IAS 10 Judgments and Estimates for Events After the Reporting Period

1. Introduction – IAS 10 Judgments and Estimates

IAS 10 Events After the Reporting Period defines how entities must account for and disclose events that occur between the reporting date and the date when the financial statements are authorised for issue.
Although apparently procedural, IAS 10 demands substantial judgment and estimation: management must decide whether new information relates to conditions existing at the balance sheet date or to new conditions arising afterwards. That assessment determines whether figures in the financial statements are adjusted or merely disclosed.

IAS 10 interacts with IAS 1 (Presentation of Financial Statements), IAS 8 (Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors), and IAS 37 (Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets). Together these standards seek to balance relevance and reliability—ensuring that financial statements neither omit information known at the time of authorisation nor incorporate hindsight that distorts the position as at year-end.

Judgment is therefore central. The reporting entity’s leadership must evaluate the economic evidence, its timing, and the probability of future consequences. Auditors subsequently test these judgments through “subsequent events reviews” extending to the date of the auditor’s report.
Understanding IAS 10 judgments is vital for governance bodies, because misclassification of events can materially misstate results or obscure emerging risks, as several enforcement cases have shown.

---

2. The Two Key Classifications: Adjusting vs Non-Adjusting Events

IAS 10.3–10.9 distinguishes between adjusting events—those providing evidence of conditions existing at the reporting date—and non-adjusting events, which are indicative of conditions that arose after that date.
Determining the correct classification requires a nuanced view of causality and timing.

2.1 Adjusting Events

An adjusting event confirms information that should already have been reflected in the financial statements.
Examples include:

• The settlement of a court case confirming that an obligation existed at year-end (IAS 10.9(a));

• Receipt of new information about the net realisable value of inventories held at year-end (IAS 10.9(b));

• Discovery of fraud or errors showing the financial statements were incorrect (IAS 10.9(c)).

Illustration 1 — Litigation Settlement
Suppose a chemical manufacturer faced a legal claim for contamination before 31 December 20X4. In March 20X5 the case is settled for €25 million. Because the contamination and legal claim existed at year-end, the settlement provides additional evidence of the obligation’s value; it is an adjusting event. The provision must be revised to reflect the actual amount.

Illustration 2 — Customer Insolvency
A retailer’s major customer enters bankruptcy on 10 January 20X5. If the customer’s financial difficulties were well known before 31 December 20X4, the bankruptcy merely confirms an existing condition—credit losses should be recognised as of year-end.
If, however, the insolvency results from a sudden catastrophe (e.g., fire destroying its facilities in January), it is a non-adjusting event, to be disclosed but not recognised.

Real-World Example — Carillion plc (2017)
The UK construction group entered liquidation in January 2018. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) later observed that management had recognised contract revenue and assets in 2016-2017 without sufficient evidence that these balances were recoverable. When significant deterioration became evident shortly after year-end, those facts arguably related to conditions existing at 31 December 2017—poor contract performance and counterparty risk—hence required adjustment under IAS 10. The failure to adjust illustrated the governance risk of optimistic estimation.

Read the oroginal IFRS Standard on ifrs.org: IAS 10 Events After the Reporting Period.

2.2 Non-Adjusting Events

Non-adjusting events are those arising after year-end that do not relate to conditions existing then. The accounting numbers remain unchanged, but material events must be disclosed under IAS 10.21 if omission could influence decisions of users.
Examples include:

• Major business combinations or disposals after year-end;

• Destruction of a plant by fire occurring after the reporting date;

• Announcements of restructuring;

• Dividends declared after the reporting period (IAS 10.12).

Illustration 3 — Post-Year-End Fire
A manufacturer’s warehouse burns down on 5 January 20X5. The assets existed and were fully functional at 31 December 20X4; the fire creates a new condition. The event is non-adjusting, but disclosure is essential if the losses are material.

Illustration 4 — Acquisition After Year-End
If a company acquires another entity in February 20X5, the acquisition is non-adjusting because the acquirer did not control the target at 31 December 20X4. Nonetheless, IFRS 3 requires separate disclosure of such events for context.

Real-World Example — Wirecard AG (2019)
The revelation in June 2020 that €1.9 billion of cash was missing occurred after the 31 December 2019 reporting date. Because the fraud’s existence at year-end was not demonstrable from available evidence, the event was non-adjusting under IAS 10, though it triggered restatement and audit issues later. This example highlights the fine boundary between new discovery and prior-period misstatement: IAS 10 classification can evolve once additional facts confirm whether the condition existed.

2.3 Judgmental Boundary Cases

Borderline situations often involve significant professional judgment.
Typical examples:

• Litigation initiated post-year-end based on pre-year-end events: adjusting.

• Major restructuring approved after year-end: non-adjusting unless an obligation already existed.

• Government policy changes announced after year-end but effective retrospectively: adjusting if law enacted before authorisation date and conditions existed.

Example — COVID-19 Pandemic (2020)
For entities with reporting date 31 December 2019, most regulators (e.g., ESMA, FRC) concluded that the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 was a non-adjusting event, since the significant effects arose in 2020. Entities nevertheless disclosed expected impacts. This global case illustrates how IAS 10 requires contextual, not purely mechanical, analysis.

Read more on our blog: Events after the Reporting period.

---

3. Management Judgments: Determining the Existence of Conditions at the Reporting Date

3.1 Analytical Framework

The pivotal IAS 10 judgment is whether evidence obtained after the reporting date relates to conditions that existed at that date.
Management typically considers:

1. Chronology — When did the underlying event or condition arise?

2. Causality — Does the subsequent evidence confirm a pre-existing cause?

3. Reliability — Is the information robust enough to adjust balances?

4. Materiality — Would the adjustment influence users’ economic decisions?

Documentation should reflect this analysis, linking to the entity’s risk registers and legal correspondence. Many audit committees require a formal “subsequent-events memo” summarising items reviewed between period-end and authorisation date.

3.2 Information Availability and Estimation Uncertainty

IAS 10.9 allows the use of information received after period-end to update estimates based on conditions existing at the reporting date.
For example, an entity estimating warranty claims at year-end may use actual claims data received before authorisation to refine that estimate. However, using information that arises from new defects discovered after year-end would breach IAS 10 principles.

Illustration — Inventory Obsolescence
At 31 December 20X4, an electronics company carries €20 million in smartphones. In February 20X5 a competitor releases a new model, causing rapid price declines. Because the market change occurred after year-end, it is non-adjusting. The carrying amount should not be written down as of 31 December, though disclosure is warranted.
Conversely, if sales data before 31 December already showed excess supply and declining prices, the decline is adjusting, and inventories must be written down.

3.3 Evidence Gathering and Audit Perspective

Auditors routinely perform “subsequent events testing,” examining post-year-end transactions and correspondence to identify matters requiring adjustment or disclosure. This process provides additional evidence on existence, valuation, and completeness assertions.
Management judgments under IAS 10 must therefore withstand independent corroboration. Discrepancies between internal and audit assessments often relate to optimism bias or delayed recognition of impairments.

Real-World Example — BP plc (2010)
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010, BP’s year-end 2010 financial statements reflected provisions and contingencies under IAS 37, informed by information obtained through 2010. The critical judgment was whether cost estimates at 31 December 2010 incorporated all obligations known at that date. Later settlements in 2012–2014 did not require restatement because they reflected new information on a continuing condition. BP’s disclosure under IAS 10.21 explained that estimation uncertainty remained significant.
This case illustrates how IAS 10 operates in concert with IAS 37: subsequent measurement updates are acceptable only to the extent they confirm pre-existing conditions.

Read more in our blog: Natural disasters Miscellaneous considerations deals with several special IFRS accounting issues after a natural disaster.

3.4 Disclosure of Significant Judgments (IAS 1.122 and IAS 10.21)

Where the classification of an event is based on significant judgment, entities must disclose:

• The nature of the event;

• The evidence considered;

• The rationale for treating it as adjusting or non-adjusting; and

• An estimate of its financial effect, if practicable.

Transparent disclosure allows users to evaluate management’s reasoning and enhances governance accountability.

Example — Royal Mail Group (2020 Annual Report) disclosed the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak as a non-adjusting event, detailing expected operational and financial effects without amending the 31 March 2020 balances. The clear narrative satisfied IAS 10.21 and mitigated investor confusion.

3.5 Governance Implications

The Board of Directors, often via the Audit Committee, must formally review and approve events-after-date assessments before authorising the financial statements. Governance codes (e.g., UK Corporate Governance Code 2018, Dutch Code 2022) emphasise directors’ responsibility to ensure balanced reporting.
Failures in this area—such as delayed recognition of impairments—are frequent root causes in enforcement actions by regulators like the UK FRC and the AFM (Netherlands).

Thus IAS 10 judgments are not purely accounting matters but part of the organisation’s risk-management and governance framework.

3.6 In summary

/* Custom styles for better readability and matching the source style */
body {
font-family: ‘Inter’, sans-serif;
background-color: #f7f7f7;
padding: 2rem;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
}

/* Enforce wrapping and remove vertical lines */
.styled-table td, .styled-table th {
padding: 1rem 1.25rem;
vertical-align: top;
border-bottom: 1px solid #e5e7eb; /* Light gray row separator */
}

/* Header row styling */
.styled-table thead th {
font-weight: 700;
color: #1f2937; /* Dark text */
background-color: #f0f8ff; /* Light blue/gray background */
border-bottom: 2px solid #d1d5db; /* Darker bottom border for header */
text-align: left;
}

/* Remove border for the last row */
.styled-table tbody tr:last-child td {
border-bottom: none;
}

/* Style for the Classification badge/pill – Adjusting (Green) */
.badge-adjusting {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.25rem 0.65rem;
border-radius: 0.5rem;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 0.875rem; /* sm text */
background-color: #d1fae5; /* Light green */
color: #065f46; /* Dark green text */
}
/* Style for the Classification badge/pill – Non-Adjusting (Red/Orange-ish) */
.badge-non-adjusting {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.25rem 0.65rem;
border-radius: 0.5rem;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 0.875rem; /* sm text */
background-color: #fee2e2; /* Light red/pink */
color: #991b1b; /* Dark red text */
}

Read more on Risk management in our COSO series: COSO Internal Control Framework: Lessons from Global Corporate Failures.

---

4. Measurement Estimates Revised by Subsequent Events

IAS 10 requires management to use information obtained after the reporting date only to the extent that it confirms conditions existing at that date.
This principle is straightforward in theory but challenging in practice, because new information often affects areas already laden with estimation uncertainty—impairments, fair values, and expected credit losses (ECLs).

4.1 Interaction with IAS 8

IAS 8 distinguishes between a change in accounting estimate and the correction of an error.
IAS 10 complements that distinction:

• When subsequent information confirms an earlier estimate was reasonable, no restatement is needed.
• When it proves the estimate was materially wrong because evidence existed at year-end, the error must be corrected.
  This boundary again depends on judgment.

4.2 Impairment Testing

Impairment models under IAS 36 use assumptions about future cash flows and discount rates. When a major customer loss, regulatory change, or commodity-price drop occurs after year-end, management must decide whether these events merelconfirm pre-existing trends or introduce new conditions.

Example — Oil Price Collapse 2020
Several energy producers with December 2019 year-ends faced a dramatic fall in oil prices in early 2020. Regulators, including ESMA, concluded that the pandemic-driven collapse was a non-adjusting event because the causes (lockdowns, demand shock) arose in 2020.
Entities nevertheless disclosed the potential impairment risk under IAS 10.21.
In contrast, if a company had clear evidence of declining reserves or long-term price weakness before year-end, the impairment would be adjusting.

4.3 Fair Value Measurements

IFRS 13 values financial instruments using observable market inputs.
If new transactions after year-end provide more reliable evidence of fair value at that date, IAS 10 allows their use only if they confirm pre-existing market conditions.
Judgment lies in determining whether post-year-end trades reflect December market sentiment or later developments.

Example — Private Equity Valuations
A fund with 31 December 20X4 year-end receives an indicative offer for a portfolio company on 15 January 20X5. If market fundamentals and negotiations were ongoing before year-end, the offer may confirm fair value and be used to adjust valuations.
If the offer results from new information (e.g., strategic buyer emerges in January), it is non-adjusting.

4.4 Credit Loss Estimates

Under IFRS 9, ECL models rely heavily on forward-looking information. Entities must decide whether events after year-end reflect pre-existing credit risk.

Real-World Example — HSBC Holdings (2020)
HSBC’s 2019 financial statements disclosed that COVID-19 had emerged after the reporting date and was considered non-adjusting.
However, management used early 2020 macro-economic data to update ECL sensitivity disclosures.
The distinction is subtle: the 2019 allowance was not restated, but supplementary disclosure illustrated the potential post-balance-sheet deterioration.
This approach aligned with IAS 10 and IFRS 9, demonstrating careful judgment in balancing transparency with faithful representation.

4.5 Provisions and Contingent Assets

For provisions under IAS 37, subsequent events may confirm or refute the existence or measurement of an obligation.
For example, an environmental investigation settled shortly after year-end can provide adjusting evidence of a liability already present.
By contrast, a new accident in January represents a fresh obligation—non-adjusting.

Example — Mining Accident (Post-Year-End)
If a tailings dam collapses on 2 January 20X5, no provision existed at 31 December 20X4 unless prior structural concerns were known.
If engineering reports before year-end documented instability, the event merely confirms the condition—an adjusting provision.

5. Going Concern and Post-Reporting Events

IAS 10.14–16 specifically addresses going-concern considerations.
If, after the reporting period but before authorisation, management determines that the entity is no longer a going concern, the financial statements must not be prepared on a going-concern basis.
This requirement overrides the adjusting/non-adjusting distinction.

Read more in the IFRS Accounting Standards Navigator IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period.

5.1 Nature of Judgment

Assessing going concern is inherently forward-looking.
Management must evaluate whether new facts after year-end merely confirm pre-existing uncertainties or create new ones.
The decision involves both quantitative and qualitative factors: financing availability, covenant compliance, customer continuity, and government support.

5.2 Illustration — Post-Year-End Funding Failure

Consider an airline with 31 December 20X4 year-end negotiating refinancing in January 20X5.
If the board expected renewal at year-end but lenders withdraw before authorisation, management must reconsider going concern.
IAS 10.14 dictates that the financial statements be prepared on a liquidation basis if the decision to cease trading is made before authorisation.

5.3 Real-World Example — Thomas Cook Group (2019)

Thomas Cook’s 30 September 2018 accounts were prepared on a going-concern basis.
By the time of its 2019 interim reporting, the company faced severe funding pressures that culminated in insolvency in September 2019.
In hindsight, the going-concern assessment under IAS 10 and IAS 1.25 was overly optimistic, relying on refinancing that never materialised.
The UK FRC later highlighted the need for boards to evaluate all post-balance-sheet information before authorisation.
The Thomas Cook case demonstrates that going-concern judgments depend not only on financial modelling but also on governance vigilance.

5.4 Disclosure Requirements

If events after year-end cast significant doubt on going concern but do not lead to liquidation, IAS 1.25–26 require disclosure of uncertainties.
IAS 10 complements this by mandating prompt evaluation of all events up to the authorisation date.
Boards should ensure the disclosure explains:

• Nature of subsequent events;
• Management’s mitigation plans;
• Timeline of negotiations; and
• Basis for continuing as a going concern.

Transparent narrative reduces investor uncertainty and supports auditor concurrence.

5.5 Governance Perspective

Audit committees must challenge management assumptions and document their oversight.
The minutes should record specific questions asked about subsequent events—funding, major customer losses, legal actions—to demonstrate compliance with IAS 10.
This governance discipline protects directors from later criticism that they “ought to have known” about deteriorating conditions.

6. Dividends Declared After the Reporting Date

IAS 10.12 explicitly prescribes that dividends declared after the reporting period are non-adjusting events.
No liability exists at the reporting date because the declaration creates the obligation.
Nevertheless, IAS 1.137 requires disclosure of the amount and nature of such dividends in the notes.

6.1 Judgment in Practice

Although seemingly mechanical, judgment arises in determining whether the declaration is substantive before or after year-end.
Some jurisdictions require shareholder approval; others treat board authorisation as sufficient.
The entity must assess when the obligation became legally binding.

Example — Dutch Companies
Under Dutch law, a dividend proposed by management but not approved by shareholders before year-end is non-adjusting.
Disclosure of the proposed amount and approval date suffices.
If interim dividends are authorised before year-end, the liability exists and must be recognised.

Example — Unilever N.V. vs Royal Dutch Shell plc
Unilever historically declared interim dividends during the year and final dividends after the year-end meeting; Shell announced quarterly dividends ratified post-year-end.
Both applied IAS 10 by recognising interim dividends as liabilities when declared and disclosing final dividends as non-adjusting.
This consistent treatment enhances comparability and investor understanding.

6.2 Governance Disclosure

Boards should disclose the date of declaration and amount per share, linking to equity movements.
Transparent communication prevents misinterpretation of distributable reserves and supports capital-maintenance monitoring under local law.

7. Contingent Events, Litigation and Insurance Recoveries

Litigation and insurance claims exemplify areas requiring intertwined judgments under IAS 10, IAS 37, and IFRS 17.
Subsequent events may reveal whether a present obligation existed, whether an outflow is probable, and how measurement should be adjusted.

7.1 Determining the Existence of a Present Obligation

The primary question: Did the obligating event occur before the reporting date?
If yes, subsequent developments—court rulings, settlements—provide adjusting evidence.
If the event occurred later, the obligation arose after year-end.

Example — Product Liability Claim
A car manufacturer faces allegations in February 20X5 that its 20X4-model airbags were defective.
If design flaws were identified before 31 December 20X4 and management knew of potential claims, the event is adjusting.
If defects emerge only after independent investigation in 2025, the event is non-adjusting.

7.2 Insurance Recoveries

Insurance proceeds often arise after year-end for losses occurring before the reporting date
IAS 10 allows adjustment when the receipt confirms recovery of an asset existing at year-end.
However, if a new event (fire in January) gives rise to a new claim, it is non-adjusting.

Example — Industrial Accident
An explosion on 20 December 20X4 damages assets; the insurer accepts liability on 10 February 20X5.
Because the accident occurred before year-end, the insurance receivable is an adjusting event, recognised in 20X4.
If the explosion occurred on 5 January 20X5, recognition waits until the next reporting period.

7.3 Judgments in Complex Cases

Complexities increase when multiple jurisdictions, class actions, or government investigations are involved.
Entities must evaluate:

• Timing of the underlying conduct;
• Probable outcomes as at year-end; and
• Reliability of subsequent settlements as measurement evidence.

Real-World Example — Volkswagen AG (2015 Diesel Emissions Case)
Although the U.S. litigation intensified in 2016, the manipulative software existed well before 31 December 2015.
Volkswagen recognised substantial provisions in 2015, considering the issue an adjusting event because the obligating condition (use of defeat devices) existed earlier.
Subsequent settlements refined, but did not create, the obligation.
IAS 10’s principles underpinned this accounting treatment.

7.4 Disclosure and Governance

When non-adjusting litigation or claims could materially affect future results, IAS 10.21 requires disclosure of the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.
Boards should ensure disclosures are balanced—neither alarmist nor opaque—and consistent with legal counsel’s advice.

Example — Pharmaceutical Sector
A pharmaceutical company facing post-year-end class actions relating to a new drug disclosed potential exposure qualitatively, explaining that the claims concerned events after the reporting date and would not affect current-year results.
This approach met IAS 10’s disclosure principle while maintaining legal prudence.

7.5 Governance Lessons

Audit committees should review a post-balance-sheet events register summarising all litigation, regulatory, and insurance matters, with legal counsel attendance.
This formal process evidences due diligence and enhances compliance with IAS 10, IAS 37, and governance codes.
In enforcement reviews, regulators often check whether such registers existed and were updated through the authorisation date.

7.6 In summary

/* Custom styles for better readability and matching the source style */
body {
font-family: ‘Inter’, sans-serif;
background-color: #f7f7f7;
padding: 2rem;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
}

/* Enforce wrapping and remove vertical lines */
.styled-table td, .styled-table th {
padding: 1rem 1.25rem;
vertical-align: top;
border-bottom: 1px solid #e5e7eb; /* Light gray row separator */
}

/* Header row styling */
.styled-table thead th {
font-weight: 700;
color: #1f2937; /* Dark text */
background-color: #f0f8ff; /* Light blue/gray background */
border-bottom: 2px solid #d1d5db; /* Darker bottom border for header */
text-align: left;
}

/* Remove border for the last row */
.styled-table tbody tr:last-child td {
border-bottom: none;
}

/* Style for the Classification badge/pill – Adjusting (Green) */
.badge-adjusting {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.25rem 0.65rem;
border-radius: 0.5rem;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 0.875rem; /* sm text */
background-color: #d1fae5; /* Light green */
color: #065f46; /* Dark green text */
}
/* Style for the Classification badge/pill – Non-Adjusting (Red/Orange-ish) */
.badge-non-adjusting {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.25rem 0.65rem;
border-radius: 0.5rem;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 0.875rem; /* sm text */
background-color: #fee2e2; /* Light red/pink */
color: #991b1b; /* Dark red text */
}
/* Style for the Classification badge/pill – Other Outcome (Blue/Teal) */
.badge-other {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.25rem 0.65rem;
border-radius: 0.5rem;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 0.875rem; /* sm text */
background-color: #e0f2fe; /* Light blue */
color: #0c4a6e; /* Dark blue text */
}

8. Disclosures, Transparency and Governance Oversight

IAS 10.21-22 requires entities to disclose material non-adjusting events that could influence users’ decisions.
Disclosure should describe the nature of the event, an estimate of its financial effect (if practicable) and the date the financial statements were authorised.

8.1 Disclosure Quality

High-quality disclosure does more than list events: it explains management reasoning.
Regulators increasingly scrutinise this narrative. ESMA’s Enforcement Priorities 2023 and the UK FRC’s Thematic Review on Subsequent Events both criticised “boilerplate” language such as “management continues to monitor COVID-19 developments.”
Instead, users expect specificity—timing, quantitative ranges, mitigation actions and governance response.

8.2 Audit-Committee Involvement

Audit committees should review all disclosures before authorisation.
Minutes normally include:

• Confirmation that management performed a post-balance-sheet review to the signing date;
• Assessment of each material event’s classification; and
• Agreement on final wording of note disclosures and directors’ report commentary.

8.3 Illustrative Disclosure

Example – Airline Group (2021 Annual Report)

“Subsequent to 31 December 2021, the Group entered into a new $600 million revolving credit facility. Although the facility improves liquidity, it relates to conditions arising in 2022 and therefore no adjustment has been made. Management has evaluated the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that adequate resources remain available.”

This example satisfies IAS 10.21, IAS 1.122 and governance best practice by connecting event, classification and rationale in a concise paragraph.

9. Integration with Other Standards

IAS 10 is not an island: it operates alongside several IFRS standards that depend on subsequent-event assessment.

9.1 IAS 10 and CSRD/ESG Reporting

Although IAS 10 predates sustainability standards, the same logic applies to non-financial reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Management must assess whether climate-related events occurring after year-end—e.g., floods or regulation—reflect pre-existing physical or transition risks. Audit committees increasingly apply IAS 10’s timing discipline to narrative disclosures to avoid hindsight bias.

10. Summary Table of Key Judgments and Estimates

:root{
–tbl-bg:#ffffff;
–tbl-text:#1f2937; /* slate-800 */
–tbl-muted:#6b7280; /* slate-500 */
–tbl-head-bg:#f1f5f9; /* slate-100 */
–tbl-head-text:#0f172a; /* slate-900 */
–tbl-border:#e5e7eb; /* slate-200 */
–tbl-accent:#e0f2fe; /* sky-100 */
–tbl-accent-strong:#bae6fd;/* sky-200 */
–tbl-row-alt:#f8fafc; /* slate-50 */
–tbl-hover:#eff6ff; /* indigo/sky-50 */
–chip-adj:#dcfce7; /* green-100 */
–chip-non:#fee2e2; /* red-100 */
–chip-gc:#fde68a; /* amber-200 */
–chip-text:#111827; /* gray-900 */
}
@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
:root{
–tbl-bg:#0b1220;
–tbl-text:#e5e7eb;
–tbl-muted:#9ca3af;
–tbl-head-bg:#111827;
–tbl-head-text:#f9fafb;
–tbl-border:#1f2937;
–tbl-accent:#0b3a55;
–tbl-accent-strong:#0e4b6f;
–tbl-row-alt:#0f172a;
–tbl-hover:#0b2a46;
–chip-adj:#064e3b; /* darker but readable */
–chip-non:#7f1d1d;
–chip-gc:#78350f;
–chip-text:#f9fafb;
}
}
.ias10-wrap{
background:var(–tbl-bg);
color:var(–tbl-text);
border:1px solid var(–tbl-border);
border-radius:14px;
overflow:hidden;
box-shadow:0 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,.04);
margin:1rem 0;
}
.ias10-caption{
padding:1rem 1.25rem .25rem;
font-weight:600;
font-size:1.05rem;
color:var(–tbl-head-text);
}
.ias10-sub{
padding:0 1.25rem .75rem;
color:var(–tbl-muted);
font-size:.92rem;
}
.ias10-table{
width:100%;
border-collapse:separate;
border-spacing:0;
font-size:.95rem;
}
.ias10-table thead th{
background:linear-gradient(0deg,var(–tbl-head-bg),var(–tbl-head-bg)), var(–tbl-accent);
color:var(–tbl-head-text);
text-align:left;
padding:.85rem 1rem;
border-bottom:1px solid var(–tbl-border);
position:sticky; top:0; z-index:1;
}
.ias10-table th:first-child{ border-left:0; }
.ias10-table td{
padding:.85rem 1rem;
vertical-align:top;
border-bottom:1px solid var(–tbl-border);
}
.ias10-table tbody tr:nth-child(odd){ background:var(–tbl-row-alt); }
.ias10-table tbody tr:hover{ background:var(–tbl-hover); transition:background .2s ease; }
.ias10-chip{
display:inline-block; padding:.2rem .5rem; border-radius:999px;
font-weight:600; font-size:.85rem; color:var(–chip-text);
}
.chip-adj{ background:var(–chip-adj); }
.chip-non{ background:var(–chip-non); }
.chip-gc{ background:var(–chip-gc); }
.ias10-note{
display:inline-block; padding:.15rem .45rem; border-radius:6px;
background:var(–tbl-accent); border:1px solid var(–tbl-accent-strong);
font-size:.85rem; font-weight:600;
}
/* Responsive */
.ias10-scroll{ overflow:auto; }
.ias10-w{ min-width:900px; } /* keeps structure; scrolls on small screens */
.muted{ color:var(–tbl-muted); font-size:.9em; }
.tight{ line-height:1.35; }

Classification hinges on whether evidence at the reporting date existed. Table links judgments to accounting actions and disclosure anchors.

Area	Judgment Driver	Evidence Considered (at reporting date)	IFRS Reference	Classification	Accounting Action	Disclosure Anchor
Customer Insolvency Major debtor files for bankruptcy shortly after year-end.	Did financial distress pre-date year-end?	Overdue aging, credit downgrades, restructuring talks, covenant breaches known before year-end.	IAS 10.9(a), IFRS 9 B5.5.17	Adjusting	Revise ECL / impairment at reporting date.	Credit risk note; Note 30
Litigation Settlement Case settled in January.	Did obligating event occur before year-end?	Pre-year-end incident, legal letters, probability assessments, subsequent settlement terms.	IAS 10.9(a), IAS 37.14–26	Adjusting	Recognise/remeasure provision to settled amount.	Provisions & contingencies
Asset Destruction Warehouse fire on 5 Jan.	Event arose after year-end?	Incident logs, insurer correspondence showing post-date cause.	IAS 10.10–10.11	Non-adjusting	No adjustment at reporting date; consider impairment only in next period.	Subsequent events note
Market Downturn / Price Shock Sharp declines after year-end.	Were drivers evident pre-year-end?	Pre-year-end trend data, analyst notes, commodity forward curves as of year-end.	IAS 10.9(b), IAS 36.12, IFRS 13	Adjusting or Non-adjusting	If confirming: update impairments/fair values; if new: disclose sensitivity.	Impairment & risk sections
Dividends Declared Board proposes dividend after year-end.	When did legal obligation arise?	Board/shareholder approval dates, articles of association, local law.	IAS 10.12, IAS 1.137	Non-adjusting	No liability at reporting date; disclose amount & dates.	Equity & distributions
Fair Value Evidence Post-Date Offer received mid-January.	Does later transaction confirm year-end value?	Negotiation status at year-end, market comps as of year-end, signed term sheets timeline.	IAS 10.9(b), IFRS 13.69–71	Adjusting if confirming	Update fair value at reporting date if evidence reflects year-end conditions.	Valuation methodology
Insurance Recovery Insurer accepts claim after year-end.	Did insured loss occur before year-end?	Incident date, policy cover, acceptance letter, adjuster report.	IAS 10.9(b), IAS 37.53	Adjusting	Recognise receivable to the extent virtually certain at reporting date.	Provisions & recoveries
Government Policy / Law Change Tax law enacted after year-end.	Is enactment substantively enacted at reporting date?	Legislative timetable, enactment status, official gazette dates.	IAS 12.47–48, IAS 10.9	Non-adjusting if enacted after year-end	No remeasurement at reporting date; disclose if material.	Tax note & subsequent events
Going Concern Developments Funding withdrawn pre-authorisation.	Is going-concern basis still appropriate?	Signed facilities, covenant status, cash forecasts updated to authorisation date.	IAS 10.14–16, IAS 1.25–26	GC Critical	If no longer GC: prepare on liquidation basis; else disclose material uncertainty.	Directors’ report & GC note
Inventory Obsolescence Competitor launches new model in Jan.	Was obsolescence evident pre-year-end?	Pre-year-end sales velocity, markdown plans, channel returns, NRV analysis as of date.	IAS 2.28–33, IAS 10.9(b)	Adjusting or Non-adjusting	Write-down if conditions existed; otherwise disclose sensitivities.	Inventory/NRV note

11. Governance Reflection: Role of Audit Committees

The governance dimension of IAS 10 often receives less attention than its accounting mechanics. Yet most high-profile restatements—Carillion (2017), Thomas Cook (2019), Steinhoff (2018)—were ultimately governance failures.

11.1 Governance Responsibilities

• Board Oversight: Directors must ensure that all events between period-end and authorisation are identified and evaluated.
• Audit Committee Challenge: Committees should probe management’s reasoning, ask for documentary evidence (e-mails, legal letters, credit reports) and record the discussion.
• External Auditor Interaction: Auditors perform their own subsequent-events review up to the report date. A robust dialogue prevents misclassification.

11.2 Lessons from Enforcement Cases

Regulators repeatedly cite three weaknesses:

• Optimism bias—management assumes recovery of assets despite contrary post-date evidence.
• Documentation gaps—no clear paper trail showing assessment dates.
• Disclosure boilerplate—statements that obscure the real issue.

A well-functioning governance framework demands both scepticism and transparency. IAS 10 thus reinforces not only faithful representation but corporate accountability.

12. Conclusion

IAS 10 transforms hindsight into professional discipline. It forces preparers to distinguish between knowledge that existed at year-end and information emerging afterward, ensuring that financial statements reflect the position “as at” the reporting date while remaining relevant at authorisation.
Judgment dominates every step—assessing evidence, timing, probability and materiality. Estimation uncertainty persists, but disclosure converts uncertainty into informed understanding.

When boards integrate IAS 10 with robust governance procedures, the result is enhanced credibility and trust—the ultimate objective of financial reporting.

FAQ’s IAS 10 Events After the Reporting Period

KEY WORDS

KEY WORDS