The date statements are authorised for issue

What the date a client's statements are authorised for issue means under IAS 10, why it closes the subsequent events window, and how to record it.

By Achekam · 11 October 2026 · 4 min read · For Accountants & audit firms in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya

Ask a client when its statements were "finished" and you may hear several dates: the day the trial balance closed, the day the draft went to the directors, the day the partner signed, the day the bank received them. Only one of those matters for IAS 10, and many small-company sets never record it clearly.

IAS 10's window

IAS 10 defines events after the reporting period as those events, favourable and unfavourable, that occur between the end of the reporting period and the date when the financial statements are authorised for issue. The window opens at year end and closes at authorisation.

Inside the window, IAS 10 sorts events into two kinds. Adjusting events provide evidence of conditions that existed at the end of the reporting period, and IAS 10 requires the amounts recognised in the statements to be adjusted for them. Non-adjusting events reflect conditions that arose after year end; the amounts are not adjusted, but IAS 10 prescribes disclosures when such events are material.

Once the window has closed, IAS 10 no longer asks the entity to reflect events in those statements. That is why the date matters: it fixes the last day on which new information has to be considered. How each kind of event is handled is explained in events after the reporting period.

Who authorises, and why the date is disclosed

IAS 10 also prescribes the disclosures an entity gives about the date the statements were authorised for issue. Readers need it to judge how far forward the statements looked. Someone reading a set authorised months after year end can expect later developments to have been considered, and can see when they were not.

For a company, authorisation normally comes from its directors, whether at a board meeting or by written resolution, and the directors' approval statement in the set is where the date is commonly recorded. Whatever the governance structure, the date disclosed should be the date the people with authority actually approved the statements for issue, not the date the accountant finished the draft.

Putting the approvals in order

Three approvals are often muddled:

A sensible order is that the client confirms the draft, the directors approve the final version with that date recorded in the statements, and the partner signs on the same version, usually on or soon after that date.

Gaps between the steps are where problems start. If the board approves and the partner signs a fortnight later, the firm still needs to consider what happened in between, and the board may need to approve again if anything changes. The practicalities of directors' approval are covered in directors signing statements electronically.

How Achekam binds the signature to one version

In Achekam, the client receives a link to a frozen copy of the draft statements, where they can comment, confirm or ask for changes, and their decision moves the set on or back. The link goes only to the client's authorised review contact, through the firm's own mail connector; if none is set up, nothing is sent and the record says so.

Each set names a preparer, a reviewer and an engagement partner. Only a user with a partner role can sign, and the person recorded as preparer or reviewer cannot issue it. In the Partner Signing Cockpit (Quality & Governance), the partner signs, and the signature is bound to that version's content hash. If the content changes, it becomes a different version. The cockpit asks the partner to confirm acceptance and independence, which are checked outside Achekam.

What Achekam records, then, is the client's confirmation and the partner's signature against one specific version. The directors' authorisation date is part of the statements' own content, and the firm should make sure the date shown is the date the directors actually gave their approval.

When something happens between client approval and signing

Suppose the client confirms the draft and, before the partner signs, a major customer goes into liquidation or the client loses a court case. The statements have not yet been authorised, so the event falls inside the IAS 10 window and has to be assessed:

1. Is it adjusting, giving evidence about conditions at year end, or non-adjusting?
2. If adjusting, the figures change: the set goes back, the amounts are corrected, and the client confirms again.
3. If non-adjusting but material, a disclosure is added, which is also a change to the content.
4. Either way, the version the partner finally signs is a new one, and the directors' approval and its date should follow that final version.

The workflow for changes at this late stage is set out in late changes after client approval.

The IFRS Foundation's summary of IAS 10 explains when statements must be adjusted for events after the reporting period and what must be disclosed about the authorisation date and non-adjusting events.

Record the authorisation date the moment it happens, in the minutes and in the statements. Reconstructing it later from e-mails is exactly the sort of uncertainty IAS 10 is designed to remove.

It also pays to agree the timetable with the client at the start of the engagement: when the draft will go for confirmation, when the board will meet, and when the partner expects to sign. A short gap between those dates keeps the window small and leaves fewer events to chase.

General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.