
National Atomic Company Kazatomprom JSC
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements – 31 December 2022
31
4 Critical Accounting Estimates and Judgements in Applying Accounting Policies (Continued)
Control over DP Ortalyk LLP (judgement)
On 22 July 2021 the Group completed the sale of a 49% interest in DP Ortalyk LLP (Note 39). The Group retains a
51% ownership interest and majority voting rights in the Supervisory Board of that entity. Sales activities of DP Ortalyk
LLP are governed by the Marketing agreement, any amendments to which would require consent by both owners. The
Group governs production activity within the 20% limit permitted by law through its power to approve the entity’s budget
by simple majority vote. Decisions about financing of DP Ortalyk LLP are made by unanimous consent of both owners.
Сurrently, DP Ortalyk LLP does not rely on shareholders’ or external financing. All production volumes are committed
to be purchased by the Group and the minority shareholder based upon market prices. Production volumes and costs
have a significant impact on financial results and are considered to be the most relevant activities for the purpose of
the control assessment. Based on these facts, the Group management has concluded that the Group retains control
over DP Ortalyk LLP.
5 Adoption of New or Revised Standards and Interpretations
The following amendments became effective from 1 January 2022, but did not have any material impact on the Group:
Proceeds before intended use, Onerous contracts – cost of fulfilling a contract, Reference to the Conceptual
Framework – narrow scope amendments to IAS 16, IAS 37 and IFRS 3, and Annual Improvements to IFRSs
2018-2020 – amendments to IFRS 1, IFRS 9, IFRS 16 and IAS 41 (issued on 14 May 2020 and effective for annual
periods beginning on or after 1 January 2022).
• The amendment to IAS 16 prohibits an entity from deducting from the cost of an item of PPE any proceeds received
from selling items produced while the entity is preparing the asset for its intended use. The proceeds from selling
such items, together with the costs of producing them, are now recognised in profit or loss. An entity will use IAS
2 to measure the cost of those items. Cost will not include depreciation of the asset being tested because it is not
ready for its intended use. The amendment to IAS 16 also clarifies that an entity is ‘testing whether the asset is
functioning properly’ when it assesses the technical and physical performance of the asset. The financial
performance of the asset is not relevant to this assessment. An asset might therefore be capable of operating as
intended by management and subject to depreciation before it has achieved the level of operating performance
expected by management.
• The amendment to IAS 37 clarifies the meaning of ‘costs to fulfil a contract’. The amendment explains that the
direct cost of fulfilling a contract comprises the incremental costs of fulfilling that contract; and an allocation of other
costs that relate directly to fulfilling. The amendment also clarifies that, before a separate provision for an onerous
contract is established, an entity recognises any impairment loss that has occurred on assets used in fulfilling the
contract, rather than on assets dedicated to that contract.
• IFRS 3 was amended to refer to the 2018 Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, in order to determine
what constitutes an asset or a liability in a business combination. Prior to the amendment, IFRS 3 referred to the
2001 Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. In addition, a new exception in IFRS 3 was added for
liabilities and contingent liabilities. The exception specifies that, for some types of liabilities and contingent
liabilities, an entity applying IFRS 3 should instead refer to IAS 37 or IFRIC 21, rather than the 2018 Conceptual
Framework. Without this new exception, an entity would have recognised some liabilities in a business
combination that it would not recognise under IAS 37. Therefore, immediately after the acquisition, the entity would
have had to derecognise such liabilities and recognise a gain that did not depict an economic gain. It was also
clarified that the acquirer should not recognise contingent assets, as defined in IAS 37, at the acquisition date.
• The amendment to IFRS 9 addresses which fees should be included in the 10% test for derecognition of financial
liabilities. Costs or fees could be paid to either third parties or the lender. Under the amendment, costs or fees paid
to third parties will not be included in the 10% test.
• Illustrative Example 13 that accompanies IFRS 16 was amended to remove the illustration of payments from the
lessor relating to leasehold improvements. The reason for the amendment is to remove any potential confusion
about the treatment of lease incentives.
• IFRS 1 allows an exemption if a subsidiary adopts IFRS at a later date than its parent. The subsidiary can measure
its assets and liabilities at the carrying amounts that would be included in its parent’s consolidated financial
statements, based on the parent’s date of transition to IFRS, if no adjustments were made for consolidation
procedures and for the effects of the business combination in which the parent acquired the subsidiary. IFRS 1
was amended to allow entities that have taken this IFRS 1 exemption to also measure cumulative translation
differences using the amounts reported by the parent, based on the parent’s date of transition to IFRS. The
amendment to IFRS 1 extends the above exemption to cumulative translation differences, in order to reduce costs
for first-time adopters. This amendment will also apply to associates and joint ventures that have taken the same
IFRS 1 exemption.
• The requirement for entities to exclude cash flows for taxation when measuring fair value under IAS 41 was
removed. This amendment is intended to align with the requirement in the standard to discount cash flows on a
post-tax basis.