Note: This article provides a focused explanation and extended discussion on a specific standard. If you’d like to see the full list of articles and short summaries for this standard, please visit the “Series Overview” page.
Since 2025, most standard‑related articles on this site have been available in both Chinese and English versions. If you’d like to read the Chinese explanation, please visit the 「系列總覽」 page and look for the corresponding article.
Plain‑English explainer of HKAS 8 / IAS 8 for students, junior accountants and non‑specialists who find official standards too dense to read.
This article is based on Hong Kong Accounting Standards (HKAS / HKFRS), which are fully aligned with IAS / IFRS except for minor local tweaks, so the same principles generally apply under IAS / IFRS unless noted otherwise. The goal is to unpack HKAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors (equivalent to IAS 8) using plain English and practical, real‑life examples instead of technical jargon. It is written for students, junior accountants, audit juniors and finance professionals who want to understand not just “what the standard says” but how to actually read and prepare financial statements in line with it.
When you see “the company” or “the entity” below, you can think of any entity that prepares general purpose financial statements under HKFRS / IFRS.
Why This Matters: The Questions That Come Up at Year-End
If you’ve ever worked on a year-end close or reviewed a set of working papers, chances are you’ve come across something like this: management has switched investment properties from the cost model to the fair value model — depreciation disappears, replaced by revaluation gains. Or revenue that used to be recognised on a time basis is now recognised at agreed milestones.
When you see these changes, a few questions naturally come to mind. Is this an actual accounting policy change, or does it just reflect a new type of transaction? Do the prior period comparatives need to be restated? And what exactly needs to go in the notes for the disclosure to be adequate?
HKAS 8 provides a structured, principled framework for answering all of these questions. Getting this right matters not just for compliance, but because it directly affects the comparability and credibility of financial statements.
What You Should Be Able To Do After Reading?
By the end, you should be able to:
- Understand how to select an appropriate accounting policy, whether or not a specific HKFRS standard addresses the transaction in question.
- Explain why consistency is a core requirement — and understand when different policies can legitimately apply to different categories of items.
- Distinguish a genuine accounting policy change from situations that are simply new transactions, new circumstances, or updates to estimates.
- Describe the general requirement for retrospective application when a policy changes, and understand when the impracticability exception kicks in.
- Know what disclosures are required — for first-time application of a new HKFRS, and for voluntary policy changes.
1. How Do You Select an Accounting Policy in the First Place?
When a specific HKFRS already covers the transaction
The starting point is straightforward: if there is an HKFRS that directly addresses the type of transaction you are dealing with, you apply that standard. Whether it is HKFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (equivalent to IFRS 15), HKFRS 16 Leases (equivalent to IFRS 16), or HKAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (equivalent to IAS 16), the relevant standard sets out how the accounting policy should be selected and applied. You do not get to go off-script.
This is a core principle of HKAS 8: individual standards take priority. HKAS 8 in this context acts as a gatekeeper — it is there to remind you to follow the specific guidance that already exists, not to second-guess it.
When there is no specific HKFRS guidance
Things get more interesting when you encounter a transaction that no existing standard directly addresses. In that situation, HKAS 8 sets out a hierarchy for finding a basis:
- Look at standards that deal with similar or related issues — their underlying logic may apply by analogy;
- Refer to the Conceptual Framework, particularly the definitions and recognition criteria for assets, liabilities, income and expenses;
- Consider guidance from other standard-setting bodies and accepted industry practice, provided these are consistent with the above.
The goal of this process is not simply to find something to copy. The policy you end up with must produce information that is both relevant — useful for decision-making — and reliable — faithfully representing the economic substance of the transaction.
What this looks like in practice
Imagine you are working on the accounts of a technology company that has introduced a new type of software licensing arrangement not directly covered by existing revenue guidance. The right approach is to start with the closest applicable revenue standard and ask how its principles apply to this arrangement. Then check against the Conceptual Framework: is the customer acquiring a right at a point in time, or is the company continuously providing access to a service? Finally, look at how comparable companies in the industry are treating similar arrangements. That layered reasoning process is exactly what HKAS 8 expects when there is no direct answer in the standards.
2. Consistency — Why You Can’t Just Change How You Account for Things Year to Year
Consistency underpins comparability
HKAS 8 requires companies to apply accounting policies consistently to similar transactions, events and conditions across periods. The rationale is simple: if the same type of transaction is treated differently from one year to the next, users of the financial statements cannot make meaningful comparisons. They would have no basis for judging whether changes in reported figures reflect genuine shifts in the business, or just shifts in accounting method.
Consistency is therefore not a bureaucratic formality. It is what gives financial statements their credibility across time.
Can you ever use different policies for different items?
Yes — but only within clear limits. Where an HKFRS permits or requires items to be classified into separate categories, it is acceptable to apply different policies to different categories, provided the classification basis is itself reasonable and the policy within each category is applied consistently.
A practical example: under HKAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (equivalent to IAS 16) and HKAS 40 Investment Property (equivalent to IAS 40), a company may use the cost model for owner-occupied properties and the fair value model for investment properties. That is a legitimate distinction because the two categories serve different economic purposes and are governed by different standards. What would not be acceptable is applying the revaluation model to some owner-occupied properties and the cost model to others within the same class, without any principled basis for the distinction.
When you see a situation in practice where only certain assets within a class have been revalued, it is worth asking: is there a clear, documented basis for this classification? And does the policy actually meet the consistency requirement within each category?
3. What Counts as a “Change in Accounting Policy” — and What Doesn’t?
Only two legitimate reasons to change a policy
HKAS 8 is deliberate about this: a company can only change an accounting policy if either (a) the change is required by a new or revised HKFRS, or (b) the change results in financial statements that provide more relevant and more reliable information.
That second condition has real teeth. Management cannot justify a policy change simply because the new approach produces a more flattering result in the current year. There must be a substantive reason — for example, that the new policy better reflects the economic substance of transactions, better aligns with industry practice, or reduces the degree of subjective judgement involved.
Not every “change” is actually a policy change
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood areas in practice. Many situations that are labelled as accounting policy changes are actually something else entirely.
If a company enters a completely new type of transaction for the first time and needs to select a policy for it, that is not a change in accounting policy — it is the initial selection of a policy for a new activity. There is no “old” policy being replaced.
A more nuanced example: suppose a long-term supply contract that originally had minimal variable consideration is renegotiated to include significant performance-linked rebates and volume discounts. The company, still working within the same revenue recognition framework, now needs to reassess how it estimates and allocates variable consideration. This is not a policy change — it is a revision of estimates driven by changed contract terms and economic circumstances. The underlying principles have not changed; only the inputs and the results have.
When you are reviewing working papers and spot a change in how numbers are calculated, the key question to ask is whether the underlying principle has shifted, or whether the company has simply applied the same principle to a different set of facts. If it is the latter, HKAS 8’s retrospective restatement requirements do not automatically apply.
4. Retrospective Application — The Default Treatment When a Policy Changes
The general rule
When a genuine accounting policy change occurs — and there are no specific transition provisions in the relevant HKFRS — the default treatment under HKAS 8 is retrospective application. This means restating the financial statements as if the new policy had always been in place, including:
- Adjusting the opening balance of equity (typically retained earnings) for the earliest period presented;
- Restating comparative figures for all prior periods shown in the financial statements;
- Presenting the restated numbers as if the old policy had never existed.
This is deliberately demanding. Because a policy change means adopting a fundamentally different principle for recording transactions, not applying it retrospectively would create a break in the continuity of the financial statements — making it impossible to compare numbers across periods on a like-for-like basis.
First-time application of a new HKFRS: follow the transition provisions
When the policy change arises specifically from the first-time adoption of a new HKFRS, the picture is slightly different. The individual standard will typically include its own transition provisions, which may require full retrospective application, allow for partial restatement covering only certain periods, or offer practical expedients to ease the burden of implementation. In these cases, HKAS 8’s general requirements still apply as the overarching framework, but the specific transition provisions of the new standard take precedence.
Voluntary policy changes: no special treatment
If a company voluntarily decides to change an accounting policy — for example, switching from the cost model to the revaluation model for a class of property on the grounds that it provides more relevant information — and there is no special transition provision in the relevant standard, full retrospective application under HKAS 8 applies. That means restating comparatives, adjusting opening equity, and providing detailed disclosure of the impact on each affected line item.
5. When Retrospective Application Is Not Feasible — The Impracticability Exception
What “impracticable” actually means
HKAS 8 is realistic: it does not require companies to go to any lengths to retrieve historical data. Where retrospective application is genuinely impracticable, the standard permits the company to apply the new policy prospectively from the earliest date on which it is practicable to do so.
Impracticability is not a low bar. It applies where the company cannot reasonably determine the effect of the change on prior periods — for instance, because it would need to make assumptions about what management intended in those earlier periods, which cannot now be objectively verified, or because making the necessary estimates would require distinguishing between information that was available at the time and information that only became available later. That distinction is often impossible to make with confidence after the fact.
Importantly, HKAS 8 makes clear that impracticability can only be claimed after genuinely exhausting every reasonable option. “It would be inconvenient” or “it would take a lot of work” does not meet the threshold.
What to do when retrospective application is not feasible
Where impracticability is established, the approach is to apply the new policy from the earliest date on which it is practical to do so, without attempting to restate earlier periods. The cumulative effect of the change up to that point is not split out or tracked retrospectively. In the notes, the company must explain clearly why retrospective application was not feasible and specify from which date the new policy has been applied.
In practice, this situation arises more often than you might expect — particularly for companies with long operating histories, incomplete historical records, or highly complex historical transactions. If you are helping to document this in working papers, thorough file evidence supporting the impracticability conclusion is essential. A vague assertion will not withstand scrutiny from auditors or regulators.
6. Disclosure — What Goes in the Notes?
When a new HKFRS is applied for the first time
The notes should include the name of the new standard and a brief description of what changed, how any transition provisions were applied (including whether any practical expedients were used), and the quantitative impact on key line items — assets, liabilities, equity and profit or loss — to the extent this can be determined. Where full retrospective application was not possible, the notes should explain why and describe how the change has been reflected.
This disclosure serves a practical purpose: it tells readers of the financial statements where the continuity with prior periods breaks down, and what portion of any movement in reported figures is attributable to the change in standard rather than to genuine changes in the business.
When a policy is changed voluntarily
The disclosure requirements for voluntary changes are similarly substantive. The notes should explain the nature of the change and the reason the new policy is considered to provide more relevant or reliable information. They should quantify the impact on each materially affected line item and show how opening equity for the earliest restated period has been adjusted. Where impracticability applies, the same explanation requirements as above apply.
A practical structure that works well for drafting these notes is: first, explain the background and reason for the change; second, set out the affected line items and the amounts; third, confirm whether retrospective application has been applied and, if not, explain why. That structure makes it easy for auditors, senior management and other readers to follow the logic without getting lost in dense technical language.
7. Closing Thoughts: A Framework You Can Actually Use
The next time you encounter a proposed change in accounting method — whether it involves depreciation, revenue recognition, or the adoption of a new standard — the following questions give you a reliable path through:
- Is there an applicable HKFRS? If yes, follow it. If not, work through the hierarchy to find a principled basis.
- What type of change is this? Is it a genuine accounting policy change, a revision of estimates, or simply the first time this type of transaction has come up?
- If it is a policy change, can it be applied retrospectively? Is there a specific transition provision to follow? If retrospective application is not feasible, what is the earliest practical date, and is that conclusion properly supported?
- What do users of the financial statements need to know? Does the disclosure clearly explain what changed, why it changed, and what the impact is on comparability?
HKAS 8’s accounting policy framework is not about memorising rules. It is a thinking structure that helps you navigate complex situations while maintaining consistency and transparency — the qualities that make financial statements trustworthy in the first place.
Key Takeaways for Students and Junior Accountants
- The hierarchy matters. When selecting an accounting policy, always start with whether a specific HKFRS already covers the transaction. If it does, that standard governs your choice. Only when there is no applicable guidance do you work through the hierarchy of analogous standards, the Conceptual Framework, and industry practice.
- Policy change vs. new transaction: don’t confuse the two. One of the most common mistakes — in both exams and real work — is treating a first-time policy selection for a new type of transaction as if it were a change in accounting policy. They are not the same thing, and the accounting treatment is entirely different.
- Retrospective application is the default — but impracticability is a real exception. In exams, always state that retrospective application is required, then address whether impracticability applies. In practice, if you are raising impracticability as a justification, make sure you have the file evidence to support it.
- When reviewing disclosures in financial statements, check that the notes for any policy change clearly explain: (a) what changed and why, (b) the quantitative impact on key line items, and (c) how prior periods have been restated — or, if they haven’t, why not.
- In working papers, whenever you see a change in how numbers are computed, document your analysis of whether it represents a policy change, an estimate change, or simply a new transaction. That classification determines everything about how the change is reflected and disclosed.
- For exam technique: a strong answer on HKAS 8 / IAS 8 will always (i) correctly classify the type of change, (ii) state the correct accounting treatment, and (iii) identify the key disclosure requirements — all supported by brief reasoning. Practice applying this structure to different scenarios.
If this article was helpful, you’re very welcome to subscribe to my Substack for free:
- All full articles are published on my website first.
- Whenever I finish a mini‑series on a standard, I’ll send one email that pulls the whole series together and links everything in one place, so you can revise without hunting around.
- I occasionally share small, practical tips from real‑life accounting work.
- When I release new PDF notes, in‑depth case studies or paid content in the future, email subscribers will be the first to know.
If you’d like to ask me questions or chat about your learning, you can follow me on Threads / IG and send me a DM — I’ll reply as far as I can.
And if you feel these resources have helped you, you can also buy me a coffee to support me in writing more.
罔相心室: https://chinese.iamdelusionman.com/
Zero-to-Acct Substack: https://zerotoacct.substack.com/
Thread: https://www.threads.com/@yickki_mong
IG: https://www.instagram.com/yickki_mong/
