Andrew Wiggins +44-(0)-121-232-2065 andrew.wiggins@uk.pwc.com |
The Global tax accounting services newsletter is a quarterly publication from PwC's Global Tax Accounting Services Group. It highlights issues that may be of interest to tax executives, finance directors, and financial controllers.
In this issue, we provide an update on income tax accounting topics added to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) agenda, the most recent International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Interpretation Committee’s guidance on some tax-related matters, State aid developments, and enforcement priorities in relation to 2014 IFRS financial statements recently released by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
We also draw your attention to some significant tax law and tax rate changes that occurred around the globe during the quarter ended December 2014.
Finally, we discuss key tax accounting hot topics and year-end reminders.
This newsletter, tax accounting guides, and other tax accounting publications are also available on our new TAS to Go app, which can be downloaded globally via App Stores.
If you would like to discuss any items in this newsletter, tax accounting issues affecting businesses today, or general tax accounting matters, please contact your local PwC team or the relevant Tax Accounting Services network member listed at the end of this document.
Readers should not rely on the information contained within this newsletter without seeking professional advice. For a thorough summary of developments, please consult with your local PwC team
Accounting and reporting updates
Recent and upcoming major tax law changes
Tax accounting refresher
Contacts and primary authors
During its meeting on 8 October 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB or Board) decided to add the following stock-based compensation topics to its agenda as part of its simplification initiative:
These income tax accounting considerations will be addressed along with certain other stock-based compensation topics that were also added to the agenda. The Board’s deliberation of these topics is expected to result in an exposure draft that will be issued to solicit broad stakeholder input.
During its decision-making meeting on 22 October 2014, the FASB also agreed to issue an exposure draft related to the following income tax accounting topics:
The exposure draft is expected to be issued in January 2015. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide feedback during a 120-day comment letter period.
On 8 October 2014, the FASB voted to include two income tax accounting topics to the stock-based compensation project and encouraged the FASB staff to continue researching the possibility of entirely eliminating the intra-period tax allocation rules as a separate project.
The Board agreed to address the possible recognition of all windfalls and shortfalls within income tax expense. As a reminder, windfalls occur when a stock-based award results in a larger tax deduction than the amount of compensation recorded for book purposes, whereas shortfalls occur when the award results in zero or less of a tax deduction than the related book charge.
That proposed treatment would replace the current guidance that allocates tax effects between equity and income tax expense.
The FASB staff presented two alternatives to the Board:
The FASB staff noted that either alternative would eliminate the necessity of maintaining a windfall ‘pool’ and the potential asymmetry in the classification of tax effects. Both alternatives included the staff’s recommendation to remove the current requirement that cash taxes payable must be reduced in order to record a windfall. The staff had also considered potential convergence with IFRS but concluded that convergence would not result in simplification.
Ultimately, the Board voted to include only alternative A in the stock-based compensation project.
Additionally, the Board agreed with the staff’s recommendation to include the possible elimination of the current requirement to display the gross amount of windfall as an operating outflow and financing inflow in the cash flow statement. The FASB staff noted that this presentation does not reflect actual cash flows, and represents the only exception from single-line presentation of taxes within operating cash flows.
On 22 October 2014, the FASB also agreed to issue an exposure draft related to the following two income tax accounting topics:
The exposure draft is expected to be released in January 2015.
One of the changes to be reflected in the exposure draft would require recognition of the current and deferred income tax consequences of an intra-entity asset transfer when the transfer occurs. This would replace the current exception that requires that both the buyer and the seller in a consolidated reporting group defer the income tax consequences of intra-entity asset transfers.
The FASB staff presented two alternatives to the Board:
The Board noted that alternative B should reduce complexity for users, preparers, regulators, and auditors of financial statements. Alternative B would also allow convergence with IFRS and result in accounting that will be more transparent (i.e., tax provision would reflect current tax consequences of intercompany transactions) and in many cases closer to reflecting tax cash flows.
Ultimately, the Board voted to include alternative B in the exposure draft.
The Board also agreed to the staff’s recommendation to require the classification of all deferred tax assets and liabilities as non-current on the balance sheet. This would replace the current guidance, which requires deferred taxes for each tax-paying component of an entity to be presented as a net current asset or liability and a net non-current asset or liability, and eliminate the complexity around the allocation of a valuation allowance between current and non-current. The proposed guidance would also converge with IFRS.
Finally, the Board voted on the staff’s recommendations for transition methods and effective dates. The Board agreed to a modified retrospective transition approach (i.e., cumulative catch-up adjustment to opening retained earnings in the period of adoption) for the intercompany transactions topic and prospective transition for the classification topic.
In the period of adoption, transition disclosures will include: (1) the nature of and reason for the accounting change and (2) the method of applying the change which would include the effects of the change on any affected financial statement line item and per-share amounts for the current period. In lieu of disclosing the effects of the change on the balance sheet for the classification topic, the Board agreed that the disclosure would note that the presented balance sheets are not comparable.
The changes would be effective for financial reporting years beginning after 15 December 2016, for public companies. For private companies, changes would be effective for financial reporting years beginning after 15 December 2017, and interim periods in the following year. Early adoption to the public companies’ effective date would be permitted for private companies. Early adoption, if chosen, would need to be applied to both topics.
The steps recently taken by the FASB and the ongoing efforts of the FASB staff may lead to significant near-term improvements that could reduce the complexity of accounting for income taxes. At present, there are two projects that address the simplification of income tax accounting: the income tax project and the stock-based compensation project. Income taxes are also included in the Disclosure Framework project and the FASB staff continue to study intra-period tax allocation.
Organisations should be giving attention to the implications of potential near-term changes in these tax accounting areas. Consideration should be given to responding to the exposure draft once it is issued.
There are also likely to be further developments as the FASB works through the tax accounting topics now on its agenda.
During the fourth quarter of 2014 the IFRS IC considered the following two issues:
The IFRS IC discussed the UTP issues earlier in 2014 (see the Q1 and Q3 2014 newsletters) and noted that one of the principal issues with respect to UTPs is how to measure related assets and liabilities. It tentatively decided to proceed with developing guidance for the measurement of UTPs.
In addressing the issue of the applicable tax rate for the measurement of deferred tax relating to an investment in an associate in a multi-tax rate jurisdiction, the IFRS IC noted that IAS 12 contains sufficient guidance on this matter and decided not to add this issue to its agenda.
As mentioned above, the IFRS IC tentatively decided to proceed with the project on the measurement of UTPs, subject to further analysis and deliberations.
During its November 2014 meeting, the IFRS IC discussed:
The IFRS IC tentatively agreed that all income tax positions should be included within the scope of this project. It thought that attempting to limit the scope to specific situations, for example, when an entity has unresolved disputes with a tax authority, would lead to an arbitrary rule.
The IFRS IC also noted that paragraph 14 of IAS 12 and the objective of IAS 12 refer to the ‘probable’ recognition threshold, although IAS 12 does not explicitly set the threshold of recognition for a current tax asset or liability. It also noted that the current Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting also refers to a probable recognition threshold. As noted in the final decision on the issue of recognition of current income tax on UTPs in July 2014, it is IAS 12, not IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, that provides the relevant guidance on recognition.
The IFRS IC observed that setting a scope to specific situations is not necessary if it develops guidance that would require an entity to recognise a current tax asset or liability only if it is probable that it will pay the amount to, or recover the amount from, a tax authority.
As a result, the IFRS IC tentatively agreed that the proposed guidance should require an entity to recognise a current tax asset or liability only if it is probable that it will pay the amount to, or recover the amount from, a tax authority.
The IFRS IC observed that an entity should make a judgement about the unit of account that provides relevant information for each UTP. For example, if a decision on a specific UTP is expected to affect, or be affected by, other UTPs, it noted that those UTPs should be accounted for as a single unit of account.
The IFRS IC observed that an entity should estimate the amount expected to be paid to (or recovered from) the taxation authorities by using either the most likely amount or the expected value, depending on which method provides a better estimate. This is because this approach would provide useful information to predict future cash flows for each case. It also noted that this approach is similar to the measurement of an amount of variable consideration in IFRS 15. The IFRS IC decided not to propose a more-likely-than-not measurement threshold, noting that IFRS does not refer to a more-likely-than-not amount and that both IFRS 15 and IAS 37 refer to the expected value and the most likely amount.
As mentioned in the Q3 2014 newsletter, the IFRS IC had tentatively decided that the proposed guidance should clarify that an entity should assume that the tax authorities would examine the amounts reported to them and have full knowledge of all relevant information (i.e., it should assume a 100% detection risk).
The IFRS IC tentatively decided to develop a draft Interpretation, reflecting the above tentative decisions.
The staff will present the draft Interpretation at a future meeting. The IFRS IC also asked the staff to contact the staff of the FASB, to discuss its experience with developing guidance on this subject.
Selection of the applicable tax rate for measurement of deferred tax relating to investment in associate
As mentioned above, the IFRS IC received a request to clarify the selection of the applicable tax rate for the measurement of deferred tax relating to an investment in an associate in a multi-tax rate jurisdiction.
The IFRS IC was asked how the tax rate should be selected when local tax legislation prescribes different tax rates for different manners of recovery (for example, dividends, sale, and liquidation) in the following situation:
The carrying amount of an investment in an associate could be recovered by:
An investor normally considers all of these means of recovery.
One part of the temporary difference will be received as dividends during the holding period, and another part will be recovered upon sale or liquidation.
The IFRS IC noted that paragraph 51A of IAS 12 states that an entity measures deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax assets using the tax rate and the tax base that are consistent with the expected manner of recovery or settlement.
If one part of the temporary difference is expected to be received as dividends, and another part is expected to be recovered upon sale or liquidation (for example, an investor has a plan to sell the investment later and expects to receive dividends until the sale of the investment) different tax rates would be applied to the different parts of the temporary difference to be consistent with the expected manner of recovery.
The IFRS IC observed that it had received no evidence of diversity in the application of IAS 12 and that the Standard contains sufficient guidance to address the matters raised. Accordingly, the IFRS IC determined that neither an Interpretation of, nor an amendment to, IAS 12 was necessary and decided not to add this issue to its agenda.
At the beginning of 2014, the European Commission announced a new focus on ‘fiscal’ State aid. This focus was in part triggered by the unfolding Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD)/G20’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan as well as the European Union’s (EU) own agenda to crack down on what may be viewed as unfair incentives or subsidies which contravene EU-wide fair trade or competition principles.
This has resulted in the opening of a series of investigations into specific tax rulings and tax regimes, including the following:
The European Commission also announced that an administrative interpretation of the Spanish tax authorities issued in March 2012, which allowed companies to amortise the financial goodwill on indirect shareholdings, is incompatible with EU State aid rules. However the General Court of the EU recently overturned this decision on the basis that the approach to selectivity (see further comments on the point of selectivity below) adopted by the Commission was wrong. The European Commission may now appeal to the Court of Justice of the EU.
EU State aid rules are relevant for undertakings with business activities in the Member States of the EU and the three countries of the European Economic Area (EEA, i.e., the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). The term ‘undertaking’ has been widely construed by the courts but would include activities carried on by partnerships and companies, including activities carried on through a permanent establishment.
These States are prohibited from providing certain forms of State aid to undertakings without prior authorisation of the European Commission (or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority with respect to Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This prohibition is part of European competition law, and is intended to safeguard fair competition within the EU/EEA. The legal basis for the State aid ban is in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) or for Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway in the EEA Agreement.
The most straightforward example of State aid is a subsidy provided directly to a certain undertaking. However, State aid can also consist of a reduction of taxes otherwise due (e.g., a tax exemption), as this provides an advantage to certain undertakings (i.e., the tax rulings or regimes are determined to be selective). This is referred to as ‘fiscal’ State aid.
Broadly speaking, fiscal State aid comes in two forms:
Under certain circumstances aid granted by EU or EEA Member States can be compatible with EU Law. It is up to the European Commission to determine (subject to appeal) whether aid is compatible with the EU’s internal market. Aid granted without prior authorisation of the European Commission or the EFTA Surveillance Authority, is assumed to be unlawful until proven otherwise.
If the European Commission or the EFTA Surveillance Authority ultimately conclude that the tax benefit in question was more generous than either the local law allowed, or that the local law itself gave an unjustifiable selective tax advantage, then the Commission may be obliged to order the State to recover the unlawful tax benefit from the taxpayer with compound interest for up to ten years prior to the opening of the investigation.
Existing aid (broadly, aid schemes and individual aid which were in place before the relevant Member State signed onto EU/EEA Treaties) is not subject to recovery. The European Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority monitor such aid and may order that the aid be removed prospectively.
The aid subject to recovery should be quantified by comparing the tax, which should ‘normally’ have been paid—i.e., without application of the selective tax measure—with the tax that has in fact been paid.
Organisations will need to monitor State aid developments and investigations and consider possible financial implications whenever a tax ruling, tax settlement, or even tax regime may be considered State aid. The accounting consequences of such investigations, based on available information, are likely to be in the scope of ASC740 Income Taxes and IAS 12, Income Taxes.
Organisations should assess the potential effect on existing uncertain income tax positions, as well as amounts owed for previously considered closed periods and possible refund claims or positions to be taken in the future.
State aid should also be an important consideration when establishing any new tax position with the tax authorities, whether in relation to a tax ruling, tax settlement, or the application of a specific tax regime. Any measure in an EU or EEA Member State, be it a tax rule, regime, system, assessment, agreement, or ruling should be considered from a State aid perspective.
Organisations may need to seek expert support in assessing risks or uncertainty from appropriate legal counsel. Expert analysis should address the company’s position in the context of the relevant accounting standard, such as the ‘more likely than not’ recognition threshold of ASC 740.
Organisations will also need to document management’s view and associated controls, and consider the relevant disclosure requirements.
ESMA is an independent EU Authority, whose predominant role is to serve as the EU’s securities market regulator. One of ESMA’s areas of responsibility is to promote the effective and consistent application of the European Securities and Markets legislation with respect to financial reporting.
On 28 October 2014, ESMA issued its public statement on the European common enforcement priorities for 2014 IFRS financial statements. These priorities identify topics that ESMA, together with European national enforcers, see as a key focus of their examinations of listed companies’ financial statements.
Based on the public statement ESMA’s enforcement priorities for FY 2014 are focused on the following topics:
These topics were highlighted as they related to either:
With respect to income taxes (IAS 12), ESMA noted that particular attention should be paid to the recognition of deferred tax assets coming from the carry-forward of unused tax losses, to the assessment whether future taxable profits exist, and to the need for disclosing judgments made when recognising deferred tax assets.
When the utilisation of the deferred tax asset is dependent on future taxable profits or when the entity has suffered a loss in either the current or preceding period in the tax jurisdiction to which the deferred tax asset relates, paragraph 82 of IAS 12 requires the disclosure of the amount of a deferred tax asset and the nature of the evidence supporting its recognition.
In this respect ESMA expects issuers to disclose specific significant assumptions made in their business plans, as losses can be carried forward over very long periods, and the business plans that support the existence of future taxable profits are based on assumptions that are often highly judgmental.
When amounts are material, issuers should consider separate disclosures based on the characteristics of the tax losses, e.g., considering different time limits during which tax losses must be utilised.
ESMA believes that it is particularly relevant to disclose the following information:
Finally, ESMA noted that the IFRS IC recently discussed the question of recognition and measurement of income taxes in relation to uncertain tax positions (see above). In light of these discussions, ESMA expects issuers to disclose their accounting policy related to material uncertain tax positions in accordance with paragraphs 117 and 122 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.
The public statement of ESMA clearly demonstrates that income taxes are high on the current agenda.
Organisations should be paying particular attention to recognition, measurement, and disclosure requirements for deferred tax assets on carry-forward tax losses.
Companies should also keep a close watch on the IFRS IC developments on uncertain tax positions and consider the follow on consequences for disclosures.
Country | Prior rate | New rate |
Portugal (CIT) | 23% | 21%1 |
Spain (CIT) | 30% | 28%/25%2 |
Thailand (CIT for the 2015 year) | 30% | 20%3 |
1 This change was substantively enacted on 31 October 2014, and is effective from 1 January 2015. |
2The corporate income tax rate in Spain was reduced from 30% to 28% in 2015 and to 25% in 2016 (30% rate would continue to apply to financial institutions). This change was enacted on 28 November 2014. |
3The statutory CIT rate in Thailand has historically been 30%. The CIT rate was reduced to 20% for 2013 and 2014, and the 20% rate has now been extended to 2015. This change was enacted on 10 November 2014. |
Click each circle to review
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the following tax measures were enacted in Australia:
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) also provided long-awaited draft guidance on the application of the equity over-ride rule. This rule reclassifies a debt interest issued by a company to a 'connected entity' as an equity interest and treats distributions on that interest as dividends.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, certain 2014 budget proposals (see the Q1 2014 newsletter) were substantively enacted, including the following:
In addition, the following measures were substantively enacted:
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Colombian government introduced the following tax reform proposals:
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the relevant committees of the German Bundesrat (the states council of the German parliament) issued a joint recommendation to include certain tax provisions in a draft bill that would amend the General Tax Code as it pertains to the EU Customs Codex and other tax provisions (ZollkodexAnpG). The proposed amendments include:
During the fourth quarter of 2014, changes to tax loss carry-forward rules were enacted in Hungary. In particular, tax losses incurred after 2015 would be available for utilisation within five years; losses incurred before 2015 would be available for utilisation up to 31 December 2025; and rules on transferring carried-forward tax losses incurred in relation to reorganisations or takeovers would be tightened.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Minister for Finance of Ireland announced the Irish Budget 2015, that included the following proposed measures:
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the following measures were proposed in Italy:
During the fourth quarter of 2014, it was proposed that starting in 2015 a minimum corporate income tax of EUR 3,000 (EUR 3,210 with the solidarity surtax) would be applicable to all Luxembourg entities that own fixed assets, transferable securities and cash at bank exceeding 90% of their total assets and EUR 350,000.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, Malta enacted an investment tax credit for tangible/intangible asset investment or new job creation. This tax credit is effective from 1 July 2014.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Mexican Tax Authorities have published Form 76, Information Return Regarding Relevant Transactions requiring the disclosure of certain information, including financing transactions relating to derivatives, transfer pricing, changes in the capital structure, or tax residency, restructurings and reorganisations.
The form must be filed electronically within 30 working days after the occurrence of a relevant transaction. Relevant transactions that occurred during the 2014 calendar year must be reported on Form 76 by 31 January 2015.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Panamanian government enacted Law 25, granting an amnesty for tax payments for liabilities accrued before 30 September 2014. Taxpayers that take advantage of the amnesty will not be subject to surcharges, interest, or penalties on outstanding tax liabilities. The deadline to pay tax existing liabilities is 31 December 2014.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the following tax measures covered in the Q3 2014 newsletter were enacted in Poland:
During the fourth quarter of 2014 the government also drafted legislation for tax anti-avoidance rules. These rules are expected to take effect in January 2016.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Portuguese Government substantially enacted certain measures presented in its State Budget for 2015 including the following:
The Portuguese government has also approved the new Investment Tax Code, which aims to reinforce the existing investment tax benefits and adapt them to the new EU State aid framework.
The government also discussed a comprehensive Green Taxation reform package that includes the extension of the tax deductibility of provisions made for environmental clean-up costs to all industries (currently available only to extractive and waste management industries).
During the fourth quarter of 2014, Russia eliminated the 30% penalty tax rate on dividends payable on the shares of Russian issuers recorded through depositary programs and other accounts of foreign intermediaries. This rate previously applied when information about the beneficial owners of dividends was not disclosed in due course to a Russian tax agent. With the change, effective on 1 January 2015 the maximum Russian withholding income tax rate on dividends will be 15%.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament passed a new 'anti-offshore' law. The law's main purpose is to prevent tax avoidance by Russian tax residents through the use of tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions. However, it also includes measures that affect foreign investors owning equities in Russian entities or receiving income from Russian entities.
The key developments in the 'anti-offshore' law include the introduction of:
The law requires approval by the upper chamber of the Parliament and the president. It is expected to be effective from 1 January 2015.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, a number of tax measures were enacted in Spain, including the following:
As mentioned above, during the fourth quarter of 2014, Thailand enacted the reduction of its corporate income tax rate for the 2015 year from 30% to 20%. Without further action the rate will revert to 30% in 2016.
Given that Thailand is running a substantial budget deficit, and the government has announced significant new infrastructure spending programs, further rate cut extensions are uncertain.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the UK and German governments developed a joint proposal to advance negotiations on new rules for preferential IP regimes within the G20/OECD BEPS project and presented it at the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) in November 2014. The key points of the proposal are as follows:
In addition, the UK government announced the following key proposals (expected to apply from 1 April 2015):
The UK government also announced steps to implement the OECD model for country by country reporting and published a consultation paper on the implementation of the proposed rules governing hybrid mismatch arrangements, aimed at preventing tax relief for payments where the recipient is not taxed.
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Senate voted to pass the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, providing for a one-year retroactive extension of business and individual tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013.
Key business provisions that would be renewed through 31 December 2014, include the research credit, 50% bonus depreciation, look-through treatment for CFCs, and a Subpart F exception for active financing income. The tax extenders package does not include any revenue offsets.
Under US GAAP, the assessment of a UTP is a continuous process that does not end with the initial determination of a position's sustainability. At each balance sheet date, unresolved positions must be reassessed based upon new information. ASC740 requires that changes in the expected outcome of a UTP be based on new information, and not on a mere re-evaluation of existing information.
Under IFRS, accounting for UTPs is not specifically addressed. Organisations should account for tax consequences of events following the manner in which they expect the tax position to be resolved with the tax authorities at the balance sheet date. However, more guidance is expected to be issued on this subject once the IFRS IC completes its project on the measurement of UTPs (see the IFRS IC update above).
Organisations should consider the following reminders with respect to UTPs as part of their year-end process:
In assessing UTPs, an organisation is required to recognise the benefit of a tax position in the first interim period that one of the following conditions is met:
If the requirements of effective settlement are met, the resulting tax benefit is required to be reported; the application of effective settlement criterion is not elective.
The evaluation of the need for, and amount of, a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets is an area that has always presented a challenge for financial statement preparers under US GAAP. The assessment requires significant judgment and a thorough analysis of the totality of both positive and negative evidence available to determine whether all or a portion of the deferred tax asset is more likely than not expected to be realised. In this analysis, the accounting standard proscribes that the weight given to each piece of positive or negative evidence be directly related to the extent to which that evidence can be objectively verified. Accordingly, recently observed financial results are given more weight than future projections (which by their nature are often inherently subjective).
Under IFRS, deferred tax assets are recognised to the extent that it is probable (defined as 'more likely than not') that sufficient taxable profits will be available to utilise the deductible temporary difference or unused tax losses. Valuation allowances are not allowed to be recorded.
As companies perform their assessments, the following reminders may be helpful:
Certain tax-planning strategies may provide a source of income for the apparent recognition of deferred tax assets in one jurisdiction, but not provide incremental tax savings to the consolidated entity. In order to avoid a valuation allowance in reliance on a tax-planning strategy, we believe that the tax-planning strategy generally must provide cash savings to the consolidated entity.
In jurisdictions with unlimited carry-forward periods for tax attributes (e.g., NOLs, an alternative minimum tax (AMT) credit carry-forwards, and other non-expiring loss or credit carry-forwards), deferred tax assets may be supported by the indefinite-lived deferred tax liabilities.
In light of the continued focus on disclosures by investors and regulators, companies may wish to enhance their procedures around the identification and development of income tax-related disclosures. Additionally, a fresh look may be warranted to ensure disclosures are concise and use plain language.
Key reminders to consider as part of the year-end process include the following:
Andrew Wiggins +44-(0)-121-232-2065 andrew.wiggins@uk.pwc.com |
Kenneth Shives +32-(2)-710-4812 kenneth.shives@be.pwc.com |
Terry SY Tam +86-(21)-2323-1555 terry.sy.tam@cn.pwc.com |
Marjorie Dhunjishah +1-(703)-918-3608 marjorie.l.dhunjishah@us.pwc.com |
Country | Name | Telephone | |
Australia | Ronen Vexler | +61-(2)-8266-0320 | ronen.vexler@au.pwc.com |
Belgium | Koen De Grave | +32-(3)-259-3184 | koen.de.grave@be.pwc.com |
Brazil | Manuel Marinho | +55-(11)-3674-3404 | manuel.marinho@br.pwc.com |
Canada | Spence McDonnell Nicole Inglis |
+1-(416)-869-2328 +1-(604)-806-7781 |
spence.n.mcdonnell@ca.pwc.com nicole.f.inglis@ca.pwc.com |
China | Terry SY Tam | +86-(21)-2323-1555 | terry.sy.tam@cn.pwc.com |
France | Marine Gril-Gadonneix | +33-(1)-56-57-43-16 | marine.gril-gadonneix@fr.landwellglobal.com |
Germany | Heiko Schäfer | +49-(69)-9585-6227 | heiko.schaefer@de.pwc.com |
Hungary | David Williams | +36-(1)-461-9354 | david.williams@hu.pwc.com |
Japan | Masanori Kato | +81-(3)-5251-2536 | masanori.kato@jp.pwc.com |
Mexico | Fausto Cantu | +52-(81)-8152-2052 | fausto.cantu@mx.pwc.com |
Netherlands | Jurriaan Weerman | +31-(0)-887-925-086 | jurriaan.weerman@nl.pwc.com |
United Kingdom | Andrew Wiggins | +44-(0)-121-232-2065 | andrew.wiggins@uk.pwc.com |
United States | David Wiseman | +1-(617)-530-7274 | david.wiseman@us.pwc.com |
Andrew Wiggins +44-(0)-121-232-2065 andrew.wiggins@uk.pwc.com |
Katya Umanskaya +1-(312)-298-3013 ekaterina.umanskaya@us.pwc.com |
Steven Schaefer +1-(973)-236-7064 steven.schaefer@us.pwc.com |
Koen De Grave +32-(0)-3-259-31-84 koen.de.grave@be.pwc.com |