Assets, Liabilities and the Rule That Changed Everything
This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
There is a question that sits underneath every set of financial statements you prepare. It is not about tax rates or disclosure requirements. It is a more fundamental question.
What actually counts as an asset? What makes something a liability? And when do you put something in the accounts in the first place?
For decades, those questions had one answer. Now they have a new one. And if you work with SMEs, you need to understand what changed and why it matters to the numbers you sign off every year.
The Old Rules and Where They Came From
The definitions that most accountants learned and still use today came from a 1989 document called the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements. It was a solid piece of work for its time. But it was written before smartphones existed, before cloud accounting, before artificial intelligence was a line item in any client's budget.
By the time the IASB launched the second comprehensive review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard in 2020, that 1989 framework had already been replaced at the full IFRS level by the 2018 Conceptual Framework. SMEs were still working off the old version.
The third edition fixes that. Section 2 of the standard has been updated to align with the 2018 Conceptual Framework. The result is a set of definitions and recognition rules that are more flexible, more principle-based, and better suited to how business actually works today.
Here is what changed, and what it means in practice.
The New Definition of an Asset
The old definition was this:
"A resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity."
The new definition is this:
"A present economic resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events."
At first glance that looks like a minor edit. It is not. The phrase that was removed is the most important one: "from which future economic benefits are expected to flow."
Under the old definition, you could only recognise an asset if you expected economic benefits to flow to your entity. That meant high uncertainty was enough to keep something off the balance sheet entirely, even if you had a genuine right to it.
The new definition replaces "expected to flow" with a new supporting concept. An economic resource is now defined as "a right that has the potential to produce economic benefits." Potential. Not certainty. Not probability. Potential.
That is a meaningful shift. It means that rights can now qualify as assets even when the outcome is uncertain, as long as the information is relevant and can be faithfully represented.
In plain terms: something does not have to be certain to be an asset. It just has to be a right that could generate value.
What This Means for Your Clients
Think about the kinds of assets your clients hold that were previously kept off the balance sheet because the benefits were uncertain.
• A software licence giving your client the right to use a platform for five years. Under the old rules, if the future value was difficult to measure or uncertain, it often stayed off the balance sheet. Under the new rules, the right itself is the asset, even if you cannot be precise about what it will generate.
• A contractual right to receive a share of future revenue from a joint arrangement. Uncertain in amount, but potentially recognisable as an asset now.
• Intellectual property developed internally that gives the business the right to use a process, brand, or method. The potential matters, not just the probability.
None of this means everything suddenly belongs on the balance sheet. The asset must still be relevant and capable of being faithfully represented. But the threshold has come down, and that opens up recognition for items that were previously excluded.
The New Definition of a Liability
The old definition was:
"A present obligation of the entity arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources."
The new definition is:
"A present obligation of the entity to transfer an economic resource as a result of past events."
Again, the key word that disappeared is "expected." The old rules required an expected outflow before you recognised a liability. The new rules say that if the obligation exists, that is what matters. The obligation to transfer an economic resource is the liability, regardless of how probable settlement is.
In plain terms: the existence of the obligation is what creates the liability. Not the likelihood of having to pay.
This has real consequences. Consider a client facing a legal claim. Under the old rules, if the probability of losing was low, the lawsuit sat in the notes as a contingent liability, not on the face of the balance sheet. Under the new rules, if a present obligation exists and the information is relevant and representable, recognition may now be required even when the probability of settlement is low.
That is a significant change for clients in construction, manufacturing, retail, and any sector where disputes, warranty claims, or regulatory exposure are common.
The Recognition Rules Have Also Changed
Changing the definitions of assets and liabilities was not enough on its own. The IASB also changed the rules for when you actually put something into the financial statements.
Under the old rules, you recognised an item when three things were true. It met the definition of an element. It was probable that economic benefits would flow to or from the entity. And it had a reliable measurement.
The new rules work differently. You recognise an item when it meets the new definition of an asset or liability, provides relevant information to users, and can be faithfully represented.
The probability criterion has been removed. That single change is the biggest shift in this section.
Recognition is now about whether the information is useful. If recognising an item gives users of the financial statements relevant information that can be honestly and accurately represented, it should be recognised. The question is no longer "is it probable?" It is "is it useful and representable?"
This does not mean recognition becomes easy or automatic. It requires judgement. It requires you to think carefully about whether recognising a particular item actually helps users of the financial statements understand the financial position and performance of the business. But it shifts the conversation from probability to usefulness, and that is a meaningful change in how you approach uncertain items.
New Guidance on Derecognition
For the first time, Section 2 also provides explicit guidance on when to take something off the balance sheet.
Assets are derecognised when the entity no longer controls the economic resource, or when the resource no longer exists. Liabilities are derecognised when the obligation has been extinguished, whether through settlement, cancellation, or expiry.
This sounds obvious. But the absence of clear derecognition guidance in the old standard created inconsistency in practice. Codifying it removes ambiguity and gives you a clearer basis for the decision.
Four Concepts That Have Been Clarified
Section 2 also clarifies four existing concepts that were previously vague or inconsistently applied.
• Prudence. Prudence is back, explicitly and clearly. It means exercising caution when making estimates under conditions of uncertainty. It does not mean deliberately understating assets or overstating liabilities. Both extremes are now expressly prohibited.
• Stewardship. Financial statements must now explicitly reflect how management has managed the resources entrusted to them. This is not just about the current financial position. It is about accountability.
• Measurement uncertainty. High uncertainty about the amount or timing of an item does not automatically prevent recognition. But it does require disclosure. Users need to understand where estimates are involved and how uncertain those estimates are.
• Substance over form. This principle is reinforced. Always look through the legal form of a transaction to its economic reality. If a lease is effectively a purchase, account for the purchase. If a loan is effectively equity, account for it as equity.
The Practical Question You Need to Ask
The updated Section 2 means that for every item you are currently keeping off your client's balance sheet, you need to ask a new question. Not "is it probable?" but "does this item meet the new definition of an asset or liability, and would recognising it give users useful, faithfully representable information?"
For most clients with straightforward transactions, the answer will be the same as before. A trade debtor is still a trade debtor. A bank loan is still a bank loan. Most everyday items are unaffected.
But for clients with pending litigation, uncertain contractual rights, software licences, IP-related arrangements, or exposure to regulatory claims, the conversation is different now. And those conversations need to happen before the first set of financial statements under the third edition is prepared.
The effective date is 1 January 2027. The comparative period is 2026. That means the time to review these items is now..
Choose Your Path to Exclusive Insights
Stay ahead in the world of accounting with premium content designed for professionals like you. Access expert articles, industry trends, and essential resources. Become a CIBA member and claim your CPD hours from CIBA.
CIBA Member Access
R250.00 FREE!
100% Discount when you become a CIBA Member. Join now to claim your CPD Hours. Register here: https://accounts.myciba.org/register
