The ED proposes an exemption from disclosures in IAS 24 for entities controlled, jointly controlled or significantly influenced by the state in specified circumstances.

Do you agree with the proposed exemption, and with the disclosures that entities must provide when the exemption applies? Why or why not? If not, what would you propose instead and why?

The G100 supports the proposal to apply the exemption to state-controlled entities and to other relations within the state. However, the G100 believes that the disclosures proposed in paragraph 17B(b) should only be required where that information is material to the entity and is necessary to prevent the financial statements from being misleading.
 

The ED published in 2007 proposed a revised definition of a related party. The Board proposed to amend that definition further to ensure that two entities are treated as related to each other whenever a person or a third entity has joint control over one entity and that person (or a close member of that person’s family) or the third entity has joint control or significant influence over the other entity or has significant voting power in it.

Do you agree with this proposal? Why or why not? If not, what would you propose instead and why?

While supporting the amendment in principle the G100 is concerned about the availability and access to the information that an entity would require in order to make a judgment on whether a related party relationship exists and then to obtain the requisite information. In the absence of control the entity may not be able to obtain/require the information needed.
 

Do you have any other comments on the proposals?

No.