Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2019N00027:body:0:p44
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2019N00027
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 110177–112825

terms Issuer Receipts and Issuer Payments are replaced by terms 'Direct Issuer Participant Payment' and 'Direct Issuer Participant Receipt'. For ease of reference, this consultation paper retains usage of the terms 'Issuer Payments' and 'Issuer Receipts'.
[14]  Note that that for a benefit to be classified as an Issuer Receipt, it must meet the test that it has the purpose or likely effect of promoting or incentivising the issuance or use of cards of the scheme. This includes benefits that incentivise the entry into a contract relating to the issuance of cards of the scheme, or benefits related to providing or funding incentives to holders of card of the scheme to use those cards.
[15]  For the avoidance of doubt, core services provided by the scheme to issuers, as described in section 2.2.1, are not considered to be benefits that must be included as Issuer Receipts.
[16] Conversely, where a non-core good or service is provided by schemes to issuers at a price that is consistent with an arm's length transaction, then no particular benefit or discount would be recorded as an Issuer Receipt.
[17]  For example, it would not be in line with the purpose and intent of the standard to use an artificially low price for a service and argue that there is no discount or subsidy to be included as an Issuer Receipt. Similarly, choosing to not record an incentive in Issuer Receipts due to difficulty determining its fair value would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the standards.
[18]  See 'AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement', AASB, Melbourne, August 2015.
[19]  Under the proposed modification, this valuation should be as of the date such a good or service was first provided, or was first committed to be provided, as this aligns the date of valuation to the behaviour being incentivised.
[20]  As noted in section 2.2.1, the Bank proposes to modify the definition of Issuer Payments to include payments to an associated entity of a scheme, to enhance the consistency across the set of entities from whom Issuer Receipts could arise and the entities to whom Issuer Payment could be made.
[21]  Once that change is made it is no longer necessary to exclude from Issuer Receipts cardholder payments and reversals and chargebacks, so it is proposed that those exclusions be deleted.
[22]  The term brand partner or affinity partner in this context refers to an entity (for example, an airline) that has a contractual agreement with an issuer for cards of the issuer to bear the entity's trade name or mark.
[23]  For example, in the case of eftpos, this obligation would apply to (i) issuers that do not use a clearing agent,