IFRS for SMEs vs Full IFRS: Key Differences That Affect the Audit

Who can use the IFRS for SMEs?

The eligibility criterion is public accountability, not size. An entity without public accountability can use the IFRS for SMEs regardless of revenue, headcount, or asset base. An entity has public accountability if its debt or equity instruments trade in a public market, or if it holds assets in a fiduciary capacity for a broad group of outsiders (banks, insurers, pension funds, broker-dealers).

A subsidiary of a listed parent can use the IFRS for SMEs in its own separate financial statements, provided the subsidiary itself doesn’t have public accountability. But that subsidiary’s figures must convert to full IFRS for the group consolidation. If you’re auditing both levels, you’re applying two different frameworks to the same underlying transactions.

How the third edition changes the comparison

In February 2025, the IASB issued the third edition of the IFRS for SMEs, effective for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027. Early adoption is permitted. Minimising differences from full IFRS while keeping the standard simpler was the stated goal.

Revenue recognition saw the largest alignment: Section 23 now follows the IFRS 15 five-step model (with simplifications). Financial instruments (Sections 11 and 12 merged, partial alignment with IFRS 9, IAS 39 option removed), business combinations (Section 19 aligned with IFRS 3, contingent consideration at fair value, acquisition costs expensed), and consolidated financial statements (control definition aligned with IFRS 10) also narrowed the gap.

One area the IASB chose not to align: IFRS 16 Leases. The IFRS for SMEs retains the IAS 17 operating/finance lease classification. The IASB deferred this to the next review, which won’t happen before 2028 at the earliest. For the auditor, this means the lease accounting difference will persist for at least four more years.

The decision framework: where does it matter on the file?

Not every difference between the two frameworks produces a different number on the financial statements. Some differences are disclosure-only. Some are measurement differences that wash out over the life of the asset or liability. The differences that create audit risk are the ones that change recognition, measurement, or both, in a way that could produce a material misstatement if the wrong framework is applied.

For a typical mid-tier non-financial SME client, the differences concentrate in four areas. Leases produce the largest balance sheet difference for any client with significant operating leases under IAS 17 that would be capitalised under IFRS 16. Financial instruments produce differences in impairment (incurred loss vs expected credit loss), classification, and hedge accounting. Revenue produces differences in timing and allocation for contracts with multiple deliverables. Goodwill produces a permanent difference because the IFRS for SMEs requires amortisation while full IFRS requires annual impairment testing only.

If the client has no material leases, simple receivables, straightforward product sales, and no goodwill, the two frameworks will produce nearly identical financial statements. The differences are concentrated, not pervasive.

Leases: the biggest remaining difference

Under the IFRS for SMEs (Section 20), a lease is classified as operating or finance based on whether substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership transfer to the lessee. This is the IAS 17 test. An operating lease stays off the balance sheet. Only the lease payments appear in profit or loss.

Under full IFRS (IFRS 16), that distinction is gone for lessees. Every lease above the short-term and low-value thresholds produces a right-of-use asset and lease liability on the balance sheet. The effect on a client with material property and vehicle leases can be significant. A logistics company with €500,000 in annual operating lease payments over a 5-year term would show approximately €2.2M in additional assets and liabilities under IFRS 16 (at a 4% discount rate) that simply don’t exist under the IFRS for SMEs.

This difference affects financial ratios. Debt-to-equity ratios increase. Return on assets decreases. Clients that are close to bank covenant thresholds should understand which framework their covenants reference. If the covenant references “IFRS” without specifying which framework, the bank may interpret that as full IFRS. The financial ratio calculator can model both scenarios to test the impact.

When a client transitions from full IFRS to the IFRS for SMEs (or vice versa), the lease balances are the first area to recalculate. Going from IFRS 16 to SMEs means derecognising every right-of-use asset and lease liability for operating leases. Going the other direction means capitalising them all.

Financial instruments: partial alignment with IFRS 9

The third edition of the IFRS for SMEs merges the previous Sections 11 and 12 into a single financial instruments section. The classification and measurement principles now draw from IFRS 9, and the option to apply IAS 39 has been removed.

But the impairment model remains different. Full IFRS requires the IFRS 9 expected credit loss (ECL) model, which recognises losses based on forward-looking probability estimates from day one. The IFRS for SMEs retains an incurred loss model: losses are recognised only when objective evidence of impairment exists. For a client with a large trade receivables balance, this produces different provisions. The ECL model typically produces a higher provision because it captures losses that haven’t occurred yet but are statistically expected.

Hedge accounting also remains simplified under the IFRS for SMEs. The full IFRS 9 hedge accounting model permits hedging a wider range of risk components and applies a broader set of qualifying criteria. The IFRS for SMEs restricts hedging to specific instruments and specific risks, which may mean some hedging relationships that qualify under full IFRS don’t qualify under the SMEs standard.

Revenue: five-step model with simplifications

The third edition’s Section 23 now follows the IFRS 15 five-step model, which closes one of the largest historical gaps. But the IASB included simplifications.

The language is condensed and avoids some of the judgment-heavy application guidance in IFRS 15. Topics the IASB considered not relevant to most SMEs (licences of intellectual property, bill-and-hold arrangements, consignment arrangements) are omitted or addressed more briefly. Disclosure requirements are lighter than IFRS 15.113–129.

For most mid-tier SME clients with straightforward contracts, the revenue numbers under both frameworks will now be the same. The five-step model applies either way. The practical difference is in documentation: the IFRS for SMEs doesn’t require the same level of disaggregated revenue disclosure or the same volume of judgment disclosure that IFRS 15 demands. Your audit testing can focus on the recognition and measurement without needing to test a 15-paragraph disclosure note.

Where differences can still appear: variable consideration. IFRS 15 has detailed application guidance on constraining variable consideration estimates (IFRS 15.56–58). The IFRS for SMEs includes the constraint concept but with less prescriptive guidance. A client that applies the IFRS for SMEs constraint differently than they would under full IFRS 15 could arrive at a different transaction price.

Goodwill, intangibles, and other measurement differences

The IFRS for SMEs requires goodwill to be amortised over its useful life. If the useful life cannot be reliably estimated, Section 19 of the third edition uses a 10-year default. Full IFRS (IAS 36 and IFRS 3) prohibits amortisation and requires annual impairment testing instead.

This is a permanent difference, not a timing difference. Under the IFRS for SMEs, goodwill decreases to zero over the amortisation period (absent impairment). Under full IFRS, goodwill sits at its original amount until an impairment test triggers a write-down. For clients with material acquisitions, the balance sheet and profit or loss will differ every year.

Other measurement differences worth noting:

• The IFRS for SMEs permits only the cost model for property, plant, and equipment (no revaluation model)
• Borrowing costs can be expensed immediately (the SMEs standard doesn’t require capitalisation under IAS 23)
• Development costs under the IFRS for SMEs are expensed (no IAS 38 capitalisation option)
• Investment property can be measured at fair value through profit or loss only if fair value can be determined without undue cost or effort; otherwise, cost applies

For intangible assets, the IFRS for SMEs effectively prevents capitalising internally generated intangibles beyond development costs, and even those are expensed. A tech client that capitalises development costs under IAS 38 would expense them under the IFRS for SMEs. If the client is transitioning frameworks, this is an adjustment.

Worked example: Vermeer Vastgoed B.V.

Client scenario: Vermeer Vastgoed B.V. is a Leiden-based property management company with €22M annual revenue. Vermeer has been reporting under full IFRS and is considering switching to the IFRS for SMEs (third edition) from 1 January 2027. Vermeer has no public accountability. Its balance sheet includes: 8 office leases classified as right-of-use assets under IFRS 16 (total ROU assets: €3.1M, lease liabilities: €3.2M), trade receivables of €4.8M with an IFRS 9 ECL provision of €185,000, goodwill of €1.4M from a 2022 acquisition (no impairment to date under IAS 36), and capitalised development costs of €290,000 for a proprietary tenant portal.

1. Leases (Section 20 vs IFRS 16)

All 8 office leases were classified as operating leases under IAS 17 prior to IFRS 16 adoption. Under the IFRS for SMEs, they revert to operating lease treatment. Derecognise €3.1M in right-of-use assets and €3.2M in lease liabilities. The €100,000 net difference (liability exceeding asset due to front-loaded interest under IFRS 16) adjusts retained earnings.

2. Trade receivables impairment (Section 11 vs IFRS 9)

Vermeer’s IFRS 9 ECL provision of €185,000 was calculated using a provision matrix with forward-looking macroeconomic adjustments. Under the IFRS for SMEs incurred loss model, only receivables with objective evidence of impairment qualify for provisioning. Vermeer identifies €112,000 in receivables that are more than 90 days overdue with documented collection difficulties. The provision reduces from €185,000 to €112,000. Retained earnings adjustment: +€73,000.

3. Goodwill (Section 19 vs IAS 36/IFRS 3)

Goodwill of €1.4M has been carried at cost with annual impairment testing (no impairment identified). Under the IFRS for SMEs, goodwill must be amortised. Vermeer estimates a useful life of 8 years (based on the expected duration of the customer relationships acquired). Retrospective application: 5 years of amortisation from acquisition date to 1 January 2027. Annual amortisation: €175,000. Cumulative: €875,000. Adjusted goodwill balance: €525,000. Retained earnings adjustment: −€875,000.

4. Development costs

Capitalised development costs of €290,000 for the tenant portal are expensed under the IFRS for SMEs. Derecognise the intangible asset. Retained earnings adjustment: −€290,000 (net of any amortisation already charged).

Net impact on retained earnings: +€100,000 (leases) + €73,000 (receivables) − €875,000 (goodwill) − €290,000 (development costs) = −€992,000.

Practical checklist for your next engagement

1. Confirm the client’s eligibility for the IFRS for SMEs before accepting the engagement. Check for public accountability: traded instruments, fiduciary responsibilities. If the client is a subsidiary of a listed parent, confirm which framework applies to the subsidiary’s separate financial statements versus the group.
2. Identify the edition of the IFRS for SMEs the client is applying. The third edition is effective 1 January 2027 with early adoption permitted. If the client is still on the 2015 edition, the revenue and financial instruments rules are materially different from those in the third edition.
3. Map the client’s material balances against the key difference areas: leases, financial instruments, goodwill, intangible assets, borrowing costs, and investment property. If none of these balances are material, the framework difference is unlikely to produce audit risk.
4. For any client transitioning between frameworks, obtain or prepare a reconciliation of retained earnings showing each adjustment. Test the adjustments against the transition requirements in Section 35 (IFRS for SMEs) or IFRS 1 (first-time adoption of full IFRS).
5. Document which framework applies to the engagement and confirm your team knows the differences. A reviewer familiar only with full IFRS may challenge the absence of an ECL calculation or the lack of IFRS 16 lease capitalisation. Pre-empt this with a clear framework note at the front of the file.

Common mistakes

• Applying IFRS 16 lease capitalisation to an IFRS for SMEs engagement. The IFRS for SMEs retains the IAS 17 operating/finance distinction. This is the most common framework error on SME engagements, particularly when the team also works on full IFRS files.
• Using the IFRS 9 expected credit loss model when the IFRS for SMEs requires the incurred loss model. The third edition aligned classification and measurement with IFRS 9 but explicitly retained the incurred loss approach for impairment. Applying ECL to an SME client overstates the provision.

Related content

Related guides:

Put audit concepts into practice with these free tools:

Frequently asked questions