item 70975

7/30/2019 Item 70975

1/40

From: Erik Peters

To :

Date : Wednesday, November 07, 2012 08:43PM

Subjec t : Use of Appropriations

I agree with paragraph .09 of the exposure draft with the proviso that (a) or (b) should be consistently applied,unless that nature of the appropriation(s) changes to warrant departing from the originally chosen disclosure.The change in nature should be disclosed when a different alternative is chosen.

Best regards,

Erik Peters, FCA

Page 1 of 1

11/8/2012https://webmail.cica.ca/mail/epsector.nsf/0/$new/?OpenDocument&Form=s_PrintMultiple...

7/30/2019 Item 70975

2/40

Click here to submit

Response Questionnaire

To be considered, comments must be received by

November 28, 2012

Use of Appropriations

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: Armand Capisciolto, National Accounting Standards Partner

Organization: BDO Canada LLP

E-mail: [email protected]

General comments:

In general we are confused as to when this proposed standard would be applied. Our understanding is that the proposed

standard would apply to departmental financial statements, however this is not clear from the scope of the proposed

standard. We believe the scope should be clarified to make it clear that this standard does apply to consolidated

government financial statements.

1. Do you agree with the reporting alternatives set out in paragraph .09?

We do not agree that an accounting policy choice should be permitted. Our preference is that appropriations be reported

in the reconciliation to the closing accumulated operating surplus or deficit.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

3/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

4/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

5/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

6/40

Montral, le 27 novembre 2012

Tim Beauchamp, directeurComptabilit du secteur public277, rue Wellington OuestToronto (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 Qubecconcernant le projet de norme comptable Utilisation des crdits budgtaires .

Nous vous serions reconnaissants de nous faire parvenir une copie de la traduction anglaise denos commentaires.

Veuillez prendre note que ni lOrdre des comptables professionnels agrs du Qubec, niquelque personne que ce soit ayant particip la prparation des commentaires ne peuvent tretenus responsables relativement son utilisation et ils ne sont tenus aucune garantie dequelque nature que ce soit dcoulant de ces commentaires, comme dcrit dans le dni deresponsabilit joint la prsente.

Veuillez agrer, Monsieur Beauchamp, lexpression de mes sentiments distingus.

Reprsentante du Groupe de travail technique Secteur public - Comptabilit dans le secteurpublic,

Annie Smargiassi CPA, CA

p. j. Dni de responsabilit et commentaires

7/30/2019 Item 70975

7/40

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.

7/30/2019 Item 70975

8/40

COMMENTAIRES DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL TECHNIQUE SECTEUR PUBLIC -COMPTABILIT DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC DE LORDRE DES COMPTABLESPROFESSIONNELS AGRS DU QUBEC RELATIFS AU PROJET DE NORME COMPTABLE UTILISATION DES CRDITS BUDGTAIRES .

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 ayant particips cette analyse.

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 ont not que ltendue dapplication de la norme propose serait trs limite. En effet,

ils croient que, principalement, les seules entits qui pourraient tre vises au Qubec seraient les

ministres et leurs organismes qui reoivent leur financement sous formes de crdits budgtaires, et

pour lesquels des tats financiers vocation gnral sont prpars et vrifis. Il est par ailleurs

important de souligner, quen pratique, peu de ces entits produisent des tats financiers vrifis. Ils

sont davis que le CCSP devrait se concentrer davantage des projets importants qui touchent plus

dentits, comme le cadre conceptuel.

COMMENTAIRES SPCIFIQUES

1. tes-vous daccord avec les choix offerts au paragraphe .09 en ce qui a trait la

prsentation?

7/30/2019 Item 70975

9/40

Les membres ne sont pas daccord avec les recommandations proposes. Ils indiquent que le

manque de prescription au niveau de la prsentation des informations dans les tats financiers est

susceptible de crer un manque duniformit et de comparabilit entre les entits vises ainsi que des

enjeux lors du processus de consolidation. De plus, la recommandation nest pas consistante avec le

paragraphe .13 de lanalyse des questions Utilisation des crdits budgtaires, qui indique que

() la question est de savoir si les crdits doivent tre pris en compte dans le calcul de lexcdent

ou du dficit de lexercice. Certains le font, dautres pas. Ladoption dune norme assurerait

luniformit de linformation .

AUTRES COMMENTAIRES SPCIFIQUES

Champ dapplication

Les membres se sont interrogs sur la rdaction du libell de lalina (a) du paragraphe .05 de la

norme propose. Ils considrent que le texte propos, qui exclut du champ dapplication les

entits qui reoivent des transferts de ressources, porte confusion. De plus, ils croient que

lalina (b) du paragraphe .05 nest pas ncessaire, puisquil est vident quune entit qui applique les

IFRS (partie I du Manuel de lICCA), na pas appliquer les normes comptables du secteur public; de

plus, cette mention nest prsente dans aucune des normes du secteur public actuellement. Ils

proposent plutt le texte suivant :

.05 Le prsent chapitre ne sapplique pas aux transferts de ressources couverts dans le

champ dapplication du chapitre SP 3410 Paiements de transferts.

Ils ont galement not que le paragraphe .04 propos nest pas ncessaire, car il est vident que les

normes comptables du secteur public doivent tre appliques aux tats financiers usage gnral et

que le chapitre ne sapplique qu une entit qui reoit des crdits budgtaire. De plus ces prcisions

ne sont pas prsentes dans les autres normes du secteur public. Ils suggrent donc le retrait de ce

paragraphe dans la norme propose.

Les membres ne sentendent pas sur les transferts couverts lalina (a) du paragraphe .03 et les

transferts couverts lalina (a) du paragraphe .05. Ils ont indiqu que les libells des alinas sont

similaires, quils portent confusion et quen consquence ils devraient tre rviss.

Comptabilisation

Les membres sont daccord avec les paragraphes .06 et .07 proposs.

7/30/2019 Item 70975

10/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

11/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

12/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

13/40




November 28, 2012


Exposure Draft




Name: Ron Williams (Comptroller General of Finance)

Organization: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador


General comments:


The Province disagrees with the reporting alternatives set out in paragraph .09. As in our previous comments to the

Statement of Principles, Use of Appropriations, the Province does not support the need for a separate standard on

accounting for the use of appropriations. It is the Provinces view that appropriations should not be accounted for in the

financial statements since appropriations are only a budgetary authority or limit to spend and as such are not in

themselves economic events that should be recognized in financial reporting.

It is the Provinces view that rather than the inclusion of appropriations in either the surplus/deficit or accumulated surplus/

deficit, the disclosure of a reconciliation between the amounts recognized in the financial statements to the amounts

appropriated would be more useful to help users to assess whether an entity was operating within the fiscal constraints

imposed upon it by appropriation.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

14/40

Grant Thornton LL12th Floor50 Bay Street

oronto, ONM5J 2Z8

+1 416 366 4240F +1 416 360 4944www.GrantThornton.ca

Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLSuite 2000National Bank Tower600 De La Gauchetire Street WestMontral, QubecH3B 4L8

+ 514 878 2691F + 514 878 2127www.rcgt.com

Chartered AccountantsMember of Grant Thornton International Ltd

November 28, 2012

Mr. Tim Beauchamp, CADirector, Public Sector Accounting StandardsAccounting Standards Board277 Wellington Street WestToronto, Ontario M5V 3H2

via:[email protected]

Dear Mr. Beauchamp:

Subject: Exposure Draft: Appropriations (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 DraftAppropriations(ED). We have the following responses to your question

and additional comments below:


No, we disagree with the reporting alternatives set out in paragraph .09. We believe that

appropriations should be shown as revenue in the statement of operations for the followingreasons:

As defined in the proposed standard, a government transfer is an appropriation. Under

PS3410 Government Transfers, a transfer is recorded as a revenue or expense and not as an

adjustment to accumulated surplus. It does not make sense to treat these similar items

differently since the only difference is that in one case, for example, an entity receives

money and spends it on an expense out of its own accounts and in the other case, an entity

may use an amount from the governments own bank accounts (assigned to it through an

appropriation) to spend on the same expense.

Having two very different methods of accounting significantly reduces comparability offinancial statements between one entity to another (for example, a library board from one

province to another); this choicewill add to user confusion. We dont believe the added

disclosure will help users understand the differences between the two methods or help

reduce the incomparability.

Treating an appropriation as an equity transaction introduces a concept that is not one of

the elements of financial statements listed in Section 1000Financial Statement Concepts.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

7/30/2019 Item 70975

15/40


2

We argue that the appropriation must be one of the elements in Section 1000. We think the

revenue element is the best definition of the transaction as it is an increase in economic

resources for the entity due to a contribution from the government to the entity.

Additional comments

Below we also have a number of comments on specifics in the standards that did not fall under

the question asked in the ED:

We would recommend that .03(a) be removed because it is immediately scoped out of the

section in paragraph .05(a). We would recommend that paragraph .05 be moved

immediately after paragraph .02 and then be followed by paragraph .03(b). This ordering

will better convey what appropriations are included in the standard since paragraph .03(b)

is the only item that scopes an entity into this standard.

We believe the standard as written will be very confusing to preparers trying to ascertain ifit is applicable to them. In order for public sector entities to assess whether this section has

applicability to them, we propose that the standard needs to better define the terminology

in the standard. Paragraph .03(b) uses the term consolidated revenue fund; while, this

term may have meaning for some governments, it does not for many other entities

applying public sector accounting standards. The Board needs to define the term

consolidated revenue fund as the term fund itself can have many different meanings for

entities.

Since paragraph .03(b) is essentially the item that determines if an entity has an

appropriation within the scope of the standard, we strongly advise the Board to provide an

example of a situation that would fall under PS3410Government Transfers versus onethat would fall under the proposed standard or, at a minimum, provide an example

situation that would fall under this standard. We understand, from our discussions with

staff at the CICA, that the intent was to capture ministries and internal departments that

prepare separate financial statements under public sector accounting standards and instead

of receiving actual monetary transfers from the government have the authority to use

moneyfrom the governments own bank accounts to pay for expenses associated with their

ministries or departments. We would suggest that this intent was not evident from the

proposed standard itself. We believe public sector entities will have a hard time determining

the applicability of this standard to them.

We believe that paragraph .04(b) should be removed. Special reports are addressed in theCanadian Auditing Standards and are often, in practice, prepared in accordance with non-

GAAP requirements. Other sections of the PSAB 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 PSAB, as any other standard.

Paragraph .05(a) as it is currently worded implies that an entity that receives any actual

transfers of resources is entirely scoped out of the Section. We believe the intent of the

7/30/2019 Item 70975

16/40


3

paragraph was to state that appropriations that are government transfers are scoped out of

the section and not those public sector entities receiving the government transfer are

themselves scoped out of the standard in its entirety. Such may have appropriations other

than government transfers which would still require them to follow the proposed standard

with respect to those appropriations.

Paragraph .06(b) required an eligible transaction to have occurred in order for an

appropriation to be recognized.We recommend that the term eligible transaction be

defined in the standard.

The standard did not recommend retroactive or prospective adoption. We propose

retroactive adoption.

If you wish to discuss our comments or concerns, please contact Melanie Joseph, CA

([email protected], 416-607-2736) or Stephane Landry([email protected],

418-647-5008).

Yours sincerely,

Grant Thornton LLP Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP

Melanie Joseph, CA Stephane Landry, CPA auditor, CA
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

7/30/2019 Item 70975

17/40




November 28, 2012


Exposure Draft




Name: Greg MacBeth

Organization: Office of the Auditor General - Manitoba


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.


We do not agree with providing two reporting alternatives for the use of appropriations. We believe the use of

appropriations should be reported in the the statement of operations of the entity when determining operating surplus or

deficit for the year. This is consistent with the reporting treatment when the entity receives actual transfers of resources.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

18/40

November 28, 2012

Tim BeauchampDirector, Public Sector Accounting277 Wellington Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2

Dear Mr. Beauchamp,

RE: Use of Appropriations Exposure Draft

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Use of Appropriations ExposureDraft. Our thoughts on the proposed standard are below.

1. Do you agree with the reporting alternatives set out in paragraph .09?Yes.

2. Other Comments:In our response to the Use of Appropriations - Statement of Principles, we argued that the final

standard needed to address circumstances in which funding is accessed prior to the approval ofthe related appropriation. This usually happens close to the fiscal year end when an entity incurs

expenses that are in excess of its initial appropriation. We recommended that the standard

should allow appropriations revenue to be recognized provided there is a demonstrated historicalpractice of issuing the authority subsequent to year end. Contrary to this recommendation, the

recognition criteria in the Exposure Draft would not allow an asset to be recognized for

anticipated future appropriations. The Issues Analysis argues that an anticipated future

appropriation does not have the essential characteristics of an asset. The passing of legislationsubsequent to the fiscal period end would not create an existing condition or situation at the

financial statement date that would allow the recognition of an asset.

We agree that the passing of legislation subsequent to the fiscal period end would not be an

existing condition or situation at the financial statement date that would allow the recognition of

an asset. Instead, we are suggesting that the existing condition or situation that would allow

recognition of an asset is the fact that funding has been accessed. As a result, we argue that anasset is acquired, and should be recognized at the time the funding is accessed, irrespective of

PO Box 187

1723 Hollis Street

Halifax, NS B3J 2N3

(902) 424-7021

[email protected]

Department of FinanceGovernment Accounting

7/30/2019 Item 70975

19/40

whether or not the authority to spend is in place. This is especially true when there is a

demonstrated historical practice of issuing the authority subsequent to year end because, in thesecases, it is clear that the receipt of funding is not dependent on the enactment of the necessary

authority (i.e., the authority is not a prerequisite for gaining access to the benefit of the funding).

When historical practice proves that expenditures can be incurred without the pre-requisitespending authority, the authority no longer serves as a barrier to gaining control of the asset. As

such, the reporting entity acquires an asset simply by virtue of its ability to access the fundingand should recognize appropriations revenue at that time.

This concludes our thoughts on the Use of Appropriations 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 ([email protected]), Rob Bourgeois ([email protected]), or the

undersigned.

Regards,

Suzanne Wile, CA

Executive Director, Government AccountingNova Scotia Department of Finance
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

7/30/2019 Item 70975

20/40




November 28, 2012


Exposure Draft




Name: Stuart Barr, Assistant Auditor General

Organization: Office of the Auditor General of Canada


General comments:

We support the Board's efforts to develop additional guidance for parliamentary appropriations in general because of their

unique characteristics compared to other types of government funding.

In addition to our responses to the specific question provided below, we have the following comments that we wish to

bring to the attention of PSAB.

Scope:

We observe that the scope of PS 3410 and the proposed standard on use of appropriations are inconsistently defined; PS

3410 has been written based on the substance of the transaction in question, whereas the appropriations ED appears to

apply to entities that access funding directly through the CRF under the authority of appropriations. We suggest

paragraphs 4 and 5 of the proposed standard be modified to refer to transactions of public sector entities rather than

public sector entities to better align the scope communication of the two standards.

We do not see the need for paragraph 4(b) and suggest its removal. The paragraph appears redundant because it is already

understood that standards issued by PSAB form part of a general purpose framework normally applied to general purpose

financial statements.

Statement of cash flow:

The ED does not explicitly address how appropriations managed through the CRF may or may not impact the statement of

cash flow. Paragraph 10 simply states that the format of the cash flow statement may need to be modified. This guidance

is in our view insufficient. Paragraphs 56 to 58 of the issues analysis state that non cash transactions should be omitted

from cash flow. An interpretation of these paragraphs could be that appropriations should be omitted from cash flows.

This would result in a negative cash balance on the cash flow statement if appropriations are not presented but

expenditures funded by such appropriations are. We recommend that the new standard on the use of appropriations

provides clear guidance around presentation on the statement of cash flow.

7/30/2019 Item 70975

21/40

In our view, the ED does not adequately direct how appropriations are, or are not, shown on the cash flow statement and

the associated implications of these decisions for the closing cash position reported. Where expenditures funded by

appropriations are presented as cash outflows and the expenditure was financed directly from the CRF under an authority

to spend, it is difficult to find a rationale for not recording the related appropriation authorized and used as a cash inflow

since the source and use of the cash were under the control of the reporting entity in the period.

Disclosure requirements:

We agree with the disclosure requirements proposed in the ED; however in our view the disclosure requirements should

apply to appropriations of all types, irrespective of whether they are physical transfers of cash or direct accessing of funds

through the CRF. Typically, federal recipients of appropriations made through cash transfers provide these disclosures

voluntarily as it is understood this information is useful for users of the financial statements. We therefore encourage the

Board to expand the scope of the disclosure requirements to also apply to appropriations made through cash transfers.

Omitting these disclosure requirements from PS 3410 while adding them to the new standard may suggest that these

disclosure requirements are not necessary for appropriations made through cash transfers, which in our view would be an

unwanted consequence.

We find that the wording in paragraph 14 is not clear. The term amounts funded might be interpreted as meaning

amounts authorized or amounts used as the language in the paragraph is not consistent. We suggest the use of consistent

terms to refer to amounts authorized, amounts used and amounts reported/recognized.

We also question what the interaction will be, if any, between the requirement in PS 1201 to have budget figures presentedon the face of the statement of operations and the reconciliation disclosures as proposed in the ED.


We do not agree with providing two reporting alternatives for the use of appropriations for the reasons outlined below.

The proposed standard should direct reporting that best reflects the substance of appropriations and best meets the

objectives of financial reporting established in the conceptual framework. Offering a recognition choice for similar

transactions is arbitrary and will create unnecessary inconsistency and comparability issues in public sector financial

reporting in Canada. While divergent practices have emerged over time, we do not see this current reality as a persuasive

argument supporting a choice in recognition.

We support the reporting of the use of appropriations in the statement of operations as we agree with PSABs view that the

economic substance of appropriations is more in the nature of an income item similar to a government transfer and

reporting them on the statement of operations is consistent with FINANCIAL STATEMENT OBJECTIVES, Section PS 1100.

Appropriations typically fund annual ongoing operations and are not in substance equity infusions. IPSASB defines equity

infusions in IPSAS 1 paragraph 7 as:

Contributions [] that establish a financial interest in the net assets/equity of an entity, which conveys entitlement to

distributions of (a) future economic benefits, or (b) any excess of assets over liabilities in the event of wound up, and/or can

be sold, exchanged, transferred, or redeemed.

This is not the scenario contemplated by appropriations.

Reporting the use of appropriations as an element of the reconciliation to the closing accumulated operating surplus or

deficit is, in our view, inconsistent with the elements of financial statements presented in PS 1000 and is inconsistent with

the recognition requirements of PS3410:

The four elements of government financial statements include: assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses. PS 1000 does

not address the concept of transactions flowing directly through accumulated operating surplus or deficit, something that

is clear from the result of the financial instruments project and the presentation of remeasurement gains and losses.

Similarly PS 1201.012 does not address the concept of recognizing amounts directly in accumulated operating surplus or

deficit.

7/30/2019 Item 70975

22/40

PS3410 does not provide an alternative to record appropriations involving a transfer of monetary assets directly in

accumulated surplus or deficit.

Any new standard on the use of appropriations should be developed within the current conceptual framework and, given

that some entities will account for appropriations following PS3410 and others the new standard on appropriations, we

would expect consistency in recognition requirements.

We note that certain federal government organizations that historically presented appropriations as an adjustment to

accumulated surplus or deficit have started to report the use of appropriations on the statement of operations within the

determination of net cost of operations in fiscal 2011-12.

We are puzzled by PSABs decision to offer in the exposure draft two reporting alternatives given its support of the income

approach to accounting for the use of appropriations and the fact that its conceptual framework currently does not

recognize the existence of an equity element. We find the arguments made by those respondents who did not agree with

the original proposal in the invitation to comment to treat the use of appropriations as revenue are not persuasive and we

believe PSAB was successful in paragraphs 29 to 40 of the issue analysis paper at rebutting them. We encourage PSAB to

reconsider its original proposal to record appropriations used as income, which is in our view the only approach that is

consistent with the current conceptual framework.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

23/40




November 28, 2012


Exposure Draft




Name: Darwin Bozek

Organization: Alberta Treasury Board and Finance - Office of the Controller


General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

We commend the Board for proposing two alternative approaches to presenting the use of appropriations in order to

address the different accountability and budgeting practices of various jurisdictions.

We have the following comments:

1. Paragraph .07 - In some jurisdictions, the recipient entity is able to carry forward the authority under an appropriation to

a subsequent fiscal year to be used subject to meeting certain criteria. Disclosure of such an ability may be useful

information to the users of the entity's financial statements.

2. Paragraph .15 - In some jurisdictions, exceeding the appropriation authority for one year may lead to encumbrance of

the authority for a subsequent fiscal year. Disclosure of this type of encumbrance may be useful in the financial statements

of the entity concerned.


As stated earlier, we agree with the flexibility provided.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

24/40

Cliquez ici pour soumettre

Formulaire de rponsePour tre pris en considration,

les commentaires devront parvenir

le 28 novembre 2012 au plus tard.

Utilisation des crdits budgtairesExpos-sondage

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans lexpos-sondage.

Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera lintgralit

de vos commentaires.

Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et lenvoyer, pour examen, dautres personnes de votreorganisation avant de le soumettre.

Nom : Andr Miville, CPA, CA et Vicky Lizotte, CPA, CA

Organisation : Contrleur des finances du Qubec

Courriel : [email protected] et [email protected]

Commentaires gnraux :

notre avis, ce projet n'est pas prioritaire pour les parties prenantes. titre d'exemple, pour le gouvernement du Qubec,un seul organisme du gouvernement ayant accs du financement en vertu de crdits budgtaires produit des tatsfinanciers usage gnral vrifis, et de ce fait, devra appliquer la norme propose.

galement, plusieurs normes importantes sont en cours d'analyse ou d'laboration par le CCSP, notamment celle sur lecadre conceptuel. En consquence, nous sommes d'avis que le CCSP devrait privilgier d'utiliser ses ressources sur lesproblmatiques comptables qui touchent l'ensemble des gouvernements et entits du secteur public plutt que d'laborercette norme ayant une porte trs limite.

Par ailleurs, il est primordial, comme spcifi au paragraphe .19 du document ANALYSE DES QUESTIONS , qu'aucuneentit ne soit oblige de prparer et de prsenter des tats financiers usage gnral.

De plus, la norme propose nous apparat incomplte sans les diverses explications incluses au document ANALYSE DESQUESTIONS. L'ajout d'explications et d'exemples sur les diffrents traitements possibles notamment au niveau des crditspour l'acquisition, le dveloppement ou l'amlioration d'immobilisations corporelles aiderait clarifier le texte etl'application uniforme. Sans ces ajouts, les diffrentes entits utilisant les crdits ne comptabiliseront pas ncessairement

les transactions relatives aux immobilisations corporelles de la mme faon. Ainsi, l'objectif d'uniformit des traitementscomptables utiliss, tel que spcifi aux paragraphes .04 et .17 du document d'analyse, pourrait ne pas tre atteint avec lanorme propose. tout le moins, si ces lments ne sont pas spcifis la norme, ils devraient tre inclus dans la base desconclusions.

Cependant, si le CCSP dcide, malgr tout, de continuer dvelopper cette norme, la version franaise du paragraphe .03a)devra tre reformule pour reflter adquatement la version anglaise. Ainsi, il faudrait remplacer le terme socitdistincte par entit juridique distincte , afin de ne pas faire rfrence aux socits d'tats mais bien des entitsuridiques distinctes.

galement, le paragraphe .05a) devrait rfrer la dfinition du paragraphe .03a) car le lien entre ces deux paragraphes

7/30/2019 Item 70975

25/40

nest pas clair, notamment pour les gouvernements o les crdits budgtaires ne sont pas verss directement aux entits.Enfin, le paragraphe .05b) n'est pas ncessaire puisque la Prface du Manuel de comptabilit de l'ICCA pour le secteurpublic prcise clairement au paragraphe .06 que les entreprises publiques doivent se conformer aux normes qui sontapplicables aux entreprises ayant une obligation d'information du public.

1. tes-vous d'accord avec les choix offerts au paragraphe .09 en ce qui a trait la prsentation?

Nous sommes en dsaccord. Nous sommes d'avis que l'utilisation des crdits budgtaires ne devrait pas tre prsente l'tat des rsultats car il s'agit de financement. Par ailleurs, tel que mentionn notre rponse l'nonc de principe defvrier 2012, nous croyons que la comparaison du budget et des rsultats rels l'tat des rsultats est adquate etsuffisante pour les lecteurs des tats financiers.

Malgr tout, si le CCSP dcide de publier une norme sur l'utilisation des crdits budgtaires, une seule faon de prsentercette utilisation devrait tre prconise. Un choix impliquera que deux entits semblables ne prsenteront pasl'information financire de faon uniforme. Donc, de par la possibilit de ce choix et le manque d'information concernantnotamment les crdits pour l'acquisition d'immobilisations, le projet de norme ne rpond pas aux objectifs d'uniformitdes traitements comptables que s'est fix le CCSP dans son document sur l'analyse des questions, notamment aux

paragraphes .04 et .17.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

26/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

27/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

28/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

29/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

30/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

31/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

32/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

33/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

34/40

7/30/2019 Item 70975

35/40

KPMG LLP

National Assurance and Professional Practice

Suite 4600 Bay Adelaide Centre

333 Bay Street

Toronto ON M5H 2S5

Telephone (416) 777-8500

Fax (416) 777-8360

www.kpmg.ca

ABCD

(Member firm legal name), a (member firm jurisdiction and legal structure), is the (jurisdiction) member firm of KPMG

International, a Swiss cooperative.

Mr. Tim Beauchamp

Director, Public Sector Accounting

277 Wellington Street WestToronto, Ontario

M5V 3H2

[email protected]

November 28, 2012

Dear Mr. Beauchamp

Appropriations Exposure Draft

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Appropriations exposure draft. We haveformatted our comments in response to the question posed in the exposure draft. We have also

provided other comments that relate the application of this standard.


We have no comments on the reporting alternatives.

Other comments

This section applies to appropriations but excludes, in paragraph 5, public sector entities thatreceive actual transfers of resources as they are directed to apply the government transfers section

3410.

Boards and commissions, including public libraries, public transit and police services boards, are

controlled by local government. Many boards prepare separate financial statements on an annual

basis for the use of their individual boards, the controlling local government and the general public.

These organizations are funded by the local municipality and that funding may, or not may, be

provided by a transfer of resources. Often the decision to centralize the accounting and banking is

made by the local government to ensure the process is efficient and effective. In many cases, anyexcess /deficiency of revenue over expenditures is maintained by the Board for use/funding in the

subsequent year.

We do not agree that the accounting for the funding of these organizations (either as a government

transfer or an appropriation) should be different as a result of an operational decision with respect to

the most efficient method of maintaining their accounting records. We would suggest that this

section doesnt apply to local governments.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

7/30/2019 Item 70975

36/40

Page 2

ABCD

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

7/30/2019 Item 70975

37/40

Wayne Morgan

Office of the Auditor General of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta

November 23, 2012

Tim Beauchamp, Director

Public Sector Accounting

277 Wellington Street West

Toronto, Ontario

Dear Mr. Beauchamp,

Our response to PSAB Exposure Draft Appropriations is below.

General comments:

We agree with the proposed standard as it allows flexibility to best achieve fair presentation of

the substance of the appropriations. Presentation as part of accumulated surplus or deficit best

reflects that appropriations are closer to a type of financing but still retains some of the concept

that they are similar to revenue derived from operations.

Do you agree with the reporting alternatives set out in paragraph .09?

Yes, we agree. These reporting alternatives are appropriate. The standard may clarify that

entities may report amounts received under appropriations on a net basis, rather than a gross

basis. Entities may both receive an appropriation but also collect monies on behalf of the same

entity they receive the appropriation from e.g. receiving an appropriation for expenses but also

submitting to a general revenue fund taxes or fees collected by that entity. While these are not

appropriations as defined, and this does change the scope of the standard, some discussion of

these in the standard and provision for their presentation on a net basis with the appropriations

should be included.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Wayne Morgan, PhD, CA, CISA

7/30/2019 Item 70975

38/40


Formulaire de rponsePour tre pris en considration,

les commentaires devront parvenir

le 28 novembre 2012 au plus tard.

Utilisation des crdits budgtairesExpos-sondage

Le CCSP invite les intresss formuler des commentaires sur tous les aspects des principes proposs dans lexpos-sondage.

Ce formulaire ne vise pas restreindre votre rponse. Chaque bote de texte acceptera lintgralit

de vos commentaires.

Vous pouvez sauvegarder le formulaire et lenvoyer, pour examen, dautres personnes de votreorganisation avant de le soumettre.

Nom : Michel Samson, CPA, CA vrificateur gnral par intrim

Organisation : Vrificateur gnral du Qubec

Courriel : [email protected]

Commentaires gnraux :

1- Notion de entits du secteur public

Avec le projet du CCSP sur la rvision terminologique du Manuel du secteur public, nous nous questionnons savoir cequinclut la notion dentit du secteur public. Fait-on rfrence des entits juridiques distinctes seulement? Nous croyonsque linclusion de cette notion devrait tre reporte avec ladoption du projet de rvision terminologique.

2- Dfinition de crdits budgtaires

Nous recommandons d'liminer le paragraphe 3a) pour les raisons suivantes :Lalina a) laisse entendre quune entit pourrait recevoir directement un transfert de ressources du gouvernement.Quest-ce qui distingue alors lalina a) du paragraphe 3 du prsent expos-sondage de la notion de transfert dans le SP3410.

Nous croyons que ce paragraphe pourrait crer une ambigut tant dans lesprit des prparateurs des tats financiers quedans celui des auditeurs car lalina a) du paragraphe 3 est en contradiction avec lalina b) du paragraphe 5 qui fait

mention que le chapitre ne sapplique pas aux entits du secteur public qui reoivent effectivement un transfert deressource car ces dernires appliquent le SP 3410.

3- ComptabilisationEn premier lieu, nous vous soulignons que la traduction franaise n'est pas la mme que celle du paragraphe SP3410 .28 a)i). On devrait traduire "enabling autority" par pouvoir habilitant au lieu d'autorisation habilitante.

Nous suggrons l'ajout du paragraphe suivant aprs le paragraphe 7 afin de favoriser une comprhension commune de lanorme par l'ensemble des intervenants du secteur public :"La comptabilisation de l'utilisation des crdits budgtaires ne limite pas la comptabilisation des oprations admissibles.

7/30/2019 Item 70975

39/40

Ainsi, si l'entit a dpass les limites de ses autorisations, elle fournira l'information requise en vertu du SP 1201.135 et duprsent paragraphe 15."

4- Constatation des crdits pour les dpenses en capital

Une problmatique se pose pour la constatation des crdits pour les dpenses en capital (immobilisations). Le fait deconstater en revenus lensemble des crdits utiliss pour lachat de limmobilisation vient crer en excdent dans lapremire anne et une srie de dficit sur plusieurs exercices. Nous croyons que lexpos-sondage devrait ajouter unenorme de prsentation pour concilier lexcdent et cet excdent investi en immobilisations.

5- Information fournir

En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 14 et 15, nous croyons quil devrait tre obligatoire de faire les rapprochementssuggrs afin de fournir linformation ncessaire la comprhension de la comptabilisation des crdits dans lexercice. Deplus, des rapprochements fournissent des informations importantes pour la reddition de compte de lentit auprs desutilisateurs de ses tats financiers.

1. tes-vous d'accord avec les choix offerts au paragraphe .09 en ce qui a trait la prsentation?

Nous ne sommes pas en accord avec le choix de prsentation dans le paragraphe 9 de lexpos-sondage. Pour nous,lutilisation des crdits budgtaires devraient tre prsente aux revenus dans ltat des rsultats. Notre position estconforme au cadre conceptuel en vigueur actuellement dans le secteur public et favorise la comparabilit d'une entit l'autre. Le fait doffrir le choix aux prparateurs des tats financiers pour les crdits budgtaires fait en sorte que cela creune disparit avec les critres de constatations des paiements de transfert dans le chapitre SP 3410.

De plus, la constatation dans le rapprochement avec lexcdent ou le dficit accumul li aux activits donne uneprsentation qui vient recrer en quelque sorte la notion de surplus dapport du chapitre SP 3800 qui a t retirrcemment du manuel. Nous considrons donc que le choix propos par l'expos-sondage cre un recul par rapport cette comptabilisation et que cette position n'est pas soutenue par la norme SP1201.


7/30/2019 Item 70975

40/40

Finance Comptrollers Division Comptrollers Office715 401 York AvenueWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P8Phone: 945-4919Fax: 948-3539


November 28, 2012

Mr. Tim Beauchamp, Director

Public Sector Accounting

277 Wellington Street West

Toronto, OntarioM5V 3H2

Dear Mr. Beauchamp:

Re: Exposure DraftUse of Appropriations

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Exposure Draft (ED) Use of Appropriations.

The Province of Manitoba (Province) is pleased that section .04 in the ED clearly addresses our

primary concern. The recommendations on appropriations do not apply to departments that do notproduce general purpose financial statements. The scope of the recommendations in the ED was

described much clearer than in the Statement of Principles.

The Province agrees with the recognition criteria for appropriations, their presentation in thefinancial statements, and the disclosure of the amounts used and authorized.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this ED. If you have any questions or concernsrelated to this comments please contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

Betty-Anne Pratt, CA

Provincial ComptrollerOn Behalf of the Province of Manitoba

item 70975

Documents