負のクレジットが発生した自動車メーカーに 義務は存在するか?

In recent years, fuel efficiency regulations for automobile manufacturers (hereinafter “companies”) have been introduced in many countries around the world. For example, companies subject to such regulations receive positive or negative credits based on a comparison of the actual average fuel consumption of their passenger cars (ICE-equipped vehicles) manufactured and/or imported during the year with a target set by the government. Companies which receive negative credits because their actual average fuel consumption falls be- low the set target are then required to take action to eliminate them. In this regard, the IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRS-IC), in response to a “sub- mission,” has recently examined whether, for accounting purposes, companies which receive negative credits have an obligation to eliminate them. This is a typical issue applying IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities, and Contingent Assets to determine the existence of an obligation at the end of the reporting period when the transfer of economic resources is conditional on the future actions of the entity. This issue also provides new material which contributes to predicting the impact of appling the definition of a liability, as proposed by the new conceptual framework issued by the IASB in 2018. This paper first summarizes the basic idea regarding the existence of a present obligation as a result of past events in line with the current IAS 37 (Section II). In order to ease the discussion, the paper simplifies the hypothetical regulations used by the IFRS-IC in its discussion in the form of a single fuel efficiency regulation by referring to the Chinese “CAFC” regulation. Then, based on the simplified regulations, the paper identifies two views on the existence of obligations for companies receiving negative credits based on the basic idea above (Sections III through V). The paper also discusses the necessity and pattern of recognition of Provisions in cases where a legal obligation to eliminate negative credits is considered to exist (Section VI). Furthermore, it attempts to apply the definition of a liability proposed in the new conceptual framework to companies that receive negative credits, assuming the simplified regulations (Section VII). Finally, the paper ascertains the implications and the issues unresolved (Section VIII). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]