number of Consensuses of FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force. Also, only a very
few IASs address industry accounting issues, whereas many FASB statements deal
with individual industries—and these are supplemented by specialized industry ac-
counting guides developed by industry committees of the American Institute of Cer-
tified Public Accountants (AICPA).
(g) IASC Framework. In 1989, the IASC adopted a Framework for the Preparation
and Presentation of Financial Statements. The Framework describes the basic con-
cepts by which financial statements are prepared. It defines the objectives of financial
reporting and the basic elements of financial statements (assets, liabilities, equity, in-
come, and expenses). It sets out concepts of recognition and measurement of the el-
ements. The Framework serves as a guide to the board in developing accounting stan-
dards and as a guide to resolving accounting issues that are not addressed directly in
an ISA or International Financial Reporting Standard.
However, the Framework is not, itself, a Standard. Therefore, it does not establish
enforceable standards for any particular accounting recognition, measurement, or
disclosure matter. Nor does the Framework override any specific IASB Standard if
there appears to be a conflict.
(h) IASC Due Process. The procedures followed by the IASC in issuing final Stan-
dards always included publishing an exposure draft (ED) for public comment. The
ED was an IASC board document and required 11 affirmative votes of the board for
issuance. For most agenda projects, the IASC appointed a steering committee of ex-
perts on the subject. Most often, the exposure draft was preceded by two documents
prepared and issued by the steering committee—a Discussion Paper setting out the
issues and a Draft Statement of Principles (DSOP) setting out the steering commit-
tee’s tentative views.
(i) Interpretations. Recognizing the need for guidance on implementation questions
that might arise as IAS moved into complex accounting areas, the IASC board in 1997
established a Standing Interpretations Committee (SIC). The SIC’s role was to consider,
on a timely basis, accounting issues that are likely to receive divergent or unacceptable
treatment in the absence of authoritative guidance. The SIC considered accounting is-
sues within the context of existing IASs and the IASC Framework. That is, it could in-
terpret the meaning of existing requirements but it could not plow new ground.
The SIC followed a due process that included soliciting public input before reach-
ing a final consensus. Once the SIC approved a final Interpretation, it was submitted
to the IASC board, which had to approve the Interpretation by a vote of least 12 of
its 16 members before the Interpretation took effect. In a few cases, the IASC re-
manded an Interpretation back to the SIC to be reworked. In a few other cases, the
IASC did not adopt the final SIC Interpretation. Exhibit 16.3 sets out a list of all of
the Interpretations issued by the SIC. Note that Draft Interpretations 4, 26, and 34 had
been issued for public comment but were never finalized.
( j) Implementation Guidance. The IASC did not have a practice of publishing staff
views or other detailed implementation guidance for its Standards and Interpreta-
tions. The one exception it made was with respect to IAS 39, Financial Instruments:
Recognition and Measurement. When that Standard was issued in December 1998,
the IASC recognized the need for practical guidance and formed an IAS 39 Imple-
16 • 8 INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARDS