Key Points
- A present obligation can be legal (arising from a contract or statute) or constructive (arising from the entity's own established practices or announcements).
- The obligation must exist at the reporting date; a management decision alone does not create one unless it has been communicated to affected parties.
- IAS 37.15 treats the probability of outflow as a separate criterion, so identifying the present obligation comes first and measuring likelihood comes second.
- Failing to identify a present obligation means the provision is never recognised, which understates liabilities and overstates profit in the period.
What is Present Obligation?
Year-end file review. The client's lawyers confirm a pending environmental claim and the board minutes reference a restructuring announcement, but the provisions note hasn't changed from PY. Somewhere in that gap sits a present obligation the team hasn't tested yet.
IAS 37.17 calls a past event that gives rise to a present obligation an obligating event. The event must leave the entity with no realistic alternative to settling. If the entity can still avoid the future expenditure through its own actions (cancelling a plan before communicating it, for example), no present obligation exists yet. This "no realistic alternative" test is where most of the judgment sits on real engagements.
IAS 37 splits present obligations into two types. A legal obligation derives from a contract or from legislation. A constructive obligation derives from the entity's actions: an established pattern of past practice, published policies, a sufficiently specific current statement, or some combination of these that creates a valid expectation in other parties ( IAS 37.10 ). Both types carry equal weight under IAS 37.14 . Under ISA 540.13 (a), the auditor evaluates whether the entity correctly identified the obligation type and whether the evidence supports its existence at the reporting date. When the obligation is constructive, that evidence is harder to pin down because it rests on behaviour and communications rather than a signed document.
Worked example: Rossi Alimentari S.p.A.
Client: Italian food production company. FY2025, revenue €67M, IFRS reporter. Rossi operates a tomato processing plant in Campania. In October 2025, a regional environmental authority inspection finds soil contamination from wastewater discharge at the plant. Italian law requires the polluter to remediate contaminated land. Rossi's environmental consultant estimates the remediation cost at €2.8M, with work expected to span 18 months.
Step 1. Identify the obligating event
Wastewater discharge that caused contamination is the past event. Italian environmental legislation (Decreto Legislativo 152/2006) imposes a legal duty on the polluter to remediate. Rossi has no realistic alternative to settling; the regulatory order is enforceable by the regional authority.
Step 2. Classify the obligation type
This is a legal obligation. It arises from legislation, not from Rossi's voluntary conduct or past practice. IAS 37.10 is satisfied through the legal limb.
Step 3. Confirm the obligation is present at the reporting date
Contamination occurred before 31 December 2025, and the regulatory notice was issued in October 2025. A legal duty to remediate exists at the balance sheet date. IAS 37.17 is met.
Step 4. Measure and recognise the provision
Best estimate from the environmental consultant is €2.8M. Because the remediation spans 18 months, Rossi discounts the expected cash flows at a pre-tax rate of 4.1% (based on Italian government bond yields adjusted for the obligation's risk profile), producing a present value of €2.63M. Rossi recognises a provision of €2.63M at 31 December 2025 under IAS 37.36 and IAS 37.45 .
Conclusion: the €2.63M provision is defensible. The present obligation rests on enforceable legislation, and the obligating event predates the reporting date. An independent environmental consultant's assessment, tied to the regulatory order's scope, supports the estimate.
Why it matters in practice
Teams sometimes treat a board decision to restructure as sufficient evidence of a present obligation without checking whether the plan has been communicated to those affected. IAS 37.72 (b) requires a valid expectation to exist in the affected parties before a constructive obligation arises. A confidential board resolution at year-end doesn't create one, regardless of how detailed it is. Nobody enjoys pushing back on the EP's client when the board minutes look conclusive, but this is exactly the point where files get flagged in cold review.
We've also seen teams conflate the "present obligation" test with the "probable outflow" test, skipping straight to measurement. That's a SALY trap. IAS 37.14 lists three separate criteria: present obligation, probable outflow, reliable estimate, and satisfaction of each one in sequence. An entity may have a present obligation where the outflow is only possible (not probable). In that case, the correct treatment is disclosure as a contingent liability under IAS 37.27 , not recognition of a provision.
Present obligation vs. future obligation
| Dimension | Present obligation | Future obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Timing test | Obligating event has occurred before the reporting date | Obligating event has not yet occurred; depends on the entity's future actions or future events |
| IAS 37 treatment | Recognised as a provision if outflow is probable and amount is estimable ( IAS 37.14 ) | Not recognised and not disclosed; no past event means no liability exists |
| Common audit trap | Failing to identify a constructive obligation where the entity's communications have created a valid expectation before year-end | Recognising a provision for a cost that depends on a future management decision (such as a planned plant upgrade that has not yet been committed to) |
| Evidence required | Contract, legislation, regulatory order, staff communications, pattern of past practice | No evidence required because no obligation exists yet |
This distinction matters because management sometimes presents future spending plans as existing obligations. A planned factory refurbishment isn't a present obligation until the entity enters a binding contract or communicates a sufficiently specific commitment that creates a constructive obligation (we've seen this happen on maybe one in ten engagements). Test the boundary by asking whether the entity could avoid the expenditure through its own future actions ( IAS 37.19 ). If the answer is yes, no present obligation exists.
Related terms
Related tools
Related reading
Frequently asked questions
How do I determine whether a present obligation exists at year-end?
Trace backwards from the reporting date to identify the obligating event. If the event that creates the duty occurred before year-end and the entity has no realistic alternative to settling, a present obligation exists per IAS 37.17. For constructive obligations, verify that the entity communicated its intentions to affected parties before the balance sheet date. The evidence is typically a contract, a statute, a board resolution paired with external communication, or a documented pattern of honouring similar commitments.
Can a present obligation exist if there is no legal requirement?
Yes. IAS 37.10 recognises constructive obligations alongside legal ones. If an entity has an established practice of paying ex gratia redundancy above the statutory minimum, and employees have a valid expectation of receiving it, the entity has a present obligation even though no law compels the payment. The auditor tests existence by examining past precedent and current communications under ISA 500.
Does a present obligation disappear if the entity plans to contest a claim?
Not automatically. IAS 37.15 requires the entity to assess whether, taking account of all available evidence, it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at the reporting date. An intention to contest does not eliminate the obligation; it affects the probability of outflow. If legal counsel confirms the obligation exists but the entity believes it can successfully defend, the obligation is still present. The entity then assesses whether outflow is probable or only possible (or remote).