Exposure Drafts and Consultation Papers, Videos
-
Published: Oct 31, 2017
English
Comments due by:
Mar 31, 2018All available Translations
-
Exposure Draft 63, Social Benefits
The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) has issued Exposure Draft 63, Social Benefits.
The Exposure Draft addresses accounting for the delivery of social benefits, such as retirement, unemployment, and disability, aiming to improve consistency, transparency, and reporting by public sector entities of social benefit schemes, which account for a large portion of government expenditure in most jurisdictions.
ED 63 defines social benefits and proposes requirements for the recognition and measurement of social benefit schemes. It also proposes disclosure requirements that provide additional information for users to evaluate the effect of social benefits on future government finances.
Copyright © 2018 The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). All rights reserved.
Submitted Comment Letters
1. Association of Accounting Technicians (United Kingdom)
February 22, 20182. Swiss Public Sector Financial Reporting Advisory Comittee (Switzerland)
March 5, 20183. The Institute of Certified Public Accountants Ireland (Ireland)
March 13, 20184. Accounting Standards Board
March 14, 20185. The Treasury New Zealand (New Zealand)
March 19, 20186. ICAS (United Kingdom)
March 23, 20187. Malaysian Institute of Accountants (Malaysia)
March 24, 20188. CPA Australia (Australia)
March 25, 20189. HoTARAC
March 26, 201810. Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) (Switzerland)
March 27, 201811. NZASB
March 27, 201812. Audit Zealand (New Zealand)
March 27, 201813. Accountancy Europe
March 27, 201814. The Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Japan)
March 27, 201815. International Actuarial Association
March 28, 201816. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Canada)
March 28, 201817. International Consortium on Government Financial Management (ICGFM)
March 28, 201818. Asociación Interamericana de Contabilidad - AIC
March 28, 201819. ICAEW (United Kingdom)
March 28, 201820. Australasian Council of Auditors-General (ACAG)
March 28, 201821. The Swedish National Financial Management Authority (Sweden)
March 28, 201822. Task force IRSPM A&A SIG, CIGAR Network, EGPA PSG XII
March 29, 201823. PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD KENYA (Kenya)
March 29, 201824. Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer e.V. (IDW) (Germany)
March 29, 201825. CIPFA
March 29, 201826. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)
March 29, 201827. PwC
March 30, 201828. Korea Institute of Public Finance (Korea, Republic of)
March 30, 201829. Association of National Accountants of Nigeria - ANAN (Nigeria)
March 30, 201830. Kalar Consulting Ltd (United Kingdom)
March 31, 201831. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand
April 5, 201832. Australian Accounting Standards Board
April 5, 201833. Hungarian Actuarial Society (Hungary)
April 5, 201834. National Audit Office Malta
April 6, 201835. U.S. Government Accountability Office
April 7, 201836. Altaf Noor Ali Chartered Accountants Pakistan (Pakistan)
April 8, 201837. Ernst & Young (EY)
April 12, 201838. CNOCP (France)
April 12, 201839. DGFiP (France)
May 28, 201840. Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) (Canada)
May 29, 201841. Moderniseringsstyrelsen (Denmark)
May 31, 2018Related Resources
- 2016 Handbook of International Public Sector Accounting Pronouncements
- IPSASB Proposed Strategy and Work Plan 2019-2023
- IPSASB Seeks Comments on Social Benefits Accounting Proposals
- IPSASB September 2017 Meeting Highlights Podcast
- IPSASB Works to Improve Reporting on Financial Instruments
Find more publications & resources related to:
IPSAS, IPSASB, PFM, public sector
Mar 31, 2018
rated it
The Hungarian Actuarial Society (HAS) supports the position of the IAA as it is formulated by Social Security Committee in the letter to International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (29 March, 2018) about IPSASB Exposure Draft 63 on Social Benefits. We understand the difficulties of establishing the reporting rules resulting in comparable measures for such diverse social benefit as exist throughout the world. However, we strongly believe that in this area the point of reference – in consistency with the objective of such systems – are “National compulsory and contributory or non-contributory social protection schemes based normally on the principles of universality (i.e. covering the whole of a country's population) and unified general coverage against the risks of […] old age, unemployment, etc. […]” (ILO Thesaurus). It is well known that in most countries, especially in Europe, the financial arrangement funding these institutions is according to the pay-as-you-go model (unfunded) where present obligations are financed from earmarked tax on the insured population, called social security (pension) contributions through a dedicated government account, usually referred to as social benefit (pension, etc.) fund. Reporting obligations should take into these arrangements in the first place, and regard other cases as exceptions. Having said that, we agree with the concepts which are expressed by the IAA in responding to Special Matters for Comment 3, 4 and 5. The main reason is that Social security benefit funds are special institutions by purpose and financing and operating long over the general planning horizon of other economic entities, and the scheme rules like access to the scheme, accrual of rights, benefit events, going concern and state guarantees are set out in national legislation. As a general rule government finances use cash basis by the nature of revenues and obligations, even if it is long term, and therefore such funds are basically unfunded. Their sustainability and comparability decided taking into account this, the level of redistribution by the state in the economy and the long-term financing capability of the guarantor. We would not propose to use measures using the usual interest rate definitions and GDP based measures for comparisons. This leads us to the comments on the last point, Special Matter 6 on disclosure and additional information and interpretations. In most economies social benefits financed by the state in a scheme open to all workers are the largest part of the state budget. However, there is still no universal measure available to assess its long term sustainability and affordability in a specific economy, still less comparing it with others. Therefore it would be advisable leave room for the competent interpretation of the results. Comment was worded by: Tibor Párniczky, member (HAS) The Executive Board of HAS agrees with the opinion expressed and fully supports it. 31 March, 2018.