|
|
EFRAG is concerned that the wording in the consensus seems to assume that in all cases the access provider accepts an ongoing obligation to provide access in return for the contribution. According to EFRAG the accounting described will generally not be appropriate in the other scenarios. It would be helpful to include in the draft Interpretation examples of types of transactions being addressed by the draft Interpretation, EFRAG notes.
EFRAG also believes that the way the IFRIC has approached the issues makes the rationale much more complex than it needs to be.
The draft Interpretation would benefit further if clear reference to IAS 18 were made, EFRAG notes.