The Interpretations Committee covered eight matters at its June meeting. Five are presentation mechanics most entities won't need to act on yet. Three sit close enough to common structures — a manufacturer that also leases, a single-investor fund, a first-time IFRS 18 expense split — that it's worth testing your own facts against them before they're finalised, not after.
Why IFRIC moves faster than the IASB. An IASB standard or amendment usually comes with years of runway to an effective date. An IFRIC agenda decision doesn't change a standard — it clarifies how a standard that's already in force applies to a specific fact pattern, and once one is finalised, entities holding an inconsistent policy are expected to conform within a short window, often the next reporting period. That's why we flag IFRIC items at the tentative stage, not once they're settled.
Comments on all eight closed on 9 September 2026. None of them are final — the Committee will reconsider each at a future meeting before deciding whether to confirm it. Here's the triage.
Act now: you manufacture and lease what you sell
The fact pattern is specific: a manufacturer sells and leases the same vehicles, runs sales and both finance and operating leases as one line of business, refinances each lease contract with a bank regardless of type, and reports one gross-profit-like subtotal covering all of it, interest included. The Committee's view: that combination is likely a main business activity of providing financing to customers, and the fact that some of the leases are classified as operating rather than finance leases doesn't change that conclusion.
If your own business manages sales, finance leases, and operating leases as one activity with one performance measure spanning all three, this fact pattern is close enough to check directly. The classification affects where refinancing interest on your operating leases lands in the statement of profit or loss — operating category, not financing — which is a different presentation to what many manufacturer-lessors currently run.
Act now: you're the only investor in a fund someone else manages
The Committee considered a fund with one investor (holding 99.99%) and an agent fund manager (holding 0.01%, with broad decision-making authority but classified as an agent, not a principal). The question: does being the fund's only other party automatically mean the investor has delegated its decision-making authority to the manager, and so must treat the manager's rights as its own? The Committee said no — that shortcut isn't available. The investor still has to work through the full control assessment in IFRS 10, considering power, exposure to variable returns, and the ability to use that power, regardless of how the ownership is split.
This is a common structure for a wholly-owned or near-wholly-owned SPV, a captive investment vehicle, or a single-LP fund. If your consolidation conclusion for one of these currently rests on “well, there's only one of us,” that reasoning is exactly what the Committee has said isn't sufficient on its own.
| Structure | What the Committee said |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer-lessor, mixed lease types | Aggregated lease activity is likely financing to customers, evidenced by the single gross-profit-like subtotal used |
| Single-investor fund, agent manager | Being the only other party doesn't, by itself, mean decision-making authority is deemed delegated — the full IFRS 10 assessment still applies |
Watch: your first IFRS 18 expense split isn't obviously right or wrong
IFRS 18 lets an entity present operating expenses by nature, by function, or a mix of both — whichever gives the most useful structured summary. The Committee confirmed that a mixed presentation is required, not just permitted, whenever it genuinely produces the clearer summary, and that an entity can split expenses of the same nature across both nature-based and function-based line items, provided the labels make clear what's included in each. There's no single correct split — it's a judgement call, evidenced by what actually helps the reader.
Worth a closer look if you're applying IFRS 18 for the first time and haven't yet documented why your chosen split is the most useful one, rather than just the one your prior IAS 1 presentation defaulted to.
Also discussed, nothing to act on yet
- Hypothetical income and expenses in a performance measure (AP2) — can still meet the definition of a management-defined performance measure; the label just has to say what it represents.
- Confidential investor presentations (AP3) — pitch decks shared privately with named investors, under confidentiality, aren't “public communications” for MPM purposes.
- Cash and cash equivalents classification (AP4A) — an entity investing in financial assets as a main activity classifies all cash and cash equivalent income/expense as operating, even if some relates to a separate financing-to-customers activity.
- Specified liabilities classification (AP4B) — the financing-to-customers accounting policy choice applies group-wide, not just to the subsidiaries that finance customers directly.
- Labelling a subtotal that's also a performance measure (AP7A) — the label doesn't have to list every excluded or included item; supporting detail can sit in the notes instead.
Full detail on all eight is in the June 2026 IFRIC Update.
Want to talk through whether one of these applies to your own structure? Bring us the fact pattern directly — this is exactly the kind of judgement call worth testing before year-end, not at it.
This article is for information purposes only. W.consulting accepts no responsibility for reliance placed on it. For an official view on any issue, please contact us.
