FASB Taxonomy Advisory Group Meeting. Date: May 28, 2015 Location: FASB Board Room

Transcription

1 FASB Taxonomy Advisory Group Meeting Date: May 28, 2015 Location: FASB Board Room 1

2 Contents I. Agenda... 4 II. Sessions and Highlights... 6 Session 1a(i) Modeling Comparative Periods for Discontinued Operations, Illustrations... 6 A. Meeting Highlights... 6 B. Modeling Comparative Periods for Discontinued Operations, Illustrations... 6 Session 1a(ii) Modeling with Segment for Disposal Group A. Meeting Highlights B. Modeling with Segment for Disposal Group Session 1b Financing Receivables (Implementation Guide) A. Meeting Highlights B. Financing Receivables (Implementation Guide) Session 1c Other Comprehensive Income A. Meeting Highlights B. Other Comprehensive Income Session 1d Short-duration Insurance Contracts A. Meeting Highlights B. Short-duration Insurance Contracts Session 1e Defined Benefit Plans Measurement Date A. Meeting Highlights B. Defined Benefit Plans Measurement Date Session 1e(i) Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans (Implementation Guide) A. Meeting Highlights B. Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans (Implementation Guide) Session 2 Taxonomy Implementation Label A. Meeting Highlights B. Taxonomy Implementation Label Session 3 Container Dimension and Single Member A. Meeting Highlights B. Container Dimension and Single Member Session 4 Legal Entity Issues

3 A. Meeting Highlights B. Legal Entity Issues Session 5 Treasury Stock Member A. Meeting Highlights B. Treasury Stock Member to be provided in a future meeting Session 6 Dimension Working Group Update A. Meeting Highlights B. Dimension Working Group Update to be provided in a future meeting Session 7 Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report A. Meeting Highlights B. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report Session 8 Review of April 9, 2015 Meeting Highlights A. Meeting Highlights B. Review of April 9, 2015 Meeting Highlights Session 9 Workflow Report A. Meeting Highlights B. Workflow Report

4 I. Agenda Session Presenter 1. Taxonomy Implementation Guides a. Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations i. Modeling Comparative Periods, Illustrations Donna ii. Modeling with Segment Melissa b. Financing Receivables (Implementation Guide) Anna c. Other Comprehensive Income Donna d. Short-duration Insurance Contracts Donna e. Defined Benefit Plans Measurement Date i. Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans(Implementation Guide) 2. Taxonomy Implementation Label Melissa Melissa Elena/Melissa 3. Container Dimension and Single Member Vickie 4. Legal Entity Issues David/Campbell 5. Treasury Stock Donna 6. Dimension Working Group Update David 7. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report Donna 4

5 8. Review of April 9, 2015 Meeting Highlights Donna 9. Workflow Report Donna 5

6 II. Sessions and Highlights Modeling issues and choices related to illustrations in Taxonomy Implementation Guides were discussed as well as feedback solicited for proposed guides to be issued. A proposal for development of a Taxonomy Implemental Label was reviewed and input sought related to format and content. Issues around the legal entity dimension were discussed with additional steps needed for resolution. The application of a container dimension using a single member was deliberated. The memorandum of treasury stock members, dimension working group update, Accounting Standards Update (ASU) report since April 3 rd, 2015, TAG meeting highlights and resolutions from April 9 th 2015 and workflow report were provided for review but were not discussed. Session 1a(i) Modeling Comparative Periods for Discontinued Operations, Illustrations A. Meeting Highlights The issues discussed for the Taxonomy Implementation Guide for disposal groups and discontinued operations were (1) changing members as the status of the transaction changed (held-for-sale to sold), (2) whether presentation of a hierarchical structure was beneficial and (3) whether to illustrate the value that would appear in the Statement of Financial Position (not dimensionally qualified) along with the disclosure value (dimensionally qualified). The TAG members were supportive of aligning the member with the status of the transaction and including the Statement of Financial Position value with a note as to why it was included. The TAG members were not supportive of illustrating a hierarchical structure and including members that were not used in the guide. There was mention that it may be beneficial to provide if the child member was an extension and the parent was a GAAP Taxonomy element. B. Modeling Comparative Periods for Discontinued Operations, Illustrations Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback on examples for an implementation guide related to presenting comparative periods for discontinued operations and providing illustrations of dimensional structures for disposals. 6

7 Background Information 2. As part of the Accounting Standards Update for Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity ( ), a dimension (Disposal Group Classification [Axis]) was added to the Taxonomy to indicate the type of disposal. It has the following members: Discontinued Operations [Member] Discontinued Operations, Held-for-sale or Disposed of by Sale [Member] Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Sale [Member] Discontinued Operations, Held-for-sale [Member] Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale [Member] Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Spinoff [Member] Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Abandonment [Member] Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Exchange [Member] Disposal Group, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] Disposal Group, Held-for-sale or Disposed of by Sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] Disposal Group, Disposed of by Sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] Disposal Group, Held-for-sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] Disposal Group, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] Disposal Group, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Not Discontinued Operations, Spinoff [Member] Disposal Group, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Not Discontinued Operations, Abandonment [Member] Disposal Group, Disposed of by Means Other than Sale, Not Discontinued Operations, Exchange [Member] 3. Disposal Group Name [Axis] allows the filer to extend for the name of the disposal group. A disposal group may have a portion that qualifies for discontinued operations and a portion that does not. The two dimensions are needed to allow for this occurrence. Issue 1 Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations Implementation Guide, Example 3 4. Example 3 of the Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations Implementation Guide provides a comparative period disclosure for the discontinued operation. There 7

8 is only one discontinued operation which was held-for-sale as of June 30, 20X0 and sold April 15, 20X1. 5. The classification of the discontinued operation changes from one period to the next. From Discontinued Operations, Held-for-sale [Member] in 20X0 to Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Sale [Member] in 20X1. Issue 1 Taxonomy staff analysis 6. Alternative 1 the most specific or narrowest members to use for each classification would be to use Discontinued Operations, Held-for-sale [Member] for 20X0 and Discontinued Operations, Disposed of by Sale [Member] for 20X1. 8

9 Alternative 1 Example Alternative 1 Legend 7. This results in the same discontinued operation changing an attribute between reporting periods, but provides information about the status of the disposal that reflects actuality. 9

10 8. Alternative 2 the broader member Discontinued Operations, Held-for-sale or Disposed of by Sale [Member] would cover both periods and provide consistency from one period to the next. Alternative 2 Example Alternative 2 Legend 9. This appears to conflict with rule of the Edgar Filer Manual (EFM) When there is a choice among different elements that have definitions consistent with a set 10

11 of facts in one or more periods, use the element with the narrowest definition. It is ambiguous to whether the disposal has been sold and other information would have to be examined to make this determination. Issue 1 Taxonomy staff analysis 10. The Taxonomy staff recommends Alternative 1 as it complies with the EFM and reflects actuality. This is similar to what occurs with subsequent events. A transaction that meets the requirement for subsequent event disclosure which occurs after the reporting period, but before the filing will have the Subsequent Event [Member]. In the next reporting period, the same transaction would be during the reporting period and would not have the member. The Disposal Group Name [Axis] provides the consistency for the disposal information from one period to the next. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the approach for modeling the example in the Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations Implementation Guide 2. If not, what approach does the TAG Member recommend? Issue 2 Should examples in the Taxonomy Implementation Guide provide hierarchical dimensional structure? 11. As identified in paragraph 2, new members added under Disposal Group Classification [Axis] were structured hierarchically. 11

12 12. The examples may use the more specific child such as M1 or M6 in the figure below. 13. Should the examples in the Taxonomy Implementation Guide provide the hierarchical structure even if the higher level members may not be used? Issue 2 Taxonomy staff analysis 14. The Taxonomy staff recommends providing the hierarchical structure based on discussions with certain users of the data that these relationships provide relevant information. If used, the change in members identified in Issue 1 will have a presentation relationship provided to understand how they are associated. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the recommendation to provide a hierarchical structure in the examples? 2. If not, what structure does the TAG Member prefer? Issue 3 Illustration of tagging when disaggregation of dimension has only one member 15. There are instances where the default value is the same value as a dimensionally qualified value when there is only one member for the disaggregation. For example, there is only one disposal in the example below and the value appears on the Statement of Financial Position. 12

13 16. The value of the $1,164 is tagged with and without the member in the instance document. It is tagged with the member in the note disclosing the information about the disposal and it is tagged without the member for the Statement of Financial Position. 13

14 17. In a typical filing, there would be two values reported as it is required to separate discontinued operations from continuing operations. However, the Statement of Financial Position is not provided in the example in the Taxonomy Implementation Guide. Issue 3 Taxonomy staff analysis 18. The Taxonomy staff recommends illustrating the values for both the note disclosure and the value that would appear on the Statement of Financial Position and adding information under the Notes section for the example to explain why it is included. In 14

15 a rendering of this disclosure, the value would appear and the illustration would more closely mirror this view and assist in appropriate tagging of the information. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the recommendation to tag the information as illustrated? 2. If not, how should the tagging information be illustrated in the example for the Taxonomy Implementation Guide? 15

16 Session 1a(ii) Modeling with Segment for Disposal Group A. Meeting Highlights Two modeling issues were presented to TAG members for feedback involving a disposal group disclosure related to Accounting Standards Update (ASU) , Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity. The Taxonomy staff intends to include this disposal group disclosure in the Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations Taxonomy Implementation Guide. Issue 1 involved the modeling of multiple dimensions to convey segment and sub-segment information. Specifically, 4 dimensions were proposed for the 9 out of 10 of the monetary elements present in the disclosure: Disposal Group Name [Axis] (A1), Disposal Group Classification [Axis] (A2), Segments [Axis] (A3) and Subsegments [Axis] (A4). In addition to these 4 dimensions, a 5 th dimension, Counterparty Name [Axis] (A5), was proposed for 1 monetary element present in the disclosure. TAG members agreed with the use of 4 dimensions for all 10 monetary elements in the disclosure, but indicated the 5 th dimension should not be included in the modeling. Issue 2 involved the use of different classification members on the disposal group classification axis in the same period. The members consisted of: disposed of by sale, held-for-sale, and held-for-sale or disposed of by sale. The TAG members were presented with 3 modeling options for using these members for the April 2015 and December 2014 disclosures. The pros and cons of each option were presented. The majority of the TAG members agreed with the Taxonomy staff s recommendation that the classification member for the income statement and cash flow disclosures should be the disposed of by sale member in April, while the balance sheet disclosures should be the held-for-sale member in both April and December. The TAG members that did not agree with the Taxonomy staff recommendation felt that the same member, disposed of by sale, should be used for all disclosures in April 2015 and that the heldfor-sale member should only be used in December 2014 disclosure. A suggestion to clarify the date of the disposal transaction was made and a date of April 10, 2015 instead of just April 2015 will be incorporated in the disclosure. B. Modeling with Segment for Disposal Group Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback on two issues: (1) the modeling of multiple dimensions and (2) determining which classification member(s) should be used as the disposal group is held-for-sale and then disposed of in a disclosure related to Accounting Standards Update (ASU) , Presentation of Financial Statements 16

17 (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity. Background: Disclosure & Modeling 2. Certain entity-related facts for this disclosure are as follows: (1) ABC Company has the following structure: (2) The sale of ENR does not represent a strategic shift that will have a major effect on ABC Company s operations or financial results. Therefore, ENR does not meet the criteria to qualify as a discontinued operation, since the other subsegment, PWR, continues to operate in that line of business. (3) ENR did meet the criteria for classification as held for sale as of December 31, ABC Company s classified balance sheet includes the total assets and liabilities for ENR presented as Assets held-for-sale and Liabilities held-for-sale, respectively. (4) ENR is both the name of the Disposal Group and the name of one of the Electric Utility s subsegment. 3. The disclosure and modeling is outlined below. Please note a choice is shown in the modeling for the Disposal Group Classification [Axis] (A2) for either Disposal Group, Disposed of by Sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] (M2); Disposal Group, Held-for-sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] (M3); or Disposal Group, Held-for-sale or Disposed of by Sale, Not Discontinued Operations [Member] (M4). This will be discussed as part of issue #2. 17

18 18

19 4. The line item elements used to tag these facts are as follows: Issue 1 Modeling Multiple Dimensions 5. The modeling for this disclosure proposes using 4 specific dimensions to represent the qualitative facts presented (the 5 th dimension for the Counterparty Name [Axis] (A5) only applies to Proceeds from Divestiture of Businesses (L1), which is not repeated for the other line item elements). These consist of: Disposal Group Name [Axis] (A1), Disposal Group Classification [Axis] (A2), Segments [Axis] (A3) and Subsegments [Axis] (A4). 6. The element ENR [Member] (ExtM1) is a member on 2 separate axes in the same disclosure: Disposal Group Name [Axis] (A1) and the Subsegments [Axis] (A4). Issue 1 Taxonomy staff analysis 7. The Dimensions Working Group is currently discussing the appropriate use of dimensions which serve different purposes in the Taxonomy. Below is a summary of the purpose for each dimension in this disclosure: (1) Disposal Group Name [Axis] (A1) serves as a container, which allows certain facts to be linked together. (2) Disposal Group Classification [Axis] (A2) provides a disaggregation with totals and information about whether the group was held for sale or disposed of. This axis disaggregates the entitywide amounts reported on the balance sheet (assets held-for-sale and 19

20 liabilities held-for-sale) and provides information about the entitywide amounts reported on income statement (pre-tax gain) and the cash flow statement (proceeds from sale of a business). (3) Segments [Axis] (A3) provides a disaggregation with a total and information about the entity structure. This axis provides a disaggregation of one of ABC Company s segments impacted by the sale. The Segment note to the financial statements for December 31, 2014, would include totals reconciling to the balance sheet. The Segment note to the financial statements for the first quarter 2015 filing, would include totals reconciling to the income statement for the pre-tax gain on the sale. Use of this axis would be consistent with its use elsewhere in the notes to the financial statements and in other periods. (4) Subsegments [Axis] (A4) provides a disaggregation without a total, since information about the other subsegment, PWR, is not included, and provides information about the relationship of ENR within the Electric Utility segment of ABC Company. Issue 1 Taxonomy staff recommendation 8. The Taxonomy staff recommends all 4 dimensions be included in the modeling of each monetary line item in this disclosure as it electronically provides all relevant quantitative and qualitative information for each disclosure presented. The 5 th dimension would only apply to the first monetary line item element. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Based on the fact pattern presented in the disclosure above, does the TAG Member agree with the modeling approach of applying 5 dimensions to the first line item, L1, and 4 separate dimensions to describe each fact represented by L2 to L10? 2. If not, what approach does the TAG Member recommend? 20

21 Issue 2 Same axis, different classification members in the same period 9. The classification of the disposal group would be different within the same period, April The classification is both disposed of by sale and held for sale in April There is only one classification as of December 31, The issue is which members should be used on the Disposal Group Classification [Axis] (A2) for April 2015 and December Issue 2 Taxonomy staff analysis 10. In April 2015, the distinction appears to be whether the disclosure relates to the cash flow/income statement or whether the disclosure relates to the balance sheet. From the cash flow/income statement perspective, the proceeds from sale and the gain recognized are the result of the actual sale of ENR. Thus, the proceeds and the gain would be considered disposed of by sale and not held for sale. From the balance sheet perspective, the assets and liabilities represent amounts held for sale, not disposed of by sale because once these amounts are sold, the balance sheet amounts would be zero. 11. The 3 alternatives for this issue are presented in the table below: 21

22 12. The pros and cons for each alternative are presented in the table below: Issue 2 Taxonomy staff recommendation 13. The Taxonomy staff recommends Alternative 1 as it complies with the EFM and is the best electronic representation of the qualitative information presented in the disclosure. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Which alternative does the TAG Member prefer? 2. Are there other alternatives to the three proposed? Next Steps 14. The Taxonomy staff will consider the input provided. An example of how to model this disclosure will be added to the Disposal Groups and Discontinued Operations Implementation Guide. 22

23 Session 1b Financing Receivables (Implementation Guide) A. Meeting Highlights Five dimensional modeling examples for disclosures related to financing receivables were reviewed. These include (1) loan balances, disaggregation by portfolio segment and class, (2) loans by loan portfolio segment and class, (3) nonperforming loans, (4) summary of loans by portfolio and class and (5) troubled debt restructuring. Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback from the Taxonomy Advisory Group (TAG) members on these modeling issues. B. Financing Receivables (Implementation Guide) Taxonomy Implementation Guide on Modeling Financing Receivable Disclosures Overview The purpose of this Taxonomy Implementation Guide is to demonstrate the dimensional modeling for disclosures related to financing receivables. These examples are not intended to encompass all of the potential modeling configurations or to dictate the appearance and structure of an entity s extension taxonomy. The examples are provided to help users of the Taxonomy understand how the modeling for disclosures of financing receivables is structured within the Taxonomy. In addition, the reported line items within the examples are not all inclusive and represent only partial statements for illustration purposes. While constituents may find the information in this guide useful, users looking for guidance to conform to SEC XBRL filing requirements should look to the SEC EDGAR Filer Manual and other information provided on the SEC s website at xbrl.sec.gov. This guide focuses on detail tagging only (Level 4); it does not include any elements for text blocks, policy text blocks, and table text blocks (Levels 1 through 3). The Taxonomy Implementation Guide provides five examples: Example 1 Loan Balances, Disaggregation by Portfolio Segment and Class Example 2 Loans by loan portfolio segment and class Example 3 Nonperforming Loans Example 4 Summary of Loans by Portfolio and Class Example 5 Troubled Debt Restructuring 23

24 Dimensional Modeling for Financing Receivables Financing receivable disclosures vary in the level of precision and specificity among entities and therefore a flexible modeling structure is needed to drive consistent application. The original modeling in the Taxonomy consisted of primary elements (line items) and dimensions (axes) that did not fully capture common disclosure and reporting practices. Flexibility was achieved by revising the existing modeling and creating additional dimensions and members. As an example, the aging of financing receivables past due was modeled as primary elements representing specific day ranges (i.e., Financing Receivable, Recorded Investment, 1 to 29 Days Past Due ). The day ranges are not specifically prescribed, and therefore, entities report a variety of day ranges that differ from the time bands included in the Taxonomy. To address this issue, the days past due primary elements were deprecated and replaced with a dimension and members representing various day ranges and to be modeled with broad primary elements. Entities can use the primary elements in the Taxonomy with extension members to disclose their own day ranges. This provides flexibility while maintaining a standardized format. Additional dimensions listed below, were also created to reflect common disclosure practices related to credit quality and troubled debt restructurings. The original modeling consisted of various line items and few dimensions that didn t promote the level of detail often reported by filers. To provide a standardized and flexible model for filers, dimensions were added and line items were replaced with more concise concepts, such as financial statement line items. Credit quality and troubled debt restructuring modeling was also modified to reflect the unique nature of the disclosures. For instance, FICO credit score and loan to value amounts are different for each entity. FICO credit scores and loan to value amounts are derived from specific calculations based on the unique composition of the entity s portfolio. Entities can use the dimensions, Credit Score, FICO [Axis] and Loan to Value [Axis] with extension members to disclose their own FICO score and loan to value amounts. Members of these dimensions were created in the Taxonomy to provide an example of the modeling format for FICO score and loan to value extension members. Receivables Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality [Axis] Lien Category [Axis] Credit Score, FICO [Axis] Loan to Value [Axis] Loan Restructuring Modification [Axis] 24

25 The modeling structure for classes and portfolios of financing receivables was also restructured to distinguish the attributes of a financing receivable portfolio and financing receivable class. For example, one entity might classify its credit card receivables as part of its consumer portfolio while another entity could classify credit card receivables under a separate credit card portfolio segment. The Taxonomy contained only one dimension, Class of Financing Receivable, Type [Axis] with portfolio segment members. With only one dimension, it is not feasible to include all permutations in a base taxonomy. Financing Receivable Portfolio Segment [Axis] was created and the portfolio segment members were relocated as its children. It was noted that financing receivables were disaggregated at the highest level by portfolio and then by class. Financing receivable classes were rolling up into the portfolio segments. Financing receivable portfolios were the level at which an entity developed its estimate of the allowance for credit losses. These portfolios were segmented into pools of financing receivables with similar risk characteristics. To identify and manage concentrations of risk, entities grouped financing receivables into classes based on initial measurement attributes and common risk characteristics, such as: type, term, industry, borrower, collateral, geographic distribution, risk ratings, etc. Having one dimension didn t allow this information to be conveyed according to how entities reported portfolio segments and classes in their financial statements. Because entities report a wide variety of financing receivable class breakdowns and have differing levels of detail in their disclosures, additional dimensions were added to the Taxonomy: Financing Receivable Portfolio Segment [Axis] New dimension specific to financing receivable portfolio segments. Class of Financing Receivable, Type [Axis] Existing dimension representing types of financing receivables. Multiple dimensions were created or located for each type of risk that may be assessed on a class level: o Geographic Distribution [Axis] o Collateral [Axis] o Class of Financing Receivable, Type of Borrower [Axis] o Industry Sector [Axis] (existing) Classes of financing receivables were broken down into various categories and modeled on separate dimensions to promote flexibility in modeling. For example, if an entity classifies its financing receivables by different types of collateral, it can apply the Collateral [Axis] to its 25

26 model. Another entity may disclose its classes of financing receivables by type of loan and can use the Class of Financing Receivable, Type [Axis]. It also allows for further disaggregation if necessary. Also, classifications of financing receivables were based on entity-specific policies, and entities may disclose the same loan class but under different circumstances. For instance, one entity s policy may classify commercial real estate financing receivables as an industry sector, and another entity may classify its commercial real estate receivables as a collateral type. To disclose commercial real estate as an industry sector, the Commercial Real Estate [Member] can be used with the Industry Sector [Axis] and to disclose commercial real estate as a collateral class, the Collateral [Axis] can be applied. In both cases, the meaning of Commercial Real Estate [Member] is the same. The only difference is how the entity views its commercial real estate receivables: as an industry sector or as collateral. This structure enables entities to model according to how they classify financing receivables, based on their policies. In addition, some of these dimensions, like Collateral [Axis], Financing Receivables, Period Past Due [Axis], and Lien category [Axis] can be used in other disclosures, such as debt or guarantees. Certain images have been cropped due to size constraints but are shown in full in the Appendix. 26

27 Common Information for All Examples (1) A legend for dimensions and domain members has been provided to associate with facts contained in the notes to the financial statements. Extension elements are coded using Ex. See Appendix for legend. (2) Elements that have an instant period type and elements that have a duration period type are indicated as such in Figure x.2 of each example. Instant elements have a single date context (such as December 31, 20X1) while duration elements have a starting and ending date as its context (such as January 1, 20X1 to December 31, 20X1). (3) Instance documents (Figure x.3 in each example) do not include all information that may appear in an entity s instance document. It is provided for illustrative purposes only. (4) For elements contained in the Taxonomy, the standard label is as it appears in the Taxonomy. For extension elements, the standard label corresponds to the element name. For information about structuring extension elements, refer to the EDGAR Filing Manual. (5) Values reported in XBRL are generally entered as positive, with the exception of certain concepts such as net income (loss) or gain (loss). Negated labels may be used to have values render in the instance document as presented. 27

28 Example 1 Loan Balances, Disaggregation by Portfolio Segment and Class Example 1 illustrates the modeling for reporting the balance of loans disaggregated by portfolio segment and class. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the modeling of the Portfolio Segment [Axis] and how it interrelates to the class of financing receivable dimensions. The example is typical of a financing receivable disclosure of large financial institutions, which often have extensive loan portfolios disaggregated by differing loan classes that may not be consistent across portfolio segments, for example, the wholesale portfolio segment is disaggregated by industry of borrower. Example 1 is broken down into eight disclosure tables (1.1a through 1.1h) to illustrate the different disclosures that are reported on a class level. Since each disclosure is related, the totals agree to the portfolio segment or loan class tables in examples 1.1a and 1.1b. Example 1.1a Loan Balances by Portfolio Segment Example 1.1a illustrates the modeling for Loans and Leases Receivable, Net of Deferred Income disaggregated by the entity s portfolio segments: Consumer, excluding credit card Credit card Wholesale Figure 1.1(a) 28

29 The legend for the elements used to tag these facts is: Figure 1.2(a) The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 1.3(a) Notes: The total loan balance of $692,252 million agrees the amount presented in the Statement of Financial Position. In addition, the amounts for each portfolio segment agrees to the amounts presented in the subsequent examples. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 29

30 Example 1.1b Consumer Loans, Excluding Credit Card Portfolio, by Class Example 1.1b illustrates the modeling of classes of loans within the portfolio, consumer loansexcluding credit card. The classes of loans are: Residential real estate- excluding purchased credit impaired (PCI) loans: o Home Equity- Senior and Junior Lien o Mortgages- Prime and Subprime Other consumer loans o Auto o Business Banking o Student Residential real estate- PCI loans o Home Equity o Prime Mortgage o Subprime Mortgage The classes of loans reported in the example represent different types of loans and the Class of Financing Receivable, Type [Axis] was used for the disclosure. Figure 1.1(b) 30

31 The legend for the elements used to tag these facts is: Figure 1.2(b) 31

32 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 1.3(b) Notes: Residential real estate- excluding PCI amounts tie to example 1.1c, which discloses current and past due residential real estate-excluding PCI loans. Other consumer loan class balances tie to the amounts shown in example 1.1e, other consumer loans by risk rating. In addition, residential real estate-pci amounts tie to example 1.1f, residential real estate- PCI breakdown. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 32

33 Example1.1c Past due loans by class: Real estate, excluding PCI loans This example illustrates the modeling of aging residential real estate, excluding PCI loans. Residential real estate consists of senior and junior lien home equity loans and prime and subprime mortgage loans. Figure 1.1(c) 33

34 The legend for the elements used to tag these facts is: Figure 1.2(c) 34

35 A portion of the instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here. For the full instance document, see Figure 1.3(c) in the Appendix. Figure 1.3(c) Notes: The loan balances for home equity and mortgages agree to Example 1.1b and Example 1.1d. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 35

36 Example 1.1d Current estimated Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios and Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) Credit Scores: Residential real estate, excluding PCI loans This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of LTV ratios and FICO of residential real estate, excluding PCI loans. Figure 1.1(d) 36

37 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 1.2(d) 37

38 A portion of the instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here. For the full instance document, see Figure 1.3(d) in the Appendix. Figure 1.3(d) Notes: The disclosure agrees to the amount of loans presented in examples 1.1b and 1.1c. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 38

39 Example 1.1e Loans by risk ratings: Consumer, excluding credit card loan portfolio: Other consumer loans This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of an entity s internal credit risk ratings of other consumer loans. The entity s other consumer loans are explicitly defined by the loan class components: auto, business banking and student loans. Therefore, the extension element, "Automobile, Consumer Business Banking and Student Loans [Member] has been created. However, in cases where a disclosed item represents an undefined other, a generic other element would be appropriate. Figure 1.1(e) 39

40 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 1.2(e) 40

41 A portion of the instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here. For the full instance document, see Figure 1.3(d) in the Appendix. Figure 1.3(e) Notes: The class of loan balances in the disclosure agree to the amount of loans presented in example 1.1b. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 41

42 Example 1.1f Purchased credit-impaired loans: Consumer, excluding credit card loan portfolio: Residential real estate-pci loans This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of residential real estate PCI loan balance and delinquency. Figure 1.1(f) 42

43 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 1.2(f) 43

44 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 1.3(f) Notes: The class of loan balances in the disclosure agree to the amount of loans presented in example 1.1b. 44

45 ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. Example 1.1g Credit Card loans by Geographic Region This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of credit card loans to borrowers located in different states. The state members used in the modeling are from the SEC s State and Province taxonomy. Figure 1.1(g) 45

46 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 1.2(g) 46

47 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 1.3(g) Notes: The disclosure total agrees to the amount of credit card loans presented in example 1.1a. 47

48 ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. Example 1.1h Loan Delinquency by Class of Receivable for Loans in the Wholesale Portfolio Segment This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of loan delinquency by industry for loans in the wholesale portfolio segment. In this disclosure, loan classes are classified by industry sector, and the Industry Sector [Axis] is applied to convey this breakout. Figure 1.1(h) The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 1.2(h) 48

49 A portion of the instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here. For the full instance document, see Figure 1.3(h) in the Appendix. Figure 1.3(h) Notes: The disclosure total agrees to the amount of credit card loans presented in example 1.1a. ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 49

50 Example 2 Loans by loan portfolio segment and class This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of U.S. and foreign loans disaggregated by class of loan. The U.S. and foreign allocation is disclosed by the Geographic Distribution [Axis]. The Geographic Distribution [Axis] discloses loans by business activity identified as either domestic or foreign. It does not include the names of states, provinces or cities, as these represent locations which would be disclosed using the Geographical [Axis]. In this example, the bank has two financing receivable portfolios: Commercial banking and retail. The commercial banking portfolio contains the financing receivable classes: Commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, and equipment financing. The category for each class of financing receivable is driven by the entity s policies for determining the level at which it monitors and assesses credit risk of financing receivables with similar characteristics. In this example, the entity s policy is to disaggregate its commercial banking portfolio by the industry sector of the borrower which includes: commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, and equipment financing. As such, the Industry Sector [Axis] is used. In addition, the retail financing receivable portfolio, contains fixed rate and adjustable rate residential mortgages, home equity and other consumer loans. These categories represent types of financing receivables, and the Class of Financing Receivable, Type [Axis] is applied. Figure

51 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure 2.2 A portion of the instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here. For the full instance document, see Figure 2.3 in the Appendix. Figure 2.3 Notes: ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 51

52 Example 3 Nonperforming Loans This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of nonperforming loans disaggregated by class of loan distinguished by core and non-core business portfolios. Figure

53 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure

54 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 3.3 Notes: ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 54

55 Example 4 Summary of Loans by Portfolio and Class This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of loans disaggregated by class of loan that is categorized by type of collateral. Figure

56 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure

57 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 4.3 Notes: ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 57

58 Example 5 Troubled Debt Restructuring This example illustrates the modeling for the disclosure of impaired home loans modified by troubled debt restructuring programs. The modification programs are broken out by type: Government modification programs, proprietary programs, trial programs and loans discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The modification programs are disclosed by the Loan Restructuring Modification Name [Axis]. The example also breaks out the type of loan concession under each program, using the Loan Restructuring Modification [Axis]. Concessions include: contractual interest rate reductions, capitalization of past due amounts, principal and/or interest forbearance and other modifications. The entity s other modifications is defined as term or payment extensions and repayment plans. Therefore, the extension element, "Term or Payment Extensions and Repayment Plans [Member] has been created. Figure

59 The legend for the elements to tag the facts is: Figure

60 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Figure 5.3 Notes: ** Preferred Labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 60

61 Appendix Legend 61

62 Legend (continued) 62

63 Figure 1.3(d) Figure 1.3(d) (continued) 63

64 Figure 1.3(e) 64

65 Figure 1.3(h) 65

66 Figure 1.3(h) (continued) 66

67 67

68 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.3 (continued) 68

69 Session 1c Other Comprehensive Income A. Meeting Highlights A review was provided of member selection for parent and noncontrolling interest values between the Statement of Stockholders Equity and the disclosures. The tagging for the disclosures was consistent with the tagging in the Statement of Stockholders Equity. Element selection for Example 1 of the guide for other comprehensive income was also debated. The TAG members were supportive providing consistency of tagging between the Statement of Stockholders Equity and the disclosures. They recommended providing a note to discuss the choice in tagging. The TAG members debated the choice of elements for Example 1 noting that one was more narrowly defined, but the broader element was selected more in common practice. The FASB Taxonomy staff will further examine the usage pattern of the elements and expose the choice for feedback during exposure of the guide. B. Other Comprehensive Income Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback on element selection and appropriate members in an implementation guide related to other comprehensive income and member use between disclosure examples. Background Information 2. The Taxonomy Implementation Guide for Other Comprehensive Income contains multiple disclosures with amounts for the parent and noncontrolling interests. 3. The Taxonomy contains members for the parent ( Parent [Member] ) and for the noncontrolling interests ( Noncontrolling Interest [Member] ). It also contains members for AOCI for parent ( AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member] ) and AOCI for noncontrolling interests ( AOCI Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest [Member] ). 4. There are line items used that convey the information is for other comprehensive income ( Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax ). 69

70 Issue 1 Modeling of parent and noncontrolling interest members 5. Example 3 for the Statement of Stockholders Equity uses AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member] (M10) for the parent and Noncontrolling Interest [Member] (M30) for the noncontrolling interest. The equity component for the parent only represents accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), but for the noncontrolling interest it is the equity component for all of the noncontrolling interest. Example 3 70

71 6. Example 4 for the changes in AOCI, AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member] (M10) is used and consistent with example 3, the Statement of Stockholders Equity. Noncontrolling Interest [Member] (M30) is used for the activity and is consistent with the Statement of Stockholders Equity as discussed in a previous TAG meeting on November 13, The element AOCI Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest [Member] (M18) along with Stockholders' Equity, Including Portion Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest (L62) is used for the beginning and ending balances for the AOCI for noncontrolling interest as Noncontrolling Interest [Member] (M30) does not convey that it is AOCI by itself. The parent member AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member] (M10) conveys it is for other comprehensive income in the member and when used with the line items for other comprehensive income (L62, L71 and L72), there is a redundancy. As discussed in the previous meeting, there is an inconsistency between the parent and noncontrolling interest in the example because of maintaining the same tagging as the Statement of Stockholders Equity. Example 4 71

72 7. Example 6 for the tax effects on the components of other comprehensive income uses the same members as is used in example 3 and 4. Example 6 72

73 Issue 1 Taxonomy staff analysis 8. The Taxonomy staff recommends maintaining the tagging consistency between the disclosure examples as this results in the same value tagged one way throughout the instance document. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the approach for illustrating the tagging in the Other Comprehensive Implementation Guide for the parent and noncontrolling interest members in example 3, 4 and 6? 2. If not, what approach does the TAG Member recommend? Issue 2 Element selection for net income in example 1 9. Example 1 for the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Income uses the element Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations, Including Portion Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest (L1) to tag Net income: 73

74 10. This element is used as it represents the narrowest defined element for net income including the portion attributable to noncontrolling interest (excludes discontinued operations). 11. In review, a comment was made that it is not common to use this element. Element Net Income (Loss), Including Portion Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest is more commonly used which includes discontinued operations. 74

75 Issue 2 Taxonomy staff analysis 12. In a time series of values for an entity, the tagging would be: 75

76 13. It is analogous with BPC which discusses cash flow elements for continuing and discontinued operations. The recommendation there states Filers should be explicit and clearly indicate cash flows are from continuing operations and thus use Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities, Continuing Operations when there is no discontinued operations. If companies separately report discontinued operations, they should report continuing operations explicitly. (Note that this reasoning also applies to financing and investing activities). 14. Compliance with the Edgar Filer Manual (EFM) would suggest the element with the narrowest definition. EFM states: When there is a choice among different elements that have definitions consistent with a set of facts in one or more periods, use the element with the narrowest definition. For example, while in principle, eleven possible word combinations may be derived from depreciation, amortization, impairment, and depletion, all eleven might not be included as distinct elements in a standard taxonomy namespace. If the line item being reported consists only of depreciation, then use an element such as DepreciationAndAmortization; do not use any of the alternative elements whose definition also includes impairment or depletion. 15. The Taxonomy staff recommends using the element Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations, Including Portion Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest as it represents the narrowest definition of the element when there are no discontinued operations. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the element selection for Net income in Example 1? 2. If not, what element does the TAG Member recommend? Issue 3 Element selection for income before tax in example The element used for tagging the value of income before tax in example 1 is Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Equity Method Investments, Income Taxes, 76

77 Extraordinary Items, Noncontrolling Interest (L30) as it does not include income from equity method investments and is the more specific element. 17. In review, a comment was made that it is not consistent with BPC The BPC recommendation states The concept with the standard label Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Income Taxes, Extraordinary Items, Non-controlling Interest, Total and element name IncomeLossFromContinuingOperationsBeforeIncomeTaxesExtraordinaryItemsNonc ontrollinginterest should be used when EquityMethodInvestments does not exist. This reflects the logic of using the element that reflects the more specific element of the two. 3 3 This is the more specific or narrowly-defined element because it is known to exclude Equity Method Investments. Issue 3 Taxonomy staff analysis 18. The element name IncomeLossFromContinuingOperationsBeforeIncomeTaxesExtraordinaryItemsNonc ontrollinginterest has a standard label of Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest. 77

78 19. The element name IncomeLossFromContinuingOperationsBeforeIncomeTaxesMinorityInterestAndInco melossfromequitymethodinvestments has the standard label of Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Equity Method Investments, Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest. 20. The element recommended includes equity method investments as Income (Loss) from Equity Method Investments is added to the element Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Equity Method Investments, Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest to obtain the total including equity method investments of Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest. as shown below: 21. Therefore, the element Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Equity Method Investments, Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest is more narrowly defined. 22. The Taxonomy staff recommends using the element Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations before Equity Method Investments, Income Taxes, Noncontrolling Interest. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the element selection for Income before tax in Example 1? 2. If not, what element does the TAG Member recommend? 78

79 Session 1d Short-duration Insurance Contracts A. Meeting Highlights The modeling for the recently issued Accounting Standards Update for short-duration insurance contracts was reviewed. The items noted were the use of a dimension for the accident year, no calculation available for the reconciliation and the inclusion of the elements for values that are considered supplementary in the Taxonomy. There was some discussion of whether certain elements were instant or duration and the FASB Taxonomy staff will review further. The TAG members were supportive of a dimension for the accident year and to include the elements for supplementary information in the Taxonomy. It was also noted that members for accident years beyond the current year should be included to facilitate transition periods for the Taxonomy updates. B. Short-duration Insurance Contracts Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback on the modeling for short-duration insurance contracts and the inclusion of elements in the Taxonomy. Background Information 2. The Accounting Standards Update for short-duration insurance contracts includes a disclosure requirement for incurred claims and paid claims by accident year. It also includes a requirement to reconcile these values to the gross liability. 3. The information in the claims development table for periods prior to the current year and information for historical average annual percentage payouts are considered supplementary information. 4. If the information is supplementary, it is not required to be audited and can be disclosed almost anywhere in the document (e.g. MD&A, supplemental schedule or in the notes to the financial statements). If it is included in the notes to the financial statements, it is required to be tagged. If it is in MD&A or a supplemental schedule, it is not required to be tagged. 79

80 Example 1 Modeling of claims development table 5. The modeling for the claims development table is structured to use a dimension for the accident year. New elements are used as the values do not include unallocated expenses. The current year information is required to be disclosed; the prior year information is supplemental. This information is split into two tables with the first table disclosing incurred claims and the second disclosing paid claims by accident year: Homeowners' Insurance (in thousands) Incurred Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net of Reinsurance For the years ended December 31, As of December 31, 2X15 Accident Year 2X06 2X07 2X08 2X09 2X10 2X11 2X12 2X13 2X14 2X15 Incurred but Not Reported Liabilities Cumulative Number of Reported Claims *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L1 *L4 *L5 *A1:*M1, A2:M12 2X06 $10,000 $9,900 $9,700 $9,800 $9,750 $9,750 $9,600 $9,650 $9,575 $9,550 $5 35 *A1:*M2, A2:M12 2X07 10,950 11,000 10,500 10,750 10,850 10,600 10,250 10,150 10, *A1:*M3, A2:M12 2X08 12,000 11,750 11,500 10,900 10,900 10,850 10,750 10, *A1:*M4, A2:M12 2X09 12,250 12,500 12,550 12,400 12,200 12,150 12, *A1:*M5, A2:M12 2X10 12,300 12,500 12,650 12,750 12,800 12, *A1:*M6, A2:M12 2X11 12,800 12,900 12,750 12,700 12,700 1, *A1:*M7, A2:M12 2X12 13,000 13,250 13,100 13,150 1, *A1:*M8, A2:M12 2X13 13,150 13,250 13,300 2, *A1:*M9, A2:M12 2X14 13,500 13,250 3, *A1:*M10, A2:M12 2X15 13,750 5, A2:M12 Total $121,300 *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy Table 1 80

81 Homeowners' Insurance (in thousands) Accident Year Cumulative Paid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net of Reinsurance For the years ended December 31, 2X06 2X07 2X08 2X09 2X10 2X11 2X12 2X13 2X14 2X15 *L2, *A1:*M1, A2:M12 2X06 $3,000 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,800 $7,500 $8,500 $9,000 $9,050 $9,075 *L2, *A1:*M2, A2:M12 2X07 3,500 5,750 6,500 7,500 7,750 8,250 8,500 9,000 9,500 *L2, *A1:*M3, A2:M12 2X08 3,750 6,000 6,500 7,500 7,900 8,250 8,950 9,700 *L2, *A1:*M4, A2:M12 2X09 3,750 6,250 7,250 7,750 8,900 9,700 9,950 *L2, *A1:*M5, A2:M12 2X10 4,250 5,500 6,750 8,000 8,950 9,250 *L2, *A1:*M6, A2:M12 2X11 4,125 5,250 7,000 8,000 9,000 *L2, *A1:*M7, A2:M12 2X12 4,500 5,750 7,250 7,750 *L2, *A1:*M8, A2:M12 2X13 4,600 6,000 6,950 *L2, *A1:*M9, A2:M12 2X14 4,750 6,125 *L2, *A1:*M10, A2:M12 2X15 4,850 *L2, A2:M12 Total 82,150 *L6, A2:M12 All outstanding liabilities prior to 2X06, net of reinsurance 1,400 *L3, A2:M12 Liabilities for claims and allocated claim adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance $40,550 *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy Table 2 81

82 6. The legend for the claims development tables: Legend Standard Label Balance type Period Type Element Name *A1 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year [Axis] Duration ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYearAxis Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year [Domain] *M1 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2006 [Member] *M2 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2007 [Member] *M3 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2008 [Member] *M4 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2009 [Member] *M5 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2010 [Member] *M6 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2011 [Member] *M7 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2012 [Member] *M8 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2013 [Member] *M9 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2014 [Member] *M10 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2015 [Member] Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYearDomain ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2006Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2007Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2008Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2009Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2010Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2011Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2012Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2013Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2014Me mber ShortDurationInsuranceContractsAccidentYear2015Me mber A2 Insurance Product Line [Axis] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompaniesByProductSe gmentaxis Insurance Product Line [Domain] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompaniesByProduct SegmentDomain M12 Property Insurance Product Line [Member] PropertyInsuranceProductLineMember *L1 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Incurred Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net *L2 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Cumulative Paid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net *L3 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsIncurredClaimsAndAlloca tedclaimadjustmentexpensenet Debit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsCumulativePaidClaimsAn dallocatedclaimadjustmentexpensesnet Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidClaims AndAllocatedClaimAdjustmentExpenseNet *L4 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Incurred but Not Reported Claims (IBNR) Liability, Net *L5 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Number of Reported Claims *L6 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net, Not Separately Presented *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsIncurredButNotReported ClaimsIbnrLiabilityNet Duration ShortDurationInsuranceContractsNumberOfReportedClaim s Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidClaims AndAllocatedClaimAdjustmentExpenseNetNotSeparatelyPr esented 82

83 7. The illustration of the instance document for the current reporting year: 2X15 Standard Label Preferred Label** Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year [Axis] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2006 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2007 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2008 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2009 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2010 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2011 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2012 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2013 [Member] Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2014 [Member] *A1 *M1 *M2 *M3 *M4 *M5 *M6 *M7 *M8 *M9 *M10 Shortduration Insurance Contracts, Accident Year 2015 [Member] Insurance Product Line [Axis] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] A2 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 Property Insurance Product Line [Member] *L1 *L4 *L5 *L2 *L6 *L3 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Incurred Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Incurred but Not Reported Claims (IBNR) Liability, Net Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Number of Reported Claims Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Cumulative Paid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net, Not Separately Presented Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Incurred Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net of Reinsurance, Homeowners' Insurance Incurred but Not Reported Liabilities, Homeowners' Insurance Cumulative Number of Reported Claims, Homeowners' Insurance Cumulative Paid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expenses, Net of Reinsurance, Homeowners' Insurance All outstanding liabilities prior to 2X06, net of reinsurance, Homeowners' Insurance Liabilities for claims and claim adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance, Homeowners' Insurance *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy 83

84 Example 2 Modeling of reconciliation 8. The modeling for the reconciliation to the liability for claims and claim adjustment expenses uses existing elements for the reinsurance and the liability for claims and claim adjustment expenses: (in thousands) December 31 2X15 Net outstanding liabilities *L3, A2:M12 Homeowners' insurance $40,550 *L3, A2:*M13 Other insurance lines 1,976 *L3 Total net outstanding liabilities 42,526 Reinsurance ceded L7, A2:M12 Homeowners' insurance 13,880 L7, A2:*M13 Other insurance lines 283 L7 Total reinsurance ceded 14,163 L11, A2:M14 Financial guaranty insurance line 3,315 *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy *L8 Unallocated expenses 2,420 *L9 Other 10 *L10 Total reconciling items 5,745 L11 Gross liability for claims and claim adjustment expense $62,434 84

85 9. The legend for the reconciliation: Legend Standard Label Balance type Period Type Element Name A2 Insurance Product Line [Axis] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompaniesByPro ductsegmentaxis Insurance Product Line [Domain] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompaniesByPr oductsegmentdomain M12 Property Insurance Product Line [Member] PropertyInsuranceProductLineMember *M13 Other Short-duration Insurance Product Line [Member] M14 Financial Guarantee Insurance Product Line [Member] *L3 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment L7 Reinsurance Recoverable for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustments *L8 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Expense, Net, Accumulated Unallocated Claim Adjustment *L9 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Other Reconciling Item *L10 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Aggregate Reconciling Items L11 Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Expense, Net *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy OtherShortDurationInsuranceProductLineMembe r FinancialGuaranteeInsuranceSegmentMember Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaid ClaimsAndAllocatedClaimAdjustmentExpenseNet Debit Instant ReinsuranceRecoverableForUnpaidClaimsAndClaims Adjustments Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaid ClaimsAndClaimsAdjustmentExpenseNetAccumulate dunallocatedclaimadjustmentexpenses Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaid ClaimsAndClaimAdjustmentExpenseOtherReconcilin gitem Credit Instant ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaid ClaimsAndClaimAdjustmentExpenseAggregateRecon cilingitems Credit Instant LiabilityForUnpaidClaimsAndClaimsAdjustmentExp ensenet 85

86 10. The illustration of the instance document for the reconciliation: Standard Label Preferred Label** *L3 L7 *L8 *L9 *L10 Insurance Product Line [Axis] Property Insurance Product Line [Member] Other Shortduration Insurance Product Line [Member] Financial Guarantee Insurance Product Line [Member] A2 M12 *M13 M14 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Entity-wide value Liabilities for claims and claim adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance Reinsurance Recoverable for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustments Reinsurance ceded Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Expense, Net, Accumulated Unallocated Claim Adjustment Unallocated expenses Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Other Reconciling Item Other Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Aggregate Reconciling Items Total reconciling items L11 Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Expense, Net *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy Gross liability for claims and claim adjustment expense

87 11. There is not an XBRL calculation relationship provided for the reconciliation as the calculation would need to subtract an element with the same balance attribute or add an element with a different balance attribute which is not possible under current constraints as shown below: Legend Element Name Standard Label Balance Type Weight How values need to sum How they sum based on balance type in XBRL L11 LiabilityForUnpaidClaimsAndClaimsAdjustmentExpense Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Net Expense, Net Credit L7 ReinsuranceRecoverableForUnpaidClaimsAndClaimsA djustments Reinsurance Recoverable for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustments Debit *L10 *L3 ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidCl aimsandclaimadjustmentexpenseaggregatereconcilin gitems ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidCl aimsandallocatedclaimadjustmentexpensenet Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Aggregate Reconciling Items Credit Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Credit If the calculation is reversed, it still does not provide the correct calculation as shown below: Legend Element Name Standard Label Balance Type Weight How values need to sum How they sum based on balance type in XBRL *L3 ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidCla imsandallocatedclaimadjustmentexpensenet Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Allocated Claim Adjustment Expense, Net Credit L11 L7 *L10 LiabilityForUnpaidClaimsAndClaimsAdjustmentExpen ReinsuranceRecoverableForUnpaidClaimsAndClaimsA djustments ShortDurationInsuranceContractsLiabilityForUnpaidC laimsandclaimadjustmentexpenseaggregatereconcili ngitems Credit Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustment Reinsurance Recoverable for Unpaid Claims and Claims Adjustments Debit Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Liability for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense, Aggregate Reconciling Items Credit

88 Example 3 Modeling of historical average annual percentage payout 12. The modeling for the historical average annual percentage payout uses line items as it is relative to the accident or claim year and not the reporting year. It is considered supplementary information. Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year *L12, A2:M12 *L13, A2:M12 *L14, A2:M12 *L15, A2:M12 *L16, A2:M12 *L17, A2:M12 *L18, A2:M12 *L19, A2:M12 *L20, A2:M12 *L21, A2:M12 Homeow ners' 33.8 % 14.9 % 8.5% 7.2% 6.6 % 4.9 % 5.4 % 5.8 % 2.7% 0.3% *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy 88

89 13. The legend for the historical average annual percentage payout: Legend Standard Label Balance type Period Type Element Name A2 Insurance Product Line [Axis] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompaniesB yproductsegmentaxis Insurance Product Line [Domain] ReinsurancePremiumsForInsuranceCompanies ByProductSegmentDomain M12 Property Insurance Product Line [Member] PropertyInsuranceProductLineMember *L12 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration, Year One *L13 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration, Year Two *L14 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Three *L15 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Four *L16 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Five *L17 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Six *L18 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Seven *L19 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Eight *L20 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Nine *L21 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Ten *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearone ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyeartwo ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearthree ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearfour ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearfive ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearsix ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearseven ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyeareight ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearnine ShortDurationInsuranceContractsHistoricalClai msdurationyearten 89

90 14. The illustration of the instance document for the historical average annual percentage payouts: Standard Label Preferred Label** *L12 *L13 *L14 *L15 *L16 *L17 *L18 *L19 *L20 *L21 Insurance Product Line [Axis] A2 Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration, Year One Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration, Year Two Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Three Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Four Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Five Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Six Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Seven Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Eight Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Nine Short-duration Insurance Contracts, Historical Claims Duration Year Ten Property Insurance Product Line [Member] M12 Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year Homeowners' insurance, Average Annual Percentage Payout of Claims in Year *Proposed 2016 Taxonomy 90

91 Taxonomy staff analysis 1. A member for the most recent accident year will need to be added in each annual Taxonomy update to accommodate the modeling structure. The use of the member specific to the accident year allows for the value for that accident and reporting year to remain consistent across filings. 2. The elements for the information considered supplementary may be needed to accommodate filers that include in the notes to the financial statements and potential future tagging requirements for rule changes. 3. The Taxonomy staff recommends using a dimensional structure for the accident year (pending alternatives resulting from the Dimension Working Group) for the claims development table and including elements for the supplementary information in the Taxonomy. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the modeling of using a dimension for the accident year? If not, what does the TAG Member recommend for the structure? 2. Does the TAG Member agree with the structure of the elements which does not allow for a calculation relationship? If not, what does the TAG Member recommend? 3. Does the TAG Member agree with including the modeling for the supplementary information? If not, why not? 91

92 Session 1e Defined Benefit Plans Measurement Date A. Meeting Highlights Modeling of disclosures was presented for review and discussed related to the practical expedient for the measurement date of an employer s defined benefit obligation and plan assets. This guide mainly focuses on application of date context and two modeling of disclosures examples as follows: (1) reconciliation of employer contributions and a settlement after the measurement date, before the fiscal year-end date and (2) reconciliation of employer contributions and a settlement before measurement date, after the fiscal year-end date. B. Defined Benefit Plans Measurement Date Purpose of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy Staff is seeking feedback on the proposed implementation guide for the Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans, which incorporates the modeling considerations previously discussed. Background Information 2. This implementation guide is based on the disclosure requirements in Accounting Standards Update : Compensation Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Practical Expedient for the Measurement Date of an Employer s Defined Benefit Obligation and Plan Assets (ASU ), which was issued in April It is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. 3. This ASU provides a practical expedient for employers with fiscal year-ends that do not coincide with a month-end by permitting those employers to measure defined benefit plan assets and obligations as of the month-end that is closest to the entity s fiscal year-end. That measurement date methodology should be followed consistently from year to year for all defined benefit plans. 4. If a contribution or significant event (such as a plan amendment, settlement, or curtailment that calls for a remeasurement in accordance with existing requirements) occurs between the month-end date used to measure the defined benefit plan assets 92

93 and obligations and an entity s fiscal year-end, the entity should adjust the measurement of defined benefit plan assets and obligations to reflect the effects of contributions or significant events. 5. At the February 12 th TAG meeting, four modeling options were presented for the new disclosure requirements in this ASU, which allows the measurement date to be different than the reporting date. The four modeling options presented were: (1) new dimension, (2) new line item, (3) use of date context with the fair value of plan assets element, and (4) new line item with the date context. After discussion of these and other options, the TAG expressed option #3 as the preferred option mainly because it facilitates consumption of the fair value of plan asset data and it is relatively less complex for preparers. Fair value by its nature inherently implies an estimate of fair value and therefore, a date context, other than the reporting date, would indicate the date that is used to value or measure the plan assets. 6. After reviewing the discussions from the February meeting and conducting further outreach and research, the Taxonomy staff presented the TAG with two additional options for modeling this ASU at the April 9 th TAG meeting. The Taxonomy staff felt that in option #3 electronically there is information missing about the facts being reported. Thus, two other modeling options were presented to the TAG both indicating a measurement date dimension (as a flag similar to the Subsequent Events Type [Axis]) should be included when the measurement date context was used instead of the reporting date context. The options presented were: (5) create a measurement date dimension and new elements (with the date context built in) for the employer contributions and settlement reconciling adjustments, and (6) create a measurement date dimension and use with existing line items for employer contributions and settlement reconciling adjustments, with definition changes for existing elements. 7. At the April 9 th TAG meeting, the TAG was undecided on the use of a measurement date dimension in disclosures required by this ASU. The majority of the TAG indicated that existing elements (with definition changes) should be used. 93

94 Summary of modeling considerations 8. After further internal discussions and outreach, the Taxonomy staff arrived at the following conclusions for this ASU: 1. The month-end measurement date elected as the practical expedient is intended to be used as the date context for elements impacted by the application of this ASU. 2. A measurement date dimension (as a flag similar to the Subsequent Events Type [Axis]) should not be included when the measurement date is used as the date context. This decision was made based on the discussions and feedback received as well as the ongoing discussions about the use of the flag currently underway by the Dimensions Working Group. We do not want to propose a modeling alternative that may be changed in the future based on the conclusions reached by the Dimensions Working Group. 3. Existing elements for the fair value of plan assets, employer contributions and settlement of plan assets should be used in modeling the disclosures impacted by the application of this ASU. Given the nature of the plan assets, plan amendments or curtailments, which are the other forms of significant events, would not impact plan assets disclosures, and therefore no changes are needed to these elements. 4. An implementation guide will be issued for this ASU (to be discussed below). A draft of the proposed implementation guide is included under item 1e(i)-Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans in the TAG materials. 5. Taxonomy implementation labels (to be discussed in connection with item 2-Implementation Labels in the TAG materials) would be included for each of the existing elements impacted by the application of this ASU. Issue Application of the Date Context 9. If a reconciliation is needed for the fair value of plan assets in the fair value hierarchy to the ending balance of the fair value of plan assets, then the date context determines 94

95 whether the reconciling amounts represent an increase or decrease in plan assets for XBRL purposes. Reconciling amounts for the employer contributions or a settlement are intended to be entered as positive values in XBRL, regardless of whether they increase or decrease plan assets. 10. Plan assets should be increased in the following scenarios: 1. For employer contributions made between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date, specifically when the month-end measurement date (Jan. 31, 20x5) is before the fiscal yearend date (Feb. 3, 20x5). Refer to Example #1 below. This can be reflected in either of the following inputs for date contexts: (i) When a date context is entered starting with the day following the month-end date (Feb. 1, 20x5) and ending with the fiscal year-end date (Feb. 3, 20x5), or (ii) When a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the month-end measurement date, but is before or on the fiscal year-end date (Feb. 1, 2 or 3, 20x5). 2. For a settlement occurring between the fiscal year-end date and the month-end measurement date, specifically when the month-end measurement date (Dec. 31, 20x5) is after the fiscal year-end date (Dec. 27, 20x5). Refer to Example #2 below. This can be reflected in either of the following inputs for date contexts: 95

96 (i) When a date context is entered starting with the day following the fiscal year-end date (Dec. 28, 20x5) and ending with the month-end measurement date (Dec. 31, 20x5), or (ii) When a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the fiscal year-end date, but is before or on the month-end measurement date (Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 20x5). 11. Plan assets should be decreased in the following scenarios: 1. For employer contributions made between the fiscal year-end date and the month-end measurement date, specifically when the month-end measurement date (Dec. 31, 20x5) is after the fiscal year-end date (Dec. 28, 20x5). Refer to Example #2 below. This can be reflected in either of the following inputs for date contexts: (i) When a date context is entered starting with the day following the fiscal year-end date (Dec. 28, 20x5) and ending with the month-end measurement date (Dec. 31, 20x5), or (ii) When a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the fiscal year-end date, but is before or on the month-end measurement date (Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 20x5). 2. For a settlement occurring between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal-year end date, specifically when the month-end measurement date (Jan. 31, 20x5) is before the fiscal year-end date 96

97 (Feb. 3, 20x5). Refer to Example #1 below. This can be reflected in either of the following inputs for date contexts: (i) When a date context is entered starting with the day following the month-end measurement date (Feb. 1, 20x5) and ending with the fiscal year-end date (Feb. 3, 20x5), or (ii) When a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the month-end measurement date, but is before or on the fiscal year-end date (Feb. 1, 2 or 3, 20x5). 12. XBRL calculation relationships for the elements used in Examples #1 & #2 are not possible because these elements have different period contexts. Implementation Guide Example #1 Employer Contributions & Settlement after the Measurement Date, before the Fiscal Year End 13. The following is the example that illustrates the modeling of a disclosure when employer contributions are made and a settlement occurs after the month-end measurement date of January 31, 20x5, but before the fiscal year-end date of February 3, 20x5. 97

98 98

99 14. The instance document for this disclosure is as follows: 99

100 Implementation Guide Example #2 Employer Contributions & Settlement before the Measurement Date, after the Fiscal Year End 15. The following is the example that illustrates the modeling of a disclosure when employer contributions are made and a settlement occurs before the month-end measurement date of December 31, 20x5, but after the fiscal year-end date of December 27, 20x5. 100

101 16. The instance document for this disclosure is as follows: 17. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback from the TAG Members for the Implementation Guide for the Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans by Friday, June 12,

102 Questions for TAG Question for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG member agree with the application of the date context as indicators of whether plan assets should be increased or decreased? If not, what alternative should be considered? 2. Does the TAG member agree that issuing this implementation guide is helpful guidance for preparers to apply the appropriate date context? If not, what alternative should be considered? Next Steps 18. The Taxonomy staff will address any feedback received by the TAG members and plans to issue the implementation guide in June 2015 for a 60-day comment period. 102

103 Session 1e(i) Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans (Implementation Guide) A. Meeting Highlights A proposed implementation guide was distributed to the TAG, which incorporated modeling considerations from the February and April TAG meetings, and the use of the date context as modeled in the guide was discussed. This implementation guide is based on the requirements in Accounting Standards Update : Compensation Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Practical Expedient for the Measurement Date of an Employer s Defined Benefit Obligation and Plan Assets (ASU ). The modeling issue related to the meaning associated with the date context in disclosures involving reconciliations of the fair value of plan assets at the measurement date to the fiscal year-end date. Three existing Taxonomy elements are expected to be impacted by this ASU. Different date contexts are intended to be used and entered in XBRL as positive values, regardless of whether the reconciling items, for employer contributions and a settlement, increase or decrease plan assets. When the month-end measurement date is before the fiscal year-end date, employer contributions between these dates would increase plan assets, while settlement transactions would decrease plan assets. When the fiscal year-end date is before the month-end measurement date, employer contributions between these dates would decrease plan assets, while settlement transactions would increase plan assets. The majority of the TAG members agreed with the application of the date context as indicators of whether plan assets should be increased or decreased. TAG members were asked to provide comments by Friday, June 12 th before exposure on the FASB website. B. Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans (Implementation Guide) Taxonomy Implementation Guide on Modeling the Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans Overview The purpose of this Taxonomy Implementation Guide is to demonstrate the modeling of disclosures related to the practical expedient for the measurement date of an employer s defined benefit obligation and plan assets. The examples are not intended to encompass all of the potential modeling configurations or to dictate the appearance and structure of an entity s extension taxonomy. The examples are provided to help users of the U.S. GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy (Taxonomy) understand how the modeling for disclosures related to the practical expedient for the measurement date is structured within the Taxonomy. The examples are based 103

104 on the assumption that the entity meets the criteria for reporting the practical expedient for the measurement date under U.S. GAAP and/or SEC authoritative literature. In addition, the reported line items within the examples are not all inclusive and represent only partial statements for illustration purposes. While constituents may find the information in this guide useful, users looking for guidance to conform to SEC XBRL filing requirements should look to the SEC EDGAR Filer Manual and other information provided on the SEC website at xbrl.sec.gov. This guide focuses on detail tagging only (Level 4); it does not include any elements for text blocks, policy text blocks, and table text blocks (Levels 1 through 3). This Taxonomy Implementation Guide includes the following two sections: Section 1: Application of Date Context: This section provides an overview of how the date context is intended to be used in the disclosures related to the practical expedient for the measurement date. Section 2: Modeling of Disclosures: This section provides examples of modeling the disclosures related to the practical expedient for the measurement date. Example 1 Reconciliation of Employer Contributions and a Settlement after the Measurement Date, before the Fiscal Year-End Date Example 2 Reconciliation of Employer Contributions and a Settlement before the Measurement Date, after the Fiscal Year-End Date 104

105 Common Information for All Examples (1) A legend for dimensions, domain members, and line items has been provided to associate with facts contained in the notes to the financial statements. Extension elements are coded using Ex. Legends specific to the examples are provided in Figure x.2 of each example. Coding Standard Label Element Name A1 Defined Benefit Plan, Asset Categories [Axis] DefinedBenefitPlanByPlanAssetCategoriesAxis Plan Asset Categories [Domain] PlanAssetCategoriesDomain M1 Cash [Member] CashMember ExM2 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] EquitySecuritiesUSCompaniesMember ExM3 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] EquitySecuritiesInternationalCompaniesMember M4 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] MortgageBackedSecuritiesMember A2 Fair Value, Hierarchy [Axis] FairValueByFairValueHierarchyLevelAxis Fair Value Hierarchy [Domain] FairValueMeasurementsFairValueHierarchyDomain M5 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel1Member M6 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel2Member M7 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel3Member L1 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets DefinedBenefitPlanFairValueOfPlanAssets L2 Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer DefinedBenefitPlanContributionsByEmployer L3 Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets DefinedBenefitPlanSettlementsPlanAssets (2) Elements that have an instant period type and elements that have a duration period type are indicated as such in Figure x.2 of each example. Instant elements have a single date context (such as December 31, 20X1) while duration elements have a starting and ending date as its context (such as January 1, 20X1 to December 31, 20X1). (3) Instance documents (Figure x.3 in each example) do not include all the information that may appear in an entity s instance document. It is provided for illustrative purposes only. (4) For elements contained in the Taxonomy, the standard label is as it appears in the Taxonomy. For extension elements, the standard label corresponds to the element name. For information about structuring extension elements, refer to the EDGAR Filer Manual. (5) Values reported in XBRL are generally entered as positive, with the exception of certain concepts such as net income (loss) or gain (loss). Negated labels may be used to have values render in the instance document as presented. 105

106 Section 1: Application of Date Context The month-end measurement date elected as the practical expedient is intended to be used as the date context for elements in disclosures impacted by the adoption of the accounting policy election for the measurement date. The elements intended for use in such disclosures consist of existing elements in the Taxonomy, which are included in presentation group Disclosure - Compensation Related Costs, Retirement Benefits, and are as follows: (1) Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1), (2) Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) and (3) Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3). In certain circumstances, these elements may appear in the same instance documents with multiple date contexts, such as the balance sheet or income statement reporting date context as well as the practical expedient measurement date context. If a reconciliation is needed for the fair value of plan assets in the fair value hierarchy to the ending balance of the fair value of plan assets, then the date context determines whether the reconciling amounts represent an increase or decrease in plan assets for XBRL purposes. Reconciling amounts for the employer contributions or a settlement are intended to be entered as positive values in XBRL, regardless of whether they increase or decrease plan assets. Date contexts that indicate an increase of plan assets may include the following: Scenario Measurement Date (MD) Fiscal Year-End Date (FYE) Reconciling Item Employer Contribution or Settlement between Increase or Decrease of Plan Assets Date Context MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, but no date indicated Increase Duration_Feb 1, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Feb 1, 20X5 Increase Duration_Feb 1, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Feb 2, 20X5 Increase Duration_Feb 2, 20X5 to Feb 2, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Feb 3, 20X5 Increase Duration_Feb 3, 20X5 to Feb 3, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Settlement Yes, but no date indicated Increase Duration_Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 31, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Dec 28, 20X5 Increase Duration_Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 28, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Dec 29, 20X5 Increase Duration_Dec 29, 20X5 to Dec 29, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Dec 30, 20X5 Increase Duration_Dec 30, 20X5 to Dec 30, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Dec 31, 20X5 Increase Duration_Dec 31, 20X5 to Dec 31, 20X5 106

107 For employer contributions made between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date, specifically when the month-end measurement date is before the fiscal year- end date. An increase of plan assets due to employer contributions could be indicated by the following: when a date context is entered starting with the day following the month-end measurement date and ending with the fiscal year-end date, or when a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the month-end measurement date, but is before or on the fiscal year-end date. For a settlement occurring between the fiscal year-end date and the month-end measurement date, specifically when the fiscal year-end date is before the month-end measurement date. An increase of plan assets due a settlement could be indicated by the following: when a date context is entered starting with the day following the fiscal year-end date and ending with the month-end measurement date, or when a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the fiscal year-end date, but is before or on the month-end measurement date. Date contexts that indicate a decrease of plan assets may include the following: Scenario Measurement Date (MD) Fiscal Year-End Date (FYE) Reconciling Item Employer Contribution or Settlement between MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, but no date indicated Increase or Decrease of Plan Assets Decrease Date Context Duration_Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 31, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Dec 28, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 28, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Dec 29, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Dec 29, 20X5 to Dec 29, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Dec 30, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Dec 30, 20X5 to Dec 30, 20X5 MD > FYE Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 27, 20X5 Employer Contribution Yes, on Dec 31, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Dec 31, 20X5 to Dec 31, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Settlement Yes, but no date indicated Decrease Duration_Feb 1, 20X5 to Feb 3, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Feb 1, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Feb 1, 20X5 to Feb 1, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Feb 2, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Feb 2, 20X5 to Feb 2, 20X5 MD < FYE Jan 31, 20X5 Feb 3, 20X5 Settlement Yes, on Feb 3, 20X5 Decrease Duration_Feb 3, 20X5 to Feb 3, 20X5 107

108 For employer contributions made between the fiscal year-end date and the month-end measurement date, specifically when the fiscal year-end date is before the month-end measurement date. A decrease of plan assets due to employer contributions could be indicated by the following: when a date context is entered starting with the day following the fiscal year-end date and ending with the month-end measurement date, or when a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the fiscal year-end date, but is before or on the month-end measurement date. For a settlement occurring between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date, specifically when the month-end measurement date is before the fiscal-year end date. A decrease of plan assets due to a settlement could be indicated by the following: when a date context is entered starting with the day following the month-end measurement date and ending with the fiscal year-end date, or when a date context is entered starting and ending on the same date, which follows the month-end measurement date, but is before or on the fiscal year-end date. 108

109 Section 2: Modeling of Disclosures Example 1 Reconciliation of Employer Contributions and a Settlement after the Measurement Date, before the Fiscal Year-End Date This example illustrates the modeling of a disclosure impacted by the application of the practical expedient for the measurement date when employer contributions are made and a settlement occurs after the month-end measurement date of January 31, 20X5, but before the fiscal year-end date of February 3, 20X5. (in thousands) Asset Class Total Cash L1, A1:M1 $ 14,770 Equity securities: US companies L1, A1:ExM2 41,200 Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Fair Value Measurements at February 3, 20X5 Significant Observable Inputs (Level 2) Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) L1, A1:M1, A2:M5 $ 14,770 L1, A1:M1, $ L1, A1:M1, A2:M6 A2:M7 $ L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M5 37,000 L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M6 1,200 L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M7 3,000 International companies L1, A1:ExM3 32,900 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M5 24,000 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M6 7,600 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M7 1,300 Mortgage-backed securities Assets at fair value at measurement date of January 31, 20X5 Contributions after measurement date, before fiscal year-end date Settlement after measurement date, before fiscal year-end date Total assets reported at February 3, 20X5 L1, A1:M4 13,335 L1, A1:M4, A2:M5 L1, A1:M4, A2:M6 12,780 L1, A1:M4, A2:M7 L1 102,205 L1, A2:M5 $ 75,770 L1, A2:M6 $ 21,580 L1, A2:M7 $ 4,855 L2 25,000 L3 (45,000) L1 $ 82, Figure

110 The legend for the elements used to tag these facts is: Standard Label Balance Type Period Type Element Name A1 Defined Benefit Plan, Asset Categories [Axis] DefinedBenefitPlanByPlanAssetCategoriesAxis Plan Asset Categories [Domain] PlanAssetCategoriesDomain M1 Cash [Member] CashMember ExM2 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] EquitySecuritiesUSCompaniesMember ExM3 M4 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] EquitySecuritiesInternationalCompaniesMe mber MortgageBackedSecuritiesMember A2 Fair Value, Hierarchy [Axis] FairValueByFairValueHierarchyLevelAxis Fair Value Hierarchy [Domain] FairValueMeasurementsFairValueHierarchyD omain M5 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel1Member M6 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel2Member M7 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel3Member L1 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Debit Instant DefinedBenefitPlanFairValueOfPlanAssets L2 Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer Debit Duration DefinedBenefitPlanContributionsByEmployer L3 Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets Credit Duration DefinedBenefitPlanSettlementsPlanAssets Figure

111 The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Date Context Standard Label Preferred Label** Fair Value, Hierarchy [Axis] A2 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] M5 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] M6 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] M7 Defined Benefit Plan, Asset Categories [Axis] A1 L1 L2 L3 L1 Instant_ January 31, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Assets at fair value at measurement date of January 31, 20X5 Cash Equivalents [Member] M Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M Cash Equivalents [Member] M1 0 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M Cash Equivalents [Member] M1 0 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M Cash Equivalents [Member] M Duration_ Feb 1, 20X5 to Feb 3, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer Contributions after measurement date, before fiscal year-end date Duration_ Feb 1, 20X5 to Feb 3, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets Settlement after measurement date, before fiscal year-end date Instant_ February 3, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Total assets reported at February 3, 20X5 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M4 Entity-wide Amount Figure

112 Notes: When entering values in XBRL, the value for Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3) is intended to be entered as a positive value, since the element is modeled as a one-way element. XBRL calculation relationships for the elements Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1), Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) and Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3) are not possible because these elements have different period contexts. When consuming the XBRL data, the duration date period contexts provided in figure 1.3 determines whether the transactions (employer contributions and settlement) occurring between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date would be added to or subtracted from the fair value of plan assets reported with the instant date context as of the month-end measurement date (January 31, 20X5) to arrive at the fair value of plan assets reported with the instant date context as of fiscal year-end date (February 3, 20X5). When consuming the XBRL data, a date context starting the day following the month-end measurement date (February 1, 20X5), and ending with the fiscal year-end date (February 3, 20X5), for the element Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) indicates that these employer contributions are intended to increase plan assets, and therefore would be added to the element Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1) tagged with the month-end measurement date. When consuming the XBRL data, a date context starting the day following the month-end measurement date (February 1, 20X5), and ending with the fiscal year-end date (February 3, 20X5), for the element Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3) indicates that the settlement is intended to decrease plan assets, and therefore would be subtracted from the element Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1) tagged with the month-end measurement date. ** Preferred labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 112

113 Example 2 Reconciliation of Employer Contributions and a Settlement before the Measurement Date, after the Fiscal Year-End Date This example illustrates the modeling of a disclosure impacted by the application of the practical expedient for the measurement date when employer contributions are made and a settlement occurs before the measurement date of December 31, 20X5, but after the fiscal year-end date of December 27, 20X5. (in thousands) Asset Class Total Cash L1, A1:M1 $ 19,770 Equity securities: Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) L1, A1:M1, A2:M5 $ 19,770 Fair Value Measurements at December 27, 20X5 Significant Observable Inputs (Level 2) Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) L1, A1:M1, A2:M6 $ L1, A1:M1, A2:M7 $ US companies L1, A1:ExM2 30,200 L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M5 22,000 L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M6 3,200 L1, A1:ExM2, A2:M7 5,000 International companies L1, A1:ExM3 33,900 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M5 19,000 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M6 10,600 L1, A1:ExM3, A2:M7 4,300 Mortgage-backed securities L1, A1:M4 8,335 L1, A1:M4, A2:M5 L1, A1:M4, A2:M6 7,780 L1, A1:M4, A2:M7 555 Assets at fair value at measurement date of Contributions before measurement date, after fiscal year-end date Settlement before measurement date, after fiscal year-end date Total assets reported at December 27, 20X5 L1 92,205 L1, A2:M5 $ 60,770 L1, A2:M6 $ 21,580 L1, A2:M7 $ 9,855 L2 (10,000) L3 45,000 L1 $ 127,205 Figure

114 The legend for the elements used to tag these facts is: Standard Label Balance Type Period Type Element Name A1 Defined Benefit Plan, Asset Categories DefinedBenefitPlanByPlanAssetCategories [Axis] Axis Plan Asset Categories [Domain] PlanAssetCategoriesDomain M1 Cash [Member] CashMember ExM2 Equity Securities US Companies EquitySecuritiesUSCompaniesMember [Member] ExM3 Equity Securities International EquitySecuritiesInternationalCompanies Companies [Member] Member M4 Collateralized Mortgage Backed MortgageBackedSecuritiesMember Securities [Member] A2 Fair Value, Hierarchy [Axis] FairValueByFairValueHierarchyLevelAxis Fair Value Hierarchy [Domain] FairValueMeasurementsFairValueHierarc hydomain M5 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel1Member M6 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel2Member M7 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] FairValueInputsLevel3Member L1 L2 L3 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Debit Instant DefinedBenefitPlanFairValueOfPlanAssets Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer Debit Duration DefinedBenefitPlanContributionsByEmploy er Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Credit Duration Assets DefinedBenefitPlanSettlementsPlanAssets Figure

115 Date Context Standard Label Preferred Label** The instance document created using the modeling structure is provided here: Fair Value, Hierarchy [Axis] A2 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] M5 Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] M6 Defined Benefit Plan, Asset Categories [Axis] A1 Cash Equivalents [Member] M1 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M4 Cash Equivalents [Member] M1 Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM2 Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M4 L1 L2 L3 L1 Duration_ Duration_ Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 28, 20X5 to Dec 31, 20X5 Dec 31, 20X5 Instant_ December 31, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Assets at fair value at measurement date of December 31, 20X Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer Contributions before measurement date, after fiscal year-end date Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets Settlement before measurement date, after fiscal year-end date Instant_ December 27, 20X5 Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets Total assets reported at December 27, 20X Cash Equivalents [Member] M1 0 Equity Securities US Fair Companies [Member] ExM2 Value, Equity Securities Inputs, International Companies Level 3 [Member] ExM3 [Member] Collateralized Mortgage M7 Backed Securities [Member] M Cash Equivalents [Member] M Equity Securities US Companies [Member] ExM Equity Securities International Companies [Member] ExM3 Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities [Member] M4 Entity-wide Amount Figure

116 Notes: When entering values in XBRL, the value for Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) is intended to be entered as a positive value, since the element is modeled as a one-way element. XBRL calculation relationships for the elements Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1), Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) and Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3) are not possible because these elements have different period contexts. When consuming the XBRL data, the duration date period contexts provided in figure 2.3 determines whether the transactions (employer contributions and settlement) occurring between the fiscal year-end date and the month-end measurement date would be added to or subtracted from the fair value of plan assets reported with the instant date context as of the month-end measurement date (December 31, 20X5) to arrive at the fair value of plan assets reported with the instant date context as of fiscal year-end date (December 27, 20X5). When consuming the XBRL data, a date context starting the day following the fiscal year-end date (December 28, 20X5), and ending with the month-end measurement date (December 31, 20X5), for the element Defined Benefit Plan, Contributions by Employer (L2) indicates that these employer contributions are intended to decrease plan assets, and therefore would be subtracted from the element Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1) tagged with the month-end measurement date. When consuming the XBRL data, a date context starting the day following the fiscal year-end date (December 28, 20X5), and ending with the month-end measurement date (December 31, 20X5), for the element Defined Benefit Plan, Settlements, Plan Assets (L3) indicates that the settlement is intended to increase plan assets, and therefore would be added to the element Defined Benefit Plan, Fair Value of Plan Assets (L1) tagged with the month-end measurement date. ** Preferred labels are the labels created and used by the company to show the line item captions in its financial statements. 116

117 Session 2 Taxonomy Implementation Label A. Meeting Highlights Taxonomy implementation labels were discussed for elements that are part of an implementation guide and for those impacted by transition from Accounting Standards Updates. The labels are intended to address certain questions about the use of Taxonomy elements, which include: where the element would be used, what is intended to be used (+ or value), how to use the element (with a different label or date context) and when the element would be used (in certain reconciliation disclosures or under certain transition methods). The structure of the label as well as content of the {Implementation: Text} note were discussed for 5 specific Taxonomy elements, which included the 3 existing elements impacted by ASU The TAG members agreed that the implementation labels should be created and generally agreed with the content of the label, except for the inclusion of whether the element is 1-way or 2-way. For the Positive/Negative XBRL category, feedback was provided that this category should not be included in the label and that signs (+ or -) should be used instead of the words positive/negative. TAG members did suggest using the referencelink to contain the label content rather than a label. The syntax is more precise and XBRL spec compliant. The Taxonomy staff will investigate further. B. Taxonomy Implementation Label Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The purpose of this memo is to discuss the addition of an implementation label to the Taxonomy. Background Information 2. During discussion of the clarification note for elements during August 14, 2014 and October 21, 2014 Taxonomy Advisory Group (TAG) meetings, implementation guidance labels for specific elements were noted to be addressed at a later time. 3. The purpose of a new label is to add explanation around the intent behind the implementation of the element and to provide a direct link from the element within the Taxonomy to the related Taxonomy Implementation Guide published on the Financial Accounting Standards Board s website, if applicable. 117

118 Taxonomy Implementation Label 4. The Taxonomy staff proposes the following label: Taxonomy Implementation Label. 5. Possible proposed language and structure that could be included in the label is as follows: Example 1 Taxonomy Implementation Labels for elements related to the transitional periods 6. The Financial Accounting Standard Board issued the Accounting Standards Update (ASU) , Income Statement Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic ), Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items, that allowed both prospective and retrospective transition options. If a company chooses to apply the new guidance prospectively, the current year will be presented using different elements for the current period. However, a company would still need the previous elements to tag prior periods data. Elements related to extraordinary items will be retained in the Taxonomy for a period of transition. 7. In the example below, the element, IncomeLossFromOperationsBeforeExtraordinaryItemsPerOutstandingGeneralPartnershi punitnetoftax, will be used for the prior periods, 20X2 and 20X1, during the first year after the adoption (20X3). However, for the current year of 20X3, a company will tag the data using NetIncomeLossPerOutstandingGeneralPartnershipUnitNetOfTax. In this case, a Taxonomy Implementation Label will be added to the element 118

119 IncomeLossFromOperationsBeforeExtraordinaryItemsPerOutstandingGeneralPartnershi punitnetoftax to explain that this element should only be used for prior periods when ASU is adopted prospectively. The label will then be removed at the end of the transitional period for the ASU. 8. The proposed Taxonomy Implementation Label for such transitional elements with a prospective application of the new guidance is as follows: IncomeLossFromOperationsBeforeExtraordinaryItemsPerOutstandingGeneralPartnershi punitnetoftax: [ ] {ASU Extraordinary Items}{Implementation: If Accounting Standards Update is adopted and applied prospectively, this element may be appropriate for prior periods.}{alternate Element for Period of and after Adoption: NetIncomeLossPerOutstandingGeneralPartnershipUnitNetOfTax}{Transition Option: Prospective} 9. There are instances when a Taxonomy Implementation Label is beneficial to explain both retrospective and prospective application. In the example below, a company used 119

120 ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross element in previous filings (indicated by the year of 20X0). If a company chooses to adopt the new standard retrospectively, then it would use a different and more appropriate element, UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross, during the first year after the adoption of the new standard (20X3) and for its prior years (20X2 and 20X1). Since the new guidance allows both prospective and retrospective application, the element that was used in 20X0 will remain in the Taxonomy for the filers who choose to adopt the standard prospectively. As a result, ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross element needs to have a Taxonomy Implementation Label added to elaborate why the element is still in the Taxonomy and that it should only be used when the new guidance is applied prospectively and what a proper replacement element for a prospective period would be, if applicable. 10. For prospective adoption, ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross will be used for the prior periods of 20X2 and 20X1 and a different and more appropriate element, UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross, will be used for the current year of 20X3 which is the first year after the adoption of the new standard. UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross element also requires additional explanation of how to use it for both prospective and retrospective application. Specifically, if the standard is adopted retrospectively, for all periods presented, the element is appropriate for items that used to be considered extraordinary. If the new guidance is applied prospectively, the element is also appropriate for prospective periods for items that previously would have been considered extraordinary. 120

121 11. The proposed Taxonomy Implementation Label for such transitional elements with a prospective and retrospective application of the new guidance is as follows: a) ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross: [ ] {ASU Extraordinary Items}{Implementation: If Accounting Standards Update is adopted and applied prospectively, this element may be appropriate for prior periods.}{alternate Element for Period of and after Adoption: UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross}{Transition Option: Prospective} b) The following Taxonomy Implementation Label can be presented using either one of the following formats: Both transition options (Retrospective and Prospective) in one label: UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross: [ ] {ASU Extraordinary Items}{Implementation: This element may be appropriate for use for events that previously would have been considered an extraordinary item if Accounting Standards Update was adopted and applied retrospectively. If Accounting Standards Update is adopted and applied prospectively, this element may be appropriate for use for prospective periods for events that previously would have been considered an extraordinary item.}{alternate Element for Periods Prior to Adoption: 121

122 ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross}{Transition Option: Prospective/Retrospective} The two transition options presented separately: UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross: [ ] {ASU Extraordinary Items}{Implementation: This element may be appropriate for use for events that previously would have been considered an extraordinary item if Accounting Standards Update was adopted and applied retrospectively. {Transition Option: Retrospective} UnusualOrInfrequentItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross: [ ] {ASU Extraordinary Items}{Implementation: If Accounting Standards Update is adopted and applied prospectively, this element may be appropriate for use for prospective periods for events that previously would have been considered an extraordinary item.}{alternate Element for Periods Prior to Adoption: ExtraordinaryItemEarningsPerShareImpactGross}{Transition Option: Prospective} Example 2 Taxonomy Implementation Labels for elements in one or multiple Implementation Guides 12. The following are examples of implementation labels to be associated with elements that will be part of an implementation guide. 13. Labels have been created specifically for the elements impacted by Accounting Standards Update (ASU) : Compensation Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Practical Expedient for the Measurement Date of an Employer s Defined Benefit Obligation and Plan Assets (ASU ), which was issued in April As discussed previously with the TAG, since the month-end measurement date elected as the practical expedient is intended to be used as the date context with existing elements in the Taxonomy, guidance is needed to help ensure consistent application among preparers of the use of date context. Guidance is also needed to help consumers of the data understand the intended meaning of date context as indicators of increases or decreases of plan assets. 122

123 14. Therefore, the following labels are being proposed to be associated with the 3 existing Taxonomy elements included in the Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans implementation guide: (a) (b) (c) DefinedBenefitPlanFairValueOfPlanAssets: [2015-XX] {TIG: Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Different date contexts may be used with this element to reflect multiple measurement dates such as for an accounting policy election or remeasurement for significant events.}{hyperlink} DefinedBenefitPlanContributionsByEmployer: [2015-XX] {TIG: Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Different date contexts may be used with this element such as in a reconciliation of the fair value of plan assets when contributions are made to the plan between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date. The XBRL value is intended to be positive whether the element is used in a reconciliation to increase or decrease plan assets.}{hyperlink} DefinedBenefitPlanSettlementsPlanAssets: [2015-XX] {TIG: Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Different date contexts may be used with this element such as in a reconciliation of the fair value of plan assets when a settlement of the plan occurs between the month-end measurement date and the fiscal year-end date. The XBRL value is intended to be positive whether the element is used in a reconciliation to increase or decrease plan assets.}{hyperlink} 15. When a Pensions implementation guide is issued, the 3 elements above will also be included in that guide. If the Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans guide and the Pensions guide remain separate guides, then 2 implementation notes may be necessary. Two implementation notes may also be necessary for the elements used in other guides, such as the Subsequent Events guide or the Other Comprehensive Income guide. When this occurs, the following implementation label format is being proposed: (a) DefinedBenefitPlanFairValueOfPlanAssets: 123

124 Implementation Label 1: [2015-XX] {TIG: Measurement Date Practical Expedient for Defined Benefit Plans}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Different date contexts may be used with this element to reflect multiple measurement dates such as for an accounting policy election or remeasurement for significant events.}{hyperlink} Implementation Label 2: [2015-XX] {TIG: Pensions}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Period Start and Period End label roles are intended to be used with this element to indicate the beginning and ending values, respectively, when used in a roll forward disclosure.}{hyperlink} 16. The structure of the implementation label and the content of the implementation note specifically ({Implementation: Text.}) are intended to address certain questions about the use of Taxonomy elements: (a) Where to use? This question is addressed by reference to the disclosures illustrated in the implementation guides. This could also be addressed within the implementation note itself for certain unique situations, such as when the same element can be used in multiple disclosures, which is illustrated in the following example: (i) DefinedBenefitPlanBenefitsPaid: [2015-XX]{TIG: Pensions}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{1-way absent dimensional qualifiers}{implementation: Element is intended to be used in both the roll forward of the Change in Benefit Obligation and in the roll forward of the Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets.}{Hyperlink} (b) What to use? If the element is a 1-way or 2-way element, then the label indicates the intended meaning of positive and negative values. This is illustrated in the following example: (i) DefinedBenefitPlanActuarialGainLoss: [2015-XX]{TIG: Pensions}{TIG V1.0}{TR 2016}{2-way}{Positive XBRL Value: Actuarial Gain}{Negative XBRL Value: Actuarial Loss}{Hyperlink}. 124

125 (c) How to use? This question is addressed within the content of the implementation note itself, such as the application of different label roles or different date contexts (illustrated above for the fair value of plan assets element). (d) When to use? This is addressed within the content of the implementation note itself, such as when contributions are made to the plan between the month-end measurement date and fiscal period-end date (illustrated above with the employer contributions element) or under which transition method. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Does the TAG Member agree with the content of the {Implementation: Text.} note for labels pertaining to implementation guides? 2. Is there a redundancy in the content of the implementation {Implementation: Text.} note and the examples to be illustrated in the implementation guides? 3. Does the TAG Member agree with the label type name, Taxonomy Implementation Label? If not, what would name would better convey content? 4. Does the TAG Member agree with the overall format and content of the Taxonomy Implementation Label? If not, what format and content should it have? 5. Does the TAG Member think the format allows for syntactical validation? If not, what format would allow? 6. Does the TAG Member have other suggestions? 125

126 Polling Category Date stamp Taxonomy Implementation Guide (TIG) name Taxonomy Implementation Guide (TIG) version Implementation Guide Taxonomy Release (TR) version Intended XBRL value Positive XBRL value Negative XBRL value Taxonomy Implementation Label note Link to Taxonomy Implementation Guide on FASB's website Reference to Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Potential alternate element(s) Transition options for new ASU Should be Included in the Label? Next Steps 17. The Taxonomy staff will consider the feedback received for the Taxonomy Implementation Label and evaluate for inclusion in the Taxonomy. Other Considerations: 18. For internal purposes, in order to track the status of the transitional implementation labels and remove them from the Taxonomy in a timely manner when transition period is over, we should consider adding a year to the Future Deprecate Label as follows: Future Deprecate Label: [2018] Taxonomy Implementation Label to be removed Such label would indicate that there is transitional language within the Taxonomy Implementation Label for the element that needs to be removed in 2018 (for the 2019 Taxonomy Release). 126

127 Session 3 Container Dimension and Single Member A. Meeting Highlights The TAG met to discuss whether a dimension container should be used when multiple facts are being reported on a single event. While TAG members agreed that the use of a dimension container should be evaluated for possible use in the future, they did not believe that in the case of Example 2 of the Subsequent Event Implementation Guide (SE guide) (which described a single share repurchase program) that a dimension container was necessary to tie the facts together. In lieu of adding guidance about the use of a dimension container in the SE guide, TAG members indicated that the use of dimension containers should be researched and evaluated over a broader spectrum of transactions. B. Container Dimension and Single Member Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. The Taxonomy staff is seeking feedback on whether it is useful to add a dimension container when tagging multiple facts about a single event when there is only one member from a Dimension Container (DC) being used. Background Information 2. The Taxonomy has various dimensions (or axes) that relate certain facts together. For example, Debt Instrument [Axis] as a way of relating facts about a debt offering, such as, maturity date, interest rate, and creditor priority. When multiple debt offerings are disclosed, Debt Instrument [Axis] is a necessity in order to create different contexts for reporting multiple facts with a single element (or line item). These facts can be related together via a common member created to be used with Debt Instrument [Axis]. However, if only a single debt offering is reported, it is unclear whether or not it is preferred to use the container axis to relate the facts together. 3. Example 2 of the 2014 Subsequent Events Implementation Guide (SE IG) illustrates the repurchase of common stock after the balance sheet date but before the financial statements are issued or available to be issued. Initially, the SE IG used only Subsequent Event Type [Axis] and Class of Stock [Axis] to tag information about 127

128 the single share repurchase program, however, the Taxonomy staff questions whether consumption of the data could benefit from the use of a container dimension. 4. Example 2 of the SE IG states Pursuant to the share repurchase program approved on December 3, 20X1 we have purchased 1,757,660 shares of Class A Common Stock subsequent to December 31, 20X1 and through January 12, 20X2 for a total cost of $50,415 inclusive of transaction costs, bringing the total Class A Common Stock repurchased under the plan to 4,401, The instance document currently in the SE IG is as follows: 6. If Share Repurchase Program [Axis] were used, then a consumer would have a direct linkage that the shares and amount repurchased were part of the same program. The instance document would be as follows: Issue If Only One Event or Transaction is Reported, Should a Dimension Container be Used to Relate the Facts Together? 7. When there is more than one similar event requiring multiple facts be reported on that event, the use of a dimension container provides a way to report the information for each sub-event and the overall event (for example, the issuance of debt instruments at different time and rates vs. the total amount of debt which is reported on the Statement of Financial Position). However, it is not as clear that the use of a DC is as important 128

129 when this is a single event and there may or may not be a default value related to that event. Taxonomy staff analysis and recommendations 8. The principal advantage of using a DC even in the case when there is only a single event is that it links facts together. For example, it tells the reader that all of the information relates to one particular event or transaction. 9. The principal disadvantage is that it may not provide for a default value since all of the facts are dimensionally qualified. 10. If TAG members believe that it is more important to link the facts together, than to report it as a default value, in the case of a single event such as a single share repurchase program that may have more than one date when shares are being repurchased under that program, the Taxonomy staff recommends that guidance be added in Taxonomy Implementation Guides and the Frequently Asked Questions on U.S. GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy (FAQ) about the use of a DC. 11. If TAG members believe that when multiple facts are being reported on a single event, the reader has sufficient information without the use of a DC, then the Taxonomy staff believes no additional guidance is needed. Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do TAG Members support the use of a Dimension Container (DC) when multiple facts are reported about a single event? 2. If TAG Members support the use of a DC for a single event or transaction, do you agree that guidance should be added to the appropriate Taxonomy Implementation Guides and the FAQ? 129

130 Session 4 Legal Entity Issues A. Meeting Highlights Appropriate uses of Legal Entity [Axis] were reviewed and discussed in 5 different scenarios including mutual funds, multiple registrants in a single filing (utilities), consolidating schedules, facts of another entity and joint venture. These scenarios convey some attributes involving different legal entity identifier (fund name, name of registrant and names/groupings of consolidated entities), consolidated or unconsolidated financial information and some specific relationships. Taxonomy staff is seeking agreement on the appropriate use of Legal Entity [Axis], attributes that are being conveyed and identification of additional modeling that may be required in the taxonomy. B. Legal Entity Issues Purpose or Objective of This Memo 1. Agreement on the appropriate use of Legal Entity [Axis] 2. Identify additional modeling that may be required in the Taxonomy Background Information 3. Legal Entity [Axis] was initially created for mutual fund reporting of risk/reward summary information in form 485BPOS. For the investment firm (e.g., Vanguard or Fidelity) reporting on their funds (e.g., Balanced Fund, Growth & Income Fund, S&P 500 Index Fund), Legal Entity [Axis] differentiates the reported information for each of the single funds instead of the unique CIK s of the funds in the Entity Identifier. 4. That same principle was then applied for multiple registrants since the SEC allows for one CIK identifier for all of the reported contexts. As an example, a public utility may report 4 other registrants. In order to distinguish the values of the registrants, Legal Entity [Axis] with a member representing the registrant is used to tag the respective facts. 5. However, Legal Entity [Axis] was also intended to be used to identify preconsolidation amounts in consolidating or parent only financial disclosures, joint ventures and other such affiliates. 130

131 Current Uses of Legal Entity [Axis] Mutual funds Multiple registrants in a single filing o Utilities Consolidating schedules Reporting facts of another entity o We do a high volume of business with Company X. Last year, Company X reported sales of $50 million. Reported amounts of subsidiaries, joint ventures, affiliates and variable interest entities Threshold Issues 6. Legal Entity [Axis] has different meaning based upon its definition and the definition of Entity [Domain], its modeling in the US GAAP Taxonomy, the SEC s EFM and FAQ. This leads to different application and interpretation. Scenario 1 Mutual Funds Scenario: Investment Firm files form 485BPOS with the SEC for its S&P 500 Index fund. Observations: For the mutual fund risk/reward summary information tagged in form 485BPOS, the Entity Identifier (scheme) is the CIK of the investment firm and not that of the particular mutual fund. Legal Entity [Axis] is then used to qualify the facts as being applicable to the particular mutual fund. Staff believes these are the attributes being conveyed: Legal Entity Identifier: Fund name Consolidated/Not consolidated: Unconsolidated Relationship: Funds of a family 131

132 Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do the TAG members agree with the attributes that are being conveyed? 2. Are there others that have not been identified? Scenario 2 Multiple Registrants Scenario: Company E (reporting entity) is a holding company that has four wholly-owned subsidiaries: Company EG, Company CE, Company PE and Company BG. It therefore reports five sets of primary financial statements and one set of notes to the financial statements in its combined filing. Each of the five entities has its own CIK. Eliminating information is typically not included. Observations: Under current guidance, filers are to use Legal Entity [Axis] with a member to indicate the facts of a particular registrant included in a multiple registrant filing. For the multiple registrants that the FASB Taxonomy Staff observed, the individual registrants were consolidated into the reporting entity s financial statements. The numbers of the member and Legal Entity [Axis] are consolidated facts of the registrant and then consolidated into the reporting entity s financial statements. Staff believes these are the attributes being conveyed: Legal Entity Identifier: Name of registrant Consolidated/Not consolidated: Consolidated values w/no eliminations Relationship: Subsidiary of reporting entity Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do the TAG members agree with the attributes that are being conveyed? 2. Are there others that have not been identified? 132

133 Scenario 3 Consolidating schedule Scenario: Company U (reporting entity) presents a table starting with pre-consolidation numbers, then a column for eliminations, totaling to the consolidated financial information. Observations: Under current guidance, filers are encouraged to use the combination of the Consolidation Items [Axis] and Reportable Legal Entities [Member] to identify preconsolidation amounts in consolidating or parent only financial disclosures. EFM rule requires that in a consolidating instance, facts that apply only to the parent company and not to any specific subsidiaries must have contexts whose xbrldi:explicitmember elements have a dimension attribute of dei:legalentityaxis and value us-gaap:parentcompanymember. Is it reasonable to always expect the presence of a parent company in the consolidating schedule and can it be used as an indicator? Staff believes these are the attributes being conveyed: Legal Entity Identifier: Names/Groupings of consolidated entities Consolidated/Not consolidated: Consolidated values w/eliminations Relationship: Subsidiary of reporting entity Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do the TAG members agree with the attributes that are being conveyed? 2. Are there others that have not been identified? Scenario 4 Facts of a customer Scenario: Company A (reporting entity) has a high concentration of receivables with Company B. Company A reports that last year Company B had sales of $10 million. Observations: Under the current guidance, the reporting entity tags the fact with Revenues, dimensionally qualified with Legal Entity [Axis] and a member along the lines of Company B [Member]. It is communicated that it is the revenue of Company B, but does not capture the relationship Company A has with Company B. How do we that convey that relationship? 133

134 Staff believes these are the attributes being conveyed: Legal Entity Identifier: Entity name Consolidated/Not consolidated: Unconsolidated Relationship: Customer Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do the TAG members agree with the attributes that are being conveyed? 2. Are there others that have not been identified? Scenario 5 Extra credit: Joint Venture Scenario: Company S (reporting entity) and Company P each own 50% of Company DM (joint venture). Company DM owns 26% of Company DMP and the rest is publicly traded. Company S (reporting entity), Company P and Company DMP each own 33% of Company SH. Company S (reporting entity) reports those ownership percentages. Observations: Under the current guidance, the reporting entity tags the facts with members used with Legal Entity [Axis] are intended to indicate that the partners to a joint venture are not part of the consolidated entity. Staff believes these are the attributes being conveyed: Legal Entity Identifier: Entity name Consolidated/Not consolidated: Unconsolidated Relationship: Partners to joint ventures Questions for the TAG Members 1. Do the TAG members agree with the attributes that are being conveyed? 2. Are there others that have not been identified? 134

135 Summary of the Presented Scenarios No. Scenario Legal Entity Identifier Consolidated/ Unconsolidated Relationship 1 Mutual Fund Fund name Unconsolidated Funds of a family 2 Multiple Registrants Name of registrant Consolidated values w/no eliminations Subsidiary of reporting entity 3 Consolidating schedules Names/Groupings of consolidated entities Consolidated values w/eliminations Subsidiary of reporting entity 4 Facts of a customer Entity name Unconsolidated Customer 5 Joint Venture Entity name Unconsolidated Partners to joint ventures Questions for the TAG Members 1. What are the appropriate uses of Legal Entity [Axis]? 2. What additional modeling is needed in the Taxonomy? 135

136 Session 5 Treasury Stock Member A. Meeting Highlights Memorandum of treasure stock member was provided for review but not discussed about adding members and line items to distinguish between common and preferred treasury stock. This will be reviewed in a future TAG meeting. B. Treasury Stock Member to be provided in a future meeting 136

137 Session 6 Dimension Working Group Update A. Meeting Highlights Information for the dimension working group update was provided for review but not discussed. This will be reviewed in a future TAG meeting. B. Dimension Working Group Update to be provided in a future meeting 137

138 Session 7 Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report A. Meeting Highlights ASU report since April 3 rd, 2015 was provided for review but was not discussed. B. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report 138

139 Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Report Legend for Project Team Status Column Last Updated: 05/19/2015 at 9:00 AM Legend for XBRL Team **This is an XBRL team estimate and may not represent Board or other staff discussions or decisions. N No XBRL Impact C Comments Due P Draft in Process/Working with Project Team/TAG E Exposure Draft Italicized codes indicate expected to occur # F Taxonomy Exposure Draft (TED) F Final Document E Exposure draft R Roundtable Discussion F Finalized and Implemented into UGT EA Early adoption permitted Ovitas Version Summary 1H 2H 2H 3Q 2Q 3Q Post Quality Pub Category Common Name Title Project Lead/AD 1H Public ASU Expected ASU Eff. Owner 1Q 2Q 4Q Expected Element Public 1Q 4Q Topic Pub Third Public Comments Comment Date** / UGT Impact Comment Owner Modeling Control Review Posting Party Comment Period Period Review Period FASB Project Team XBRL Team ASUs in Process ASUs in Process Short-Duration Insurance: Disclosures about Short- NTS sent to project team for review. Met with project Duration Contracts After 12/15/15, team to discuss questions. Expected to be final in May. Casas/ F N/A Early Adoption/ Donna F ~60 New E Proestekes 2016 ASUs in Process TC #2 Technical Corrections & Improvements Expect minimal changes (less than 10). NTS updated. Provided NTS to DJ in 5/4; Open item on Issue 35 Nonrecurring FV needs to be addressed by DS. Cafini/ Proestakes E F Ended 12/15/2014 Upon issue Vickie F ~35 ASUs in Process Taxes Accounting for Income Taxes: Intra- Posted to website 4/17 entity Asset Transfers and Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes Wyss/ Walsh E Ends 05/29/2015 After 12/16/2016; no EA / 2017 Vickie E TBD Ends 06/16/2015 ASUs in Process Revenue Recognition-Identifying Performance Obligations Mazella/ Walsh E Ends 06/30/2015 TBD Elena E N Ends 06/30/2015 Exposed. Comments are due by 06/30/15 ASUs in Process Revenue Recognition-Licenses Muir/ Walsh E Ends 06/30/2015 TBD Elena E N Ends 06/30/2015 May not result in convergence with IFRS. Exposed. Comments are due by 06/30/15 ASUs in Process Revenue Recognition-Narrow Scope and Practical Expedients Mazella/ Walsh E TBD Elena E N Transition of contract modifications; presentation of sales taxes and legacy in period of adoption disclosure not required. ASUs in Process Revenue Recognition-Effective Date Exposed for comment. Would require keeping new and Barton / Walsh E Ends 05/29/2015 TBD Elena E N Ends 05/29/2015 legacy elements in the Taxonomy until transition period has passed (allows early adoption as of original effective date). ASUs in Process Share-based Employee Share-based Payment Accounting Improvements May/ Walsh E TBD Melissa E TBD A number of issues were addressed with varying transitions. Moving forward for exposure in Q2. ASUs in Process Bus Combination Simplification of Accounting for Cumulative catch-up adjustment.tentative proposed Measurement-Period Adjustments in a Business Combination Yepes / Proestakes E TBD Elena E 1 new element ASU issuance - late May 2015 with a 45-day comment period. ASUs in Process Simplifying the Equity Method Yepes / Esposito TBD Anna 4 Remove basis difference and retroactive application when becomes equity method. ASUs in Process Inventory Simplifying the Subsequent Drafting the final ASU for written ballot. LIFO and RIM Measurement of Inventory Hillenmeyer/ Walsh F After 12/15/15, Early Adoption/ 2016 Elena F TBD are excluded from the scope of the ASU. Changes will apply prospectively. No additional disclosures required after adoption. Effective date - beg. after 12/15/2016 with early adoption. ASUs in Process Debt Simplifying the Balance Sheet Classify based on terms of agreement. No dates set for Classification of Debt Mazzella/ Walsh TBD Vickie TBD further redeliberations. ASUs in Process Long-Duration Insurance: Targeted Improvements to Monitoring project as is progresses. Further research on the Accounting for Long-duration Contracts Casas/ Proestekes E TBD Donna E TBD discount rate. Board agreed to simplify amortization of DAC. Other improvements to be deliberated at a future meeting. ASUs in Process Goodwill Accounting for Goodwill for Public The Board directed the staff to research on two Business Entities and Not-for-Profits potential alternatives - 1) direct write=off; 2) Simplified Hillenmeyer/ Walsh TBD Elena TBD impairment testing. Data provided to project team related to goodwill, assets and equity to assist the research. Project on hold until the IASB complete its post implementation review on Business Combination. ASUs in Process Intangibles Accounting for Identifiable Intangible Research requested on contingent consideration. Assets in a Business Combination for Public Business Entities and Not-for- Profits Yepes / Proestakes TBD Elena TBD ASUs in Process Government Assistance Disclosure by Business Entities about Government Assistance Gagnon/ Mechanick TBD Elena TBD Discussions on scope and inclusion of both domestic and foreign government assistance. ASUs in Process L/E Liabilities & Equity Short-term Improvements Mazzella/ Esposito TBD Donna TBD Added to agenda. 139

140 Category Common Name Title Project Lead/AD 1H 2H 1H 2H Public Comment Period FASB Project Team ASUs in Process ASUs in Process Financial Instruments C&M Financial Instruments - Classification & Measurement ASUs in Process Disclosures Related to Hybrid Financial Instruments That Contain Bifurcated Embedded Derivatives ASUs in Process Impairment Financial Instruments - Impairment Milone/ Esposito Gupta/ Esposito Ovitas Version Summary ASU Expected ASU Eff. Date** / UGT Owner 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Expected Element Impact 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Topic Owner Post Modeling Quality Control Pub Review Public Comment Period F TBD Anna/David F TBD E E Ended 04/30/2015 XBRL Team TBD Anna/David E 9 Pub Posting Third Party Review Public Comment Period Expected Q4. Comments Exposure to address question that will be encompassed in AFI Update. Expected Q4. Gupta/ Esposito F TBD Anna/David F Same as C&M E ASUs in Process Hedging Accounting for Financial Instruments Hedging ASUs in Process Leases Leases Gabello/ Esposito TBD Anna/David TBD Zeyher/ Esposito F TBD Vickie F new or modified Performing research. Initial discussions which may result in targeted improvements instead of a broader project. Board concluded discussions on presentation and disclosure requirements. The FASB will discuss private company considerations at a future Board meeting. The staff will also begin drafting a final leases standard based on the tentative decisions reached by the FASB. ASUs in Process Taxes Disclosures Disclosure Framework - Income Taxes ASUs in Process Pension Disclosures Disclsoure Framework - Defined Benefit Plans ASUs in Process Fair Value Disclosures Disclsoure Framework - Fair Value ASUs in Process Interim Disclosures Disclsoure Framework - Interim Reporting ASUs in Process Inventory Disclosures Disclsoure Framework - Inventory ASUs in Process Conceptual Framework: Measurement Cappiello TBD Vickie TBD Cappiello TBD Melissa TBD Cappiello E TBD Anna/David TBD Cappiello TBD Anna TBD Cappiello TBD Elena TBD Switter/ Lott TBD Donna N/A Reviewing disclosures under Disclosure Framework principles. Met with DF team and users (phone) to discuss unrecognized tax benefits and possible disaggregation. Reviewing disclosures under Disclosure Framework principles. Reviewing disclosures under Disclosure Framework principles. Board decided not to distinguish between minimum and expanded set of disclosures. Provide disclosures if material. Some changes to align with framework. Reviewing disclosures under Disclosure Framework principles. Reviewing disclosures under Disclosure Framework principles. Not expected to have a direct impact to the Taxonomy but may influence or inform modeling structure. ASUs in Process Conceptual Framework: Presentation Switter/ Lott TBD Donna N/A Not expected to have a direct impact to the Taxonomy but may influence or inform modeling structure. ASUs in Process Disclosure Framework: Board's Decision Process Cappiello/ Lott E Donna N/A ASUs in Process Disclosure Framework: Entity's Decision Cappiello/ Lott E Donna N/A Process ASUs in Process Clarifying the Definition of a Business Hillenmeyer/ Donna N/A Proestakes ASUs in Process Not for Profit Not-for-Profit Financial Reporting: Financial Statements ASUs in Process Investment Companies: Diclosure about Investments in Another Investment Company ASUs in Process Bossio/ Mechanick Yepes/ Esposito E E Ends 08/20/2015 Ended 2/17/2015 Donna N/A TBD Anna TBD Disclosures about Interest Income on Purchased Debt Securities and Loans TBD / Walsh TBD Anna TBD Monitoring. Monitoring. Monitoring. Exposure draft issued. Not expected to have an impact on the Taxonomy. Added to agenda. FASB Research Projects FASB Research Projects: Interest rate Accounting for Financial Instruments: Interest Rate Disclosures Maroney/ Esposito TBD Anna/David TBD FASB Research Performance Financial Performance Reporting Mottley/ TBD Anna TBD FASB Research Accounting for Income Taxes: Projects Presentation of Tax Expense/Benefit Wyss/ Walsh TBD Vickie TBD FASB Research Projects FASB Research Projects FASB Research Projects Convertible Instruments Accounting for Convertible Financial Instruments Revenue Recognition-Principal versus Agent (reporting gross versus net) Mazzella/ Esposito Mazzella / Walsh TBD Anna/David TBD TBD Elena / Donna TBD Non-employee Sharebased Accounting Improvements May/ Walsh TBD Melissa Nonemployee Share-based Payment TBD FASB Research Projects Partnership Accounting (PCC) TBD TBD TBD FASB Research Projects Employee Share-based Payment Accounting Intrinsic Value (PCC) May/ Walsh TBD Melissa TBD 140

141 Ovitas Version Summary Category Common Name Title Project Lead/AD 1H 2H 1H 2H Public Comment Period FASB Project Team EITF Emerging Issues EITF 15-A Application of the Normal Purchases and Normal Sales ScopteException to Certain Ended Electricity Contracts within Nodal Energy Pollock E 05/18/2015 Markets ASU Expected ASU Eff. Owner 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Expected Element Date** / UGT Impact XBRL Team TBD Anna E 1 Public Comment Period 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Topic Owner Post Modeling Quality Control Pub Review Pub Posting Third Public Party Comment Review Period Comments Exposure document issued. Ready to be posted to the website. EITF 15-B Recognition of Breakage for No-cash Prepaid Cards EITF 15-C Plan Accounting: Defined Benefit Pension Plans; Defined Contribution Pension Plans; Health and Welfare Barton Muehlbauer/ Proestakes E E Ends 06/29/2015 Ended 05/18/2015 TBD Elena E 4 new elements TBD N/A N Ends 06/29/2015 Table posted to website ASU Taxonomy Change page. Exposure document issued. EITF 15-D Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Milone/ Esposito TBD Anna EITF 15-E Accounting for Embedded Put and Call Options in a Debt Instrument EITF 15-F Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments Private Company Council Projects: Private Company PCC Issue No , Definition of a Council Public Business Entity Finalized ASU Finalized ASU Extraordinary Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating Extraordinary Items Finalized ASU Consolidation Consolidation (Topic 810): Principal versus Agent Analysis Finalized ASU Debt Issuance Costs Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs Yepes/ Esposito TBD Vickie Wyss/ TBD Melissa Proestakes Cafini N/A N 4 new; 12 ref; 73 After 12/15/15, Egan/ label changes; 2 F N/A Early Adoption/ Elena F Proestakes depr; 57 future depr 2016 labels After 12/15/15, Winters/ F N/A Early Adoption/ Anna F ~1 new; 5 reference Esposito 2016 After 12/15/15, No Gupta/ Esposito E F N/A Vickie F ~23 EA/ 2016 There are nine issues to be discussed to eliminate diversity in practice. Not expected to have a direct impact to the Taxonomy. Implemented. PM to review Changes in development Taxonomy. Proposed NTS in review. Finalized ASU Pension Simplifying the measurement date for plan assets Hood/ Proestakes E F N/A After 12/15/15, Early Adoption/ 2016 Melissa F 8 (4 new, 3 existing, 1 deprecation) E Changes implemented. Finalized ASU Cloud Computing Customer s Accounting for Fees in a Cloud Computing Arrangement Muir/ Walsh E F N/A After 12/15/15, Early Adoption/ 2016 Elena F 4 New; 5 Ref. Changes in development Taxonomy. Finalized ASU Finalized ASU Finalized ASU Preagenda Dropdown NAV SEC Rev Rec Preagenda Effects on Historical Earnings per Unit of After 12/15/15, Master Limited Partnership Dropdown Hillenmeyer E F N/A Early Adoption/ Donna F 2 New, 2 Ref Transactions 2016 Fair Value Hierarchy Levels for Certain After 12/15/15, 1 new, 45 Investments Measured at Net Asset Hillenmeyer E F N/A Early Adoption/ Anna F deprecations Value 2016 Pushdown Accounting-Amendments to 1 reference and label SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to Staff N/A F Elena F change Accounting Bulletin No. 115 Revenue Recognition (Topic 605) After ~150 New; ~200 Mazzella/ Walsh F N/A Elena / Donna E 2016/2017 Deps; ~160 Other Simplifying ARO Barton/ Walsh TBD Melissa TBD E Changes in development Taxonomy. Changes implemented. Changes implemented. Final ASU issued on 5/28/2013. Working on taxonomy modeling and draft IG. Preagenda Pensions L Cheng / Proestakes Topical Implementation Guide Topical Stockholders Equity Implementation Guide Topical OCI Implementation Guide Topical Balance Sheet Offsetting Implementation Guide Topical Repurchase Agreements Implementation Guide Topical Insurance - Reinsurance Implementation Topical Short-duration Insurance Contracts Implementation Topical Pension Implementation Guide Topical Defined Benefit Plans-Measurement Implementation Date Guide Topical Fair Value Implementation Guide Topical Loan Receivables Implementation Guide TBD Melissa TBD Donna Donna David David Donna Donna Melissa Melissa Anna Anna/David E E Incorporating comments from TAG. Issue discussed at E V13 TAG to be implemented and updated. E V2.8 In publication review/topic owner. 4/27/2015 Exposed on website 5/1/2015 Exposed on website F V7 Evaluating examples E Based on ASU requirements. E As part of targeted topic. Based on ASU-will be incorporated in larger guide when E completed. E As part of targeted topic. E V1 In development. 141

142 Ovitas Version Summary Category Common Name Title Project Lead/AD 1H 2H 1H 2H Public ASU Expected ASU Eff. Owner 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Expected Element Public 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Topic Post Quality Pub Pub Third Public Comments Comment Date** / UGT Impact Comment Owner Modeling Control Review Posting Party Comment Period Period Review Period Topical Segments Implementation Melissa Guide F Update for 2015 version. Topical Insurance - Ceded Credit Risk Implementation Donna Guide F Update for 2015 version. Topical Subsequent Events Implementation Vickie Guide F With PMR. Topical Discontinued Operations Implementation Donna Finalize. Review examples to update for tagging total as Guide F qualified and unqualified. Topical Liquidation Basis Implementation Elena Guide F Update for 2015 version. Topical Notional Implementation David F Guide Update for 2015 version. Taxonomy Reference Guide Taxonomy Period Type Selection David Reference Guide F Exposed June Taxonomy Balance Type Selection Melissa Reference Guide F Reviewed form and tree with TAG. Taxonomy References Vickie Reference Guide F Taxonomy Dimension David / Reference Guide Melissa F Dimension working group meeting March 19th. Taxonomy Future deprecate TBD Reference Guide Taxonomy Data Type Selection TBD Reference Guide 142

143 Session 8 Review of April 9, 2015 Meeting Highlights A. Meeting Highlights The highlights and resolutions from the April 9, 2015 TAG meeting were provided for review, but were not discussed. B. Review of April 9, 2015 Meeting Highlights 143

144 Session 9 Workflow Report A. Meeting Highlights A brief report of the workflows was provided but was not discussed. The report contains those workflows that were closed since the last report. Generally, workflows are assessed as part of topical areas or a broader project unless they are considered a technical correction. B. Workflow Report 144

145 Workflow Report 145

146 146