are they the same? or IFRS also put un-amortized amount in it? Thanks.
I think the difference in reporting pension expense is the following: IFRS - the vested part of past service costs is amortised the unvested part: amortisation is spread over the average period until the benefits become vested U.S.GAAP - past service cost is reported under comprehensive income and amortised over the average service life of the affected employees
so formula vise: they have the same formula: service cost+interest cost-expected plan asset return + amortized past service+amortized net loss(gain)? Thanks. mihau10 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the difference in reporting pension > expense is the following: > > IFRS - the vested part of past service costs is > amortised > the unvested part: amortisation is > spread over the average period until the benefits > become vested > > U.S.GAAP - past service cost is reported under > comprehensive income and amortised over the > average service life of the affected employees
Yes, the formula is the same except under U.S.GAAP the 'Amortisation of transition (asset)/liability is to be added in exceptional cases, however I would rather omit this. And of course the actuarial assumptions can cause differences in the DB pension expense. On p.209 of the FRA curriculum there is a useful summary table on this topic.