BC13 The Board understands that the concerns raised in practice relate primarily to investment property measured using the fair value model in IAS 40. The Board proposed in the exposure draft that the exception should also apply to property, plant and equipment or intangible assets measured using the revaluation model in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment or IAS 38 Intangible Assets. That was because in assessing the difficulty and subjectivity involved in determining the expected manner of recovering the carrying amount of the underlying asset, there is no underlying difference between regularly fair valuing assets through a revaluation accounting policy and applying a fair value measurement model.

BC14 Many respondents disagreed with the proposal to include property, plant and equipment or intangible assets measured using the revaluation model in IAS 16 or IAS 38 in the scope of the exception. They stated that many items of property, plant and equipment are recovered through use rather than through sale, and that this is consistent with the definition of property, plant and equipment in IAS 16. In addition, many respondents disagreed with the presumption of recovery through sale when the underlying assets are intangible assets for similar reasons. They also warned of unintended consequences that could arise because of the varying nature of intangible assets. Many respondents suggested limiting the scope of the exception to investment properties measured using the fair value model in IAS 40. Having considered those comments, the Board adopted that suggestion.