BC19 The Board decided that when the exception applies, there should be a presumption that deferred taxes should be measured to reflect the tax consequences of recovering the carrying amount of the investment property entirely through sale. In making that decision, the Board considered various views expressed by interested parties, which included, but were not limited to the following:

(a) the tax effect would be double‑counted in some situations if deferred taxes are measured on the basis of the tax consequences of use, because the investment property is measured at fair value, which reflects some of these tax consequences; and

(b) presuming sale is consistent with a fair value measurement basis that reflects the price that would be received if the investment property is sold.

BC20 Many respondents to the exposure draft said that choosing a measurement basis of fair value is an accounting policy choice that does not imply or predict recovery of the investment property through sale. Many also said that the proposed exception would solve the double‑counting problem partially but not completely. The Board noted that the aim of the exception was neither to link the accounting policy with measurement of deferred taxes (see paragraph BC7), nor to remove completely the double‑counting of tax effects (see paragraph BC15). The aim of this exception is to provide a practical approach when determination of the expected manner of recovery is difficult and subjective.