Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172:body:0:p101
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 266906–269856

proposed example illustrating whether a government department controlled a statutory authority.  The Board revised the example and paragraph IG24 to clarify that a delegate in the not-for-profit public sector is not an agent of the delegator.  The Board also deleted references to 'delegated control' as it was not necessary to introduce a new term.  The Board noted that the term 'delegation' has a narrower meaning in the not-for-profit public sector than its general usage in the Standard to denote an agent/principal relationship.

Issues raised but guidance not revised
BC45 The Board discussed a range of issues raised by respondents to ED 238 that did not lead to changes to the implementation guidance that had been proposed in the ED.  The more significant such issues included requests for guidance concerning assessing the relative significance of the rights of different parties, a controlled local government scenario, collective control in the public sector, and the effect of removal rights in the public sector, and comments on the power to enact or change legislation.
BC46 Respondents noted the difficulty in many cases of identifying which investor has power over an investee when more than one investor is able to direct different relevant activities of the investee.  The Board was asked to provide further guidance on how to identify which investor was able to direct the activities that most significantly affected the investee's returns.  The Board concluded that it was not feasible to provide guidance for weighing the relative significance of different relevant activities since this would be subject to judgement in the context of the facts and circumstances in any particular case.
BC47 Some respondents to ED 238 noted that, unlike the other comprehensive examples, the local government example did not include an alternative scenario.  The only scenario illustrated concluded that in the circumstances presented the local government was not controlled by the State government.  Some respondents suggested that if it was not possible for a local government to be controlled by another government, then the guidance should state that.  Other respondents suggested the addition of an alternative scenario so that the alternative control outcome would not be overlooked when the guidance was being applied.  The Board decided that an alternative scenario was not required, since the proposed example already referred to the possibility of an alternative outcome (ie the local government being controlled by another government) in different circumstances or based on different judgements.  The proposed implementation guidance also indicated that the assessment of whether a local government is controlled by another government would depend on the particular facts and circumstances.  As noted in paragraph BC18, this approach has been retained in the implementation guidance.
BC48 The Board considered whether to extend the