given that the conflict of interest disclosures are confidential, it would not be possible for the Province to identify all the related parties of key management personnel and their close family members. Nonetheless, transactions with related parties of key management personnel and their close family members would not likely be financially significant. The Province agrees that a related party standard is required for entities within the government reporting entity. The disclosure of material related party transactions improves the understandability, relevance, and comparability of financial statements. Knowledge of the terms and conditions of material related party transactions is necessary to allow users to assess the cost of
Page 1 of 3
services, especially for transactions with key management personnel, family members of key management personnel and their related parties. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the ED. If you have any questions or concerns related to these comments please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Betty-Anne Pratt, CA Provincial Comptroller On Behalf of the Province of Manitoba
Page 2 of 3
1) Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered? The Province agrees that only significant related party transactions should be reported. Significant transactions would include those that would materially affect the reporting entitys financial position and performance had the transactions been undertaken between parties that were dealing at arms length. The disclosed information should be relevant to the users of the financial statements and allow for comparison with other entities. 2) Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities? The Province agrees with the essential characteristics of related parties in the ED. Related parties should include entities that are controlled, entities subject to common or shared control, key management personnel, the close family members of key management personnel, and entities under the control of key management personnel or the family members of key management personnel. Depending on the degree of influence, related parties could also include entities whose governing body includes key management personnel, or the close family members of key management personnel. The Province agrees with PSAB that professional judgment should be used to determine if these entities should be included as related parties. 3) Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount? With the exception of contributed goods and services, related party transactions should be recognized on a gross basis by both the provider and recipient organizations. 4) Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services? Many of the services contributed by governments to their controlled entities cannot be easily valued. The decision of whether to disclose the information or recognize the contributed goods and services should be left to the discretion of the reporting entity. The decision should be influenced by the information needs of the users, nature of the operations, and legislative requirements. From the Provinces point of view the decision taken by the reporting entity would have no effect on the summary financial statements. 5) Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements? Yes, the Province agrees with the proposed disclosure requirements. The disclosures should provide sufficient information to understand the nature of the relationships, terms and conditions, and the effects on the financial position and performance of the reporting entity had the transactions been undertaken by parties acting at arms length. Page 3 of 3

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Claude Carter CCC Inc. (retired former Deputy AG of NS) claude.carter@ns.sympatico.ca
General comments:
1.
Not entirely....there could be circumstances where due to the nature of the transactions, qualitative considerations would warrant disclosure. I would not suggest that deferring to or simply x-referencing other reporting mechanisms would be fully appropriate in all instances. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
Yes
3.
Yes
4.
Yes
5.
Yes

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Marie-Claude Lamarre Socit de Transport de Montral (STM) marie-claude.lamarre@stm.info
Commentaires gnraux : Quelques phrases portent selon nous confusion quant au champ d'application du chapitre : - page ii, 2e paragraphe : "Le chapitre ne traite pas des oprations avec des entits comprises dans le mme primtre comptable." - page 1, .04d), o il est indiqu que le chapitre ne traite pas des "oprations avec des entits comprises dans le mme primtre comptable". Dans notre cas, la STM fait partie du primtre comptable de la Ville de Montral, ce qui nous porte croire que les oprations entre la STM et la Ville ne constituent pas des OEA si on se fie aux deux citations ci-dessus. Par contre, certains lments nous orientent vers une conclusion diffrente. En effet, la Ville contrle la STM et est donc considre comme un apparent selon le paragraphe .09a) de l'ES. Ajoutons aussi que, selon la dfinition de "primtre comptable" du chapitre SP 1300, le contrle est un lment permettant de dterminer si une entit fait partie du primtre comptable d'une autre entit. De plus, le feuillet d'information sur l'ES sur les OEA publi par le CCSP indique que "la proposition toucherait surtout les entits individuelles dun gouvernement qui prparent leurs propres tats financiers", ce qui impliquerait alors que les oprations de la STM avec la Ville seraient considres comme des OEA dans les tats financiers de la STM. Est-ce dire que les oprations conclues entre la STM et la Ville ne seront pas considres comme des OEA dans les tats financiers consolids de la Ville, mais seront considres comme des OEA dans le rapport financier annuel de la STM ? En somme, il serait selon nous pertinent de prciser quelques passages de l'ES au sujet du champ d'application du chapitre. 1. tes-vous d'accord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de l'importance relative soient pris en considration pour dterminer si une opration entre apparents doit tre communique?
Non, puisqu'une opration peut tre importante mme si son montant ne l'est pas. Par exemple, si une opration n'est pas comptabilise car elle ne peut tre value, mais qu'elle constitue un lment conomique essentiel la survie de l'entit
bnficiaire apparente (ex.: droit d'usage titre gratuit des lieux appartenant l'entit prestataire, alors qu'une partie importante des revenus de l'entit bnficiaire dcoulent de ce droit), il serait important de tenir compte de l'aspect qualitatif de l'opration, sans quoi aucune information ne serait communique pour une opration qui est en fait importante. 2. tes-vous d'accord avec les caractristiques essentielles d'un apparent?
Nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec le paragraphe .09d) et e) de l'ES qui identifie les proches parents des principaux dirigeants comme tant apparents l'entit publiante, puisqu'il serait trs complexe de mettre en place les moyens pour dtecter tous les proches parents apparents l'entit.
3.
Nous sommes d'accord avec le fait qu' la fois l'entit prestataire et l'entit bnficiaire comptabilisent les OEA, puisque cette faon de faire facilitera pour les utilisateur la comparaison des tats financiers des deux entits. Le fait de comptabiliser les oprations au montant brut aidera les utilisateurs comprendre l'ensemble des activits de l'entit prestataire, tel qu'il est mentionn au paragraphe .21 de l'ES. Par contre, le paragraphe .19 semble indiquer que la comptabilisation au brut s'applique seulement dans les cas o "une politique d'attribution des cots lis la prestation des biens et des services est en place" : est-ce dire que si aucune politique crite n'est en place, les produits et les charges peuvent tre prsents leur montant net ? Et concernant le paragraphe .21b), o il est indiqu qu'il convient, aux fins de dcider de comptabiliser les montants au brut ou au net, de se demander si l'entit publiante ralise les oprations pour son propre compte ou plutt titre d'intermdiaire, pourquoi ne pas prciser au paragraphe .19 que les produits et les charges doivent tre prsents leur montant net lorsque l'entit publiante ralise les oprations titre d'intermdiaire ? Cette faon de faire clarifierait ce point qui selon nous n'est normalement pas une question de jugement. Quant la comptabilisation la valeur d'change (i.e. soit la valeur comptable, soit la contrepartie paye ou reue, soit la juste valeur), cette faon de faire laisse aux entits la latitude ncessaire pour grer leurs activits, tel qu'il est mentionn au paragraphe .36 du document d'analyse des questions sur les OEA publi par le CCSP en septembre dernier. Toutefois, des prcisions devraient selon nous tre ajoutes quant aux situations o la valeur d'change ne peut tre value au prix d'un effort raisonnable : est-ce qu'une telle situation permettrait l'entit publiante de ne pas comptabiliser l'opration et de simplement fournir en note certaines informations qualitatives ? Et comment devrait tre valu un droit d'usage cd titre gratuit par l'entit prestataire l'entit bnficiaire (voir rponse la question 1) ? Il n'y aurait dans ce cas ni valeur comptable, ni contrepartie paye ou reue, et la juste valeur serait difficilement dterminable car elle serait variable dans le temps si elle tait value partir des flux de trsorerie futurs. Selon nous, certaines prcisions devraient tre apportes quant l'valuation des OEA. 4. tes-vous d'accord pour qu'une entit publiante puisse soit fournir des informations sur les apports de biens et de services, soit les comptabiliser?
Oui, il est selon nous appropri que le chapitre laisse aux entits la lassitude ncessaire pour juger de la pertinence de soit comptabiliser les apports de biens et de services entre apparents, soit de simplement fournir des informations leur sujet.
5.
tes-vous d'accord avec les obligations d'information proposes?
De faon gnrale, oui. Nous devrons fournir davantage d'efforts pour prsenter des informations sur les OEA que nous ne prsentons pas dj dans nos tats financiers, mais il est certain que cette faon de procder permettra aux utilisateurs de mieux comprendre l'impact de ces oprations sur la situation et la performance financire de l'entit. Par contre, est-ce que les montants des oprations dj prsentes distinctement dans le corps des tats financiers ou dans les autres notes (ex.: dette long terme mise par une entit apparente dj prsente dans la note sur la dette long terme) de l'entit
publiante devraient quand-mme tre prsents en note ? La section des informations fournir manque selon nous de clart ce sujet. Mentionnons aussi que nous sommes d'accord avec le fait qu'il n'est pas obligatoire de fournir des informations sur les OEA effectues dans le cours des activits de l'entit et dans des conditions de pleine concurrence. Par contre, l'appel commentaire publi en 2011 spcifiait en annexe qu'aucune information n'tait fournir sur les oprations entre apparents lorsque les impacts de ces oprations sont limins lors de la consolidation. Cette faon de procder concorde avec nos pratiques actuelles et nous avions prcis dans l'appel commentaire que nous tions d'accord avec ce point. Toutefois, nous ne retrouvons aucun passage en ce sens dans le texte de l'ES et nous nous questionnons donc sur ce retrait.
Montral, le 21 novembre 2012
Tim Beauchamp, directeur Comptabilit du secteur public 277, rue Wellington Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5V 3H2
Monsieur, Vous trouverez ci-joint les commentaires du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public Comptabilit dans le secteur public de lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec concernant le projet de norme comptable Oprations entre apparents. Nous vous serions reconnaissants de nous faire parvenir une copie de la traduction anglaise de nos commentaires. Veuillez prendre note que ni lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec, ni quelque personne que ce soit ayant particip la prparation des commentaires ne peuvent tre tenus responsables relativement son utilisation et ils ne sont tenus aucune garantie de quelque nature que ce soit dcoulant de ces commentaires, comme dcrit dans le dni de responsabilit joint la prsente. Veuillez agrer, Monsieur Beauchamp, lexpression de mes sentiments distingus.
Reprsentante du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public,
Annie Smargiassi CPA, CA
p. j.
Dni de responsabilit et commentaires
DNI DE RESPONSABILIT
Les documents prpars par le Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public de lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec (Ordre) ci-aprs appels les commentaires, sont fournis selon les conditions dcrites dans la prsente, pour faire connatre leur opinion sur des noncs de principes, des documents de consultation, des exposs-sondages prliminaires ainsi que des exposs-sondages publis par le Conseil des normes comptables, le Conseil des normes daudit et de certification, le Conseil sur la comptabilit dans le secteur public, le Conseil sur la gestion des risques et la gouvernances et dautres organismes.
Les commentaires fournis par ce comit ne doivent pas tre utiliss comme substitut des missions confies des professionnels spcialiss. Il est important de noter que les lois, les normes et les rgles sur lesquelles sont mis les commentaires peuvent changer en tout temps et que, dans certains cas, les commentaires crits peuvent tre sujets controverse.
Ni lOrdre, ni quelque personne que ce soit ayant particip la prparation des commentaires ne peuvent tre tenus responsables relativement lutilisation de ces commentaires et ils ne sont tenus aucune garantie de quelque nature que ce soit dcoulant de ces commentaires. Les commentaires donns ne lient pas, par ailleurs, les membres du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public, lOrdre ou, de faon plus particulire, le Bureau du syndic de lOrdre.
La personne qui se rfre ou utilise ces commentaires assume lentire responsabilit de sa dmarche ainsi que tous les risques lis lutilisation de ceux-ci. Elle consent exonrer lOrdre lgard de toute demande en dommages-intrts qui pourrait tre intente par suite de toute dcision quelle aurait pu prendre en fonction de ces commentaires. Elle reconnat galement avoir accept de ne pas faire tat de ces commentaires reus via le Groupe de travail dans les avis exprims ou les positions prises.
COMMENTAIRES DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL TECHNIQUE SECTEUR PUBLIC COMPTABILIT DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC DE LORDRE DES COMPTABLES PROFESSIONNELS AGRS DU QUBEC RELATIFS AU PROJET DE NORME COMPTABLE OPRATIONS ENTRE APPARENTS. MANDAT DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL Le Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteur public de l'Ordre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec a comme mandat notamment de recueillir et de canaliser le point de vue des praticiens exerant en cabinet et de membres uvrant dans les affaires, dans les services gouvernementaux, dans l'industrie et dans l'enseignement ainsi que le point de vue dautres personnes concernes uvrant dans des domaines dexpertise connexes.
Pour chaque expos-sondage ou autre document tudi, les membres du Groupe de travail technique mettent leurs analyses en commun. Les commentaires ci-dessous refltent les points de vue exprims et, sauf indication contraire, ces commentaires ont fait l'objet d'un consensus parmi les membres du Groupe de travail.
Les commentaires formuls par le Groupe de travail ne font l'objet d'aucune sanction de l'Ordre. Ils n'engagent pas la responsabilit de celui-ci.
COMMENTAIRES GNRAUX Les membres ne sont pas favorables aux propositions incluses dans lexpos-sondage.
Ils sont davis que la prsence dune multitude de choix au niveau de la comptabilisation des oprations entre apparents fait en sorte de limiter la pertinence dune norme cet gard. Ils croient que lobjectif de comparabilit que le CCSP semblait vouloir atteindre avec une norme, ne sera pas atteint sans limiter les choix relatifs la comptabilisation des oprations entre apparents.
Les membres indiquent quactuellement, les entits du secteur public appliquent majoritairement les recommandations du chapitre 3840 de la partie V du Manuel de lICCA et que la norme propose sen carte largement. Ils favorisent une harmonisation avec les recommandations concernant les oprations entre apparents incluses dans les autres parties du Manuel de lICCA, soit les parties II et III.
COMMENTAIRES SPCIFIQUES
1.
tes-vous daccord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de limportance relative
soient pris en considration pour dterminer si une opration entre apparents doit tre communique?
Les membres ne sont pas daccord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de limportance relative soient pris en considration pour dterminer si une opration entre apparents doit tre communique. Ils sont davis que les aspects qualitatifs doivent tre considrs autant que les aspects quantitatifs.
Ils indiquent que le paragraphe .08 de la norme propose est en contradiction avec cette question car des facteurs qualitatifs prendre en considration lors de la communication des informations sur les oprations conclues avec des apparents y sont prsents.
2.
tes-vous daccord avec les caractristiques essentielles dun apparent?
Les membres sont daccord avec les caractristiques essentielles dun apparent qui sont prsentes aux alinas a) e) du paragraphe .09 de lexpos-sondage, par contre ils ont exprim beaucoup de rticences au niveau de lapplication de lalina f).
Ils indiquent que les recommandations seront difficiles appliquer aux personnes vises lalina f) du paragraphe .09, lorsquon inclut des personnes qui participent aux dcisions financires et oprationnelles dune entit sans en dtenir le contrle ou une influence significative. Par ailleurs, ils ont not que lensemble des proches parents sera trs ardu rpertorier au niveau gouvernemental ainsi que les transactions tant lis ceux-ci. Par ailleurs, bien que les membres soient trs rticents au niveau de linclusion des proches parents titre dapparents, si la norme dfinitive devait les inclure, ceux-ci devraient tre dfinis plus clairement. De plus, lalina f) du paragraphe .09 semble incohrent avec les indications prvues aux paragraphes .12 .14 de la norme propose.
3.
tes-vous daccord pour que les oprations entre apparents, lexception des apports
de biens et de services, doivent tre comptabilises la fois par lentit prestataire et lentit bnficiaire pour leur montant brut la valeur dchange?
Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec les recommandations proposes. Les raisons invoques sont dtailles ci-dessous.
Les membres ont not un manque de cohrence entre les diffrents paragraphes de la norme propose. En effet, le paragraphe .19 prvoit que les entits doivent prsenter les montants pour leur montant brut alors que le paragraphe .21 indique quil pourrait y avoir des situations pour lesquelles les montants pourraient tre prsents pour leur montant net,
Ils notent que les situations pour lesquelles la prsentation pour un montant brut ou un montant net ne sont pas uniques aux oprations entre apparents. Ainsi les recommandations concernant cet aspect devraient tre couvertes ailleurs dans les Normes comptables du secteur public et tre cohrentes avec les autres parties du Manuel de lICCA, soit les parties II et III.
4.
tes-vous daccord pour quune entit publiante puisse soit fournir des informations
sur les apports de biens et de services, soit les comptabiliser?
Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec la proposition.
Ils sont davis que la prsence de ces choix affecterait le processus de consolidation de faon importante. De plus ils croient que le paragraphe .26 qui donne le choix de comptabiliser ou non entre en contradiction avec le paragraphe .27 qui semble donner des critres pour appliquer les choix. Les membres ne trouvent pas claires ces indications et demandent ce que les modalits dapplication soient plus clairement tablies.
Ils prcisent que lapplication des normes comptables du secteur public sinscrit dans le cadre des objectifs de reddition de comptes dune lentit quant lutilisation des ressources dont elle est responsable. De plus, ils sont davis que lvaluation de la juste valeur des apports peut augmenter considrablement les cots relatifs la comptabilisation et ainsi les rendre suprieurs aux avantages que pourrait procurer cette comptabilisation, contrairement la prsentation par voie de note. Ils citent en exemple un service de gestion des dettes centralis qui a pour objectif de rduire les cots relatifs la gestion des dettes; dans cet exemple ,lvaluation de la juste valeur des services de gestion des dettes pour fin de comptabilisation risquerait daugmenter les cots affrents et ainsi entrer en contradiction avec lobjectif initial de centralisation. Consquemment, ils proposent que ces apports ne soient pas comptabiliss mais plutt prsents par voie de notes dans les tats financiers.
Ils indiquent que si le choix de comptabiliser les apports de biens et de services est maintenu dans la norme dfinitive, il devrait tre harmonis avec les recommandations du chapitre SP 4210 Apports
comptabilisation des produits, et tre possible uniquement si on peut valuer de faon fiable la juste valeur de ces apports.
5.
tes-vous daccord avec les obligations dinformation proposes?
Les membres sont daccord avec les obligations dinformation proposes dans le projet de norme. Par contre ils suggrent de modifier lalina h) du paragraphe .36 en fonction de lexclusion des apports en biens et services du champ dapplication de la norme. AUTRES COMMENTAIRES
Champ dapplication
Les membres sont davis que lalina a) du paragraphe .04 devrait tre rvis. En effet, comme la norme propose fait partie des normes comptables, les membres questionnent lajout de circonstances propres aux normes en audit et certification dans ce paragraphe. Ils indiquent que ce paragraphe devrait plutt faire rfrence au(x) rfrentiel(s) comptable(s) appliqu(s) dans des informations financires usage particulier.
Les membres se sont questionns sur les raisons justifiant lexclusion des situations prsentes aux alinas b) et e) du paragraphe .04. Ils ont galement soulev des proccupations sur la cohrence de traitement de ces oprations, avec les autres oprations entre apparents inclues dans le champ dapplication de la norme propose et les autres parties du Manuel de lICCA (notamment la partie II) et sur le fait que ces oprations ne seraient couvertes par aucune recommandation si lexclusion est maintenue.
Concernant lexclusion prvue lalina e) du paragraphe .04, ils se sont demands si les ententes de partage de frais vises, sont les mmes que celles assujetties au chapitre SP 3410 Paiements de transfer . Ils suggrent, le cas chant, de faire spcifiquement rfrence au chapitre SP 3410.
Les membres ont indiqus que lexclusion prvue lalina d) du paragraphe .04 porte confusion et quelle devrait tre clarifie. Ils suggrent dutiliser plutt un libell similaire celui paragraphe 4 de lIAS 24 Information relative aux parties lies, ou simplement de retirer cette exclusion, car il est vident en pratique, que ces oprations sont limines dans le processus de consolidation.
Incohrence avec le chapitre SP 3150 Immobilisations corporelles
Les membres ont nots que le chapitre SP 3150 Immobilisations corporelles prvoit que les immobilisations doivent tre comptabilises au cot. Par contre le champ dapplication de ce chapitre nexclut pas les oprations entre apparents. Ainsi, ils croient que les immobilisations acquises par suite doprations entre apparents devraient tre clairement exclues de la porte du chapitre SP 3150, sans quoi il nest pas clair que ces oprations entreraient dans le champ dapplication de la norme propose sur les oprations entre apparents.
valuation des oprations entre apparents
Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec les propositions prvues au paragraphe .30 de la norme propose. Ils jugent que les recommandations devraient plutt tre harmonises avec celles prvues au chapitre 3840 de la partie V du Manuel de lICCA, ce qui serait cohrent avec la pratique actuelle ainsi quavec les partie II et III du Manuel de lICCA.
Ils indiquent que la prsence dautant de choix relatifs la comptabilisation posera un dfi de taille dans le processus de consolidation ainsi quau niveau de la comparabilit des tats financiers des entits vises par la norme propose, ce qui nest pas souhaitable.
De plus, ils se questionnent sur la pertinence de dgager des gains et/ou pertes inter-entits qui rsulteraient doprations hors du cours normal des activits comptabilises la juste valeur, dans un contexte conomique ou lthique est souvent critique. Le choix de comptabiliser les oprations entre apparents la juste valeur risque de gonfler de faon artificielle les produits ou les charges des entits vises et de crer ainsi une illusion de surplus ou de dficit pour les conseils dadministration et ainsi dinfluer indument certaines dcisions de gestion.
Ils ont dmontr une inquitude concernant le paragraphe .33 de la norme propose car ils croient que les dispositions pourraient inciter certaines entits une manipulation des oprations vises.
galement, ils ne sont pas daccord avec les propositions du paragraphe .34 car selon eux les recommandations risquent de fausser les rsultats en y incluant des gains ou des pertes non ralises. Ils suggrent plutt de comptabiliser les gains ou pertes non raliss lavoir net plutt qu ltat des rsultats.
Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec le constat dgag au paragraphe 37 du document Analyse des questions oprations entre apparents prpar par les permanents du CCSP leffet quil
existe des difficults entourant les dfinitions de cours normal des activits et de substance commerciale dans le contexte du secteur public. Ils expliquent que selon eux, ces notions sont bien comprises et quelles sont appliques depuis plusieurs annes.
Oprations effectues dans le cours des activits
Les membres ne sentendent pas sur le type doprations vis aux paragraphes .43 .45. Ils se demandent si les ventes et achats de services publics sont viss.
De plus, ils notent que le fait de ne pas exiger la prsentation (et la comptabilisation) de ces oprations dans les tats financiers risque de crer de srieux enjeux lors du processus de consolidation.
Ils indiquent galement que le fait de ne pas exiger la prsentation dinformation au sujet de ces oprations entre en conflit avec les autres sections du Manuel de lICCA, soit les parties I (IAS 24) et les parties II et III (3840 et 4460).
Dispositions transitoires
Les membres sont davis que le paragraphe .46 devrait prciser si lapplication des recommandations devrait se faire de faon prospective ou rtrospective. Ils ont dmontr une prfrence pour lapplication prospective des recommandations.

PSAB welcomes comments on all aspects of the Exposure Draft. This form is not intended to constrain your response. Each text box will accommodate your full comments. You are able to save and forward this form to others in your organization for review prior to submission. Name: Organization: E-mail: Darwin Bozek Alberta Treasury Board and Finance darwin.bozek@gov.ab.ca
General comments: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We have noted the improvements made to the document some of which are in response to comments received on the "Invitation to Comment" Document issued in the prior year. 1. Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered?
Yes. However, we note that the exposure draft provides the preparers of general purpose financial statements with the flexibility to disclose information on the qualitative terms and nature of transactions, when it is considered that such disclosure would enable users to better understand the operating environment of the reporting entity. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?
Yes. However, it is suggested that paragraph .09 (b) should also include the concept of "indirect" control. A suggested wording would be as follows: "entities that directly, or indirectly, through one or more entities, control or are controlled by the reporting entity." For operational purposes, government organizations may jointly invest in other entities where there possibly is indirect control. One outcome of this is that a government (or other intermediate parent entities) may inadvertently be considered as controlling the investee entities. However, in many cases, the lines of communication and control are tenuous at best. Therefore, disclosure of additional information on transactions with these entities may be confusing and redundant. Provision of some guidance on the extent of disclosure in such situations would be helpful.
3.
Yes. This recommendation is also in line with PSAB's gross reporting concept as reflected in its conceptual framework.
4.
Yes. This approach is reflective of the different budgetary and accountability practices of various governments.
5.
Yes. The Exposure Draft introduces some new concepts, for example, "closeness of relationship" [paragraph .38(a)] and "transactions subject to conditions stipulated in paragraph .43. It would be helpful, if the proposed standard provided some illustrated examples of the types of disclosures addressing the above. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
ABCD
KPM G LLP National Assurance and Professional Practice Suite 4600 Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street Toronto ON M 5H 2S5
Telephone (416) 777-8500 Fax (416) 777-8360 w w w .kpmg.ca
Mr. Tim Beauchamp Director, Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2 ed.psector@cica.ca November 21, 2012 Dear Mr. Beauchamp Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Related Party Transactions exposure draft. We have formatted our comments in response to the questions posed in the exposure draft. 1. Do you agree that in determining whether a related party transaction is reportable, it is only the quantitative characteristics of materiality that are considered? We agree that only the quantitative characteristics should be considered when determining whether related party transactions are reportable. While we recognize that there is a general concept underlying all standards that standards are not intended to apply to immaterial or insignificant items, we believe, because of the nature of disclosure that is required, it would be helpful to reiterate that underlying concept in the section. Certain paragraphs, including paragraph 8, that identify characteristics to be considered in determining reportable transactions could be interpreted as requiring additional disclosure without considering the quantitative characteristics. In addition, the disclosure requirement in paragraph 36 (h) could be interpreted to require disclosures for all transactions where no amount has been recognized or determined. As related party transactions will be recognized at exchange amount, we suggest that related party transactions should be reportable when the greater of exchange amount and fair market value of the transaction would be material to the financial statements. This would ensure that transactions with a minimal exchange amount, but a material fair value, would be disclosed; such as the provision of leased property or services at an amount significantly less than fair market value. 2. Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parties? Paragraph 9(e) is difficult to follow and could be misinterpreted. If an entity is under shared control by a member of key management person, the entity isnt necessarily a related party as it depends on the identity of the other party who shares control. If an entity is under shared control by a key management person and a close family member, it should be considered a related party. If
(M ember firm legal name), a (member firm jurisdiction and legal structure), is the (jurisdiction) member firm of KPM G International, a Sw iss cooperative.
ABCD
Page 2
the entity is under shared control by two members of management personnel, it would be a related party. To make it clearer, we suggest you address separately control and shared control. Paragraph 9(f) should be amended. The ability of an individual to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity do not result the individual controlling these decisions. In a situation where key management personnel of a reporting entity also participates in the financial and operational policy decisions for another entity, this definition would result in the two entities being related parties. For example, the chief executive officer of the reporting entity may also be a board member of a local not-for-profit organization (NPO), which may or may not be reporting using public sector accounting standards. This individual, in their role as board member would participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the NPO but as a single board member, would not have control over those decisions of the NPO. We do not believe that the reporting entity and the NPO are related parties, but paragraph 9(f) would result in that identification. Similarly a married couple who are key management personnel of two separate organizations, both involved in the financial and operating policy decisions of those entities would result in the two entities being related parties under this definition, even though both organizations may have strong independent boards. 3. Do you agree that related party transactions, with the exception of contributed goods and services, should be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis at the exchange amount? We agree that gross basis is appropriate and that both parties should disclose the transactions at exchange amount, assuming that both are reporting using public sector accounting standards. Tangible capital assets section PS 3150.14 requires that governments report contributed tangible capital assets, other than government transfers, at fair value at date of contribution. Government transfers section PS 3410.14 requires that a transferring government record the disposal of tangible capital asset at the net book value of the tangible capital asset transferred. As these two sections define how the transactions should be recorded, this conflicts with the requirement of paragraph 30 which requires the transactions to be accounted for at exchange amount, being the amount of the consideration as established and agreed to by the related party. 4. Do you agree that a reporting entity may either disclose information about or recognize contributed goods and services? We agree that a reporting entity should have a choice of recognition or disclosure, where recognition isnt required. 5. Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements? We agree with the proposed disclosure requirements, subject to the underlying concept that excludes immaterial and insignificant items and our comments above.
ABCD
Page 3
Thank you for this opportunity to provide our comments. If you require any provide further clarification of our comments please contact Janet Allan at 416-777-3749. Yours very truly,
KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants
Wayne Morgan Office of the Auditor General of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
November 21, 2012
Tim Beauchamp, Director Public Sector Accounting 277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario
Dear Mr. Beauchamp, Our response to PSAB Exposure Draft Related Party Transactions is below.
1.
No. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics should be both considered to determine whether the financial statements achieve fair presentation of related party transactions.
2.
Yes, overall. However, the definition for key management personnel and their family appears too restrictive. Under paragraph .09, it may be clearer to say that Related parties have one or more of the following characteristics. Also, under paragraphs .13 and .16, the word or may be more helpful than and. This may avoid debates in circumstances where special ownership structures are present yet in substance related parties are involved, and because materiality governs the overall standard, it may still avoid bringing too many transactions into the scope. As well, it may be useful to clarify further the preface that says This Section does not deal with transactions with entities within a reporting entity with the remainder of the standard, especially paragraph .04 and the cost allocation requirements. The sentence in paragraph .12 At the government level, the governing body may consist of elected or appointed representatives such as ministers, councilors, alderman is unnecessary given the characteristics already described in .12 and may result in inconsistencies (for example, which ministers?) and may confuse the executive and legislative concepts of government.
3.
Yes. A gross basis ensures full disclosure/presentation of the scope of the transactions, while exchange amount allows the transfer of goods between entities within a larger government reporting entity to be at carrying value. Following the continuity of interest principle, it would be inappropriate to recognize an increase in value of an asset that hasnt left the government reporting entity.
4.
Yes, as this allows entities with legislative authority to incur the costs on behalf of a larger government reporting entity to recognize the full costs, while recipients would disclose the cost of the services received which would provide information on the full cost of the recipients programs.
5.
Yes. You may consider that it is unclear why such as precise description as utilities is necessary in paragraph .44 there may be other things similar to utilities that do not warrant separate disclosure, such as training, IT costs, allocation of office space, etc. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely,
Wayne Morgan, PhD, CA, CISA

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans l'expos-sondage. Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera l'intgralit de vos commentaires. Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et l'envoyer, pour examen, d'autres personnes de votre organisation avant de le soumettre. Nom : Organisation : Courriel : Michel Samson, CPA, CA vrificateur gnral par intrim Vrificateur gnral du Qubec michel.samson@vgq.qc.ca
Commentaires gnraux : Commentaires particuliers concernant l'objet et le champ d'application Nous sommes en dsaccord avec le fait dexclure les fusions et les restructurations du champ dapplication de la norme tel que mentionn au paragraphe .04b). Au contraire, nous sommes davis que la norme sur les oprations entre apparents devrait comprendre une section spcifique sur ces transactions. En effet, ce genre de transaction est relativement courante dans le secteur public et se fait presque toujours entre apparents et rpond donc la dfinition dune opration entre apparents. Il existe prsentement une norme sur lacquisition de SAP (SP2510) alors que cette situation est trs peu frquente dans le secteur public mais aucune norme sur la cration de SAP via des fusions ou des restructurations dentits existantes. Nous sommes davis quil y a un besoin de directives pour le traitement de ces transactions afin dassurer une cohrence et une uniformit et nous jugeons quil serait appropri que ceci soit trait dans la norme sur les oprations entre apparents. Selon nous, il devrait tre clairement mentionn que ces oprations doivent tre comptabiliss tel que suggr au paragraphe .031, soit la valeur comptable la date de la transaction. De plus, cela permettrait dadresser la problmatique souleve dans le document Analyse des questions, au paragraphe .27, soit dviter, dans le contexte dune restructuration, que les actifs soient valus la juste valeur par lentit qui les reoit. Concernant lexclusion mentionn au paragraphe .04d), nous sommes davis quil devrait tre lgrement ajust afin dviter toute confusion. Nous croyons que la faon dont il est libell prsentement pourrait laisser croire que les oprations entre apparents sous contrle commun seraient exclues du champ dapplication alors que le but est plutt dexclure les oprations qui sont limines lors de la consolidation. Nous suggrons donc que la phrase se lise ainsi : d) Les oprations avec des entits comprises dans le primtre comptable de lentit publiante, [] Rmunration des dirigeants La rmunration des hauts dirigeants devrait tre aussi transparente qu' l'gard du rfrentiel IFRS puisque nous sommes dans le secteur public mme si certains l'incluent dans le rapport annuel.
1.
tes-vous d'accord pour que seuls les aspects quantitatifs de l'importance relative soient pris en considration pour dterminer si une opration entre apparents doit tre communique?
Nous sommes daccord avec le fait que laspect quantitatif dune opration entre apparents soit un facteur important pour dterminer si cette opration doit tre divulgue dans les tats financiers. Par contre, nous sommes davis que cela ne devrait pas tre le seul critre et que dautres aspects doivent tre considrs, tel que mentionn au paragraphe .08 . Actuellement, ce n'est pas clair dans le texte que seuls les aspects quantitatifs doivent tre pris en considration compte tenu des autres facteurs mentionns. 2. tes-vous d'accord avec les caractristiques essentielles d'un apparent?
Oui, nous sommes en accord avec les caractristiques essentielles dun apparent tel que dcrit au paragraphe .09.
3.
Nous sommes daccord pour que les oprations entre apparents, lexception des apports de biens et de services, doivent tre comptabilises la fois par lentit prestataire et lentit bnficiaire. Nous sommes daccord pour que les oprations entre apparents soient comptabilises pour leur montant brut. Toutefois, nous sommes en dsaccord avec les paragraphes .21 et .22 de lexpos-sondage qui permet la comptabilisation pour leur montant net lorsquune politique dattribution des cots est en place. Nous sommes davis que cela va lencontre des paragraphes .083 et .085 du SP1201 qui exige que les produits et les charges soient indiqus/prsents pour leur montant brut. Aucune exception nest prvue cette exigence. Aucun des autres chapitres des Normes comptables canadiennes pour le secteur public ne permet ou nexige la comptabilisation/prsentation au montant net et nous ne comprenons pas pourquoi les oprations entre apparents devraient faire lobjet dun traitement diffrent. De plus, le paragraphe .19, soit la norme en italique, ne prvoit aucune exception. Nous sommes en dsaccord de voir des exceptions dans les paragraphes qui ne sont pas inclus dans le principe de base du paragraphe .19. Nous croyons quil y a une incohrence dans la base de mesure propose au paragraphe .30 de lexpos-sondage. La valeur dchange, telle que dfinie au paragraphe .05b) est le montant de la contrepartie dont ont convenu les apparents. Le paragraphe .30 dfinit la valeur dchange comme tant a) soit la valeur comptable, b) soit la contrepartie paye ou reue ou c) soit la juste valeur. Les 2 concepts sont incohrents : la valeur dchange (contrepartie paye ou reue), la valeur comptable et la juste valeur sont trois bases de mesure diffrentes. Cela est galement incohrent avec le chapitre 3840 Oprations entre apparents des Normes comptables pour les entreprises capital ferm. On retrouve la mme dfinition de valeur dchange dans ce rfrentiel. Par contre, il est clairement tablit dans cette norme que lvaluation doit se faire soit la valeur comptable, soit la valeur dchange. Le paragraphe devrait donc tre ajust et pourrait se lire ainsi : Les oprations entre apparents doivent tre comptabilises : a) Soit la valeur comptable; b) Soit la valeur dchange; c) Soit la juste valeur. De plus, nous considrons que le fait de laisser le choix entre 3 bases de mesure nest pas assez directif et va lencontre de lobjectif de la norme dassurer une uniformit dans le traitement comptable des oprations entre apparents. Selon nous, cela revient publier une norme qui porte seulement sur la divulgation. Les entits vont choisir des bases dvaluation diffrentes et devront divulguer cette base, mais la norme nest pas assez directive pour sassurer une cohrence dans les traitements qui seront adopts. Les paragraphes .31 .33 fournissent des exemples de situations o chacune des bases de mesure pourraient tre appropries mais il ny a aucune exigence formelle cet effet. Nous sommes davis que la norme devrait tre plus directive sur les circonstances justifiant le recours une base plutt qu une autre afin
de favoriser la comparabilit entre les entits du secteur public. 4. tes-vous d'accord pour qu'une entit publiante puisse soit fournir des informations sur les apports de biens et de services, soit les comptabiliser?
Nous sommes daccord avec le principe quil nest pas toujours faisable au prix d'un effort raisonnable de comptabiliser les apports de biens et de services. Par contre, nous croyons que la norme devrait tre plus directive sur les circonstances qui justifient ou non la comptabilisation de ces transactions. Nous sommes en accord avec le principe de divulguer les informations par voie de note lorsquune opration significative nest pas comptabilise afin de sassurer que des informations suffisantes sur les oprations entre apparents soit divulgues pour permettent aux utilisateurs den valuer lincidence sur la situation et la performance financires. 5. tes-vous d'accord avec les obligations d'information proposes?
Nous sommes en accord avec les obligations dinformation proposes au paragraphe .36 de lexpos-sondage.

2012-11 Related Party Transactions RESPONSES

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012-11 Related Party Transactions RESPONSES

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Yes. Qualitative characteristics are irrelevant when determining what is reportable.

Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?

Yes. Financial Statement relevance is enhanced by this treatment.

Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?

Click here to submit

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

We agree with the essential characteristics of related parties.

We agree with the disclosure requirements.

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?

Click here to submit

Dear Mr. Beauchamp:

Chartered Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Chartered Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Grant Thornton LLP Melanie Joseph, CA

Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP Stephane Landry, CPA auditor, CA

Chartered Accountants Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Click here to submit

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Oprations entre apparents Expos-sondage

tes-vous d'accord avec les obligations d'information proposes?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012

Betty-Anne Pratt, CA Provincial Comptroller On Behalf of the Province of Manitoba

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?

Click here to submit

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Oprations entre apparents Expos-sondage

tes-vous d'accord avec les obligations d'information proposes?

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Montral, le 21 novembre 2012

Annie Smargiassi CPA, CA

Dni de responsabilit et commentaires

tes-vous daccord avec les caractristiques essentielles dun apparent?

sur les apports de biens et de services, soit les comptabiliser?

Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec la proposition.

tes-vous daccord avec les obligations dinformation proposes?

Incohrence avec le chapitre SP 3150 Immobilisations corporelles

valuation des oprations entre apparents

Oprations effectues dans le cours des activits

Click here to submit

November 21, 2012 Related Party Transactions Exposure Draft

Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?

Click here to submit

Telephone (416) 777-8500 Fax (416) 777-8360 w w w .kpmg.ca

KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants

Wayne Morgan Office of the Auditor General of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta

November 21, 2012

Do you agree with the essential characteristics of related parities?

Do you agree with the proposed disclosure requirements?