Ryder Group S19/D19

1. A board minute is evidence only of authorisation/approval of a transaction to OCCUR in the FUTURE - i.e. an intention. A transaction doesn't OCCUR simply because the directors agree to a course of action (e.g. to sell/acquire an asset).

2. You don't know and you don't have to assume - you are required to "discuss any ethical issues ... and recommend appropriate actions [e.g. safeguards]". So you need to recognise the conflict IF he were to remain a member of the audit team (since it doesn't say that he will not be) and then you can recommend that he should not be a member of the audit team.

In short - management intent alone cannot justify an accounting treatment. Consider for example management decides before the reporting date 31 March to close a department and make people redundant. Those affected are notified on 5th April. There is no constructive obligation before 5th April - and it cannot be "created" retrospectively. Another example to illustrate that hindsight alone does not provide evidence of a condition existing at the reporting date. As I mentioned on a recent post for the capitalisation of an intangible asset - say software development - various criteria must be met. If at the reporting date 31 March 20X5 it is not possible to demonstrate technical feasibility, say, all expense must be written off. If technical feasibility is established in June 20X5, you can't say "aha! that's evidence that criteria were met at the reporting date" (!)

"Adjusting events" and "non-adjusting events" are by definition events that occurred AFTER the reporting date. Meeting any criteria BEFORE the reporting date means RECOGNISE at the reporting date. This is NOT "adjustment" within the meaning of IAS 10. Sale proceeds can only be recognised when the IFRS 15 revenue recognition criteria are MET - either in the current period or in the following period (one of the reasons why cutofff is an important assertion for auditors).