How Should Cryptocurrencies Be Accounted for in Financial Statements Under IFRS?

Why Does Cryptocurrency Accounting Raise Questions Under IFRS?

Cryptocurrency has moved from a niche speculative asset to something increasingly held by businesses, and no single IFRS standard was written specifically to address it. This leaves businesses and their auditors needing to work through several existing standards to determine the correct classification, measurement, and disclosure treatment for crypto-assets held on the balance sheet.

The core question businesses need to answer is not simply “how do we record this,” but which existing IFRS standard actually applies given the specific way the asset is held and used. The answer differs depending on whether the holder is trading the asset, using it as a medium of exchange, or holding it as a long-term investment.

What Is a Crypto-Asset?

A cryptocurrency is a decentralized digital currency with no physical form and no central issuing authority. Transactions are recorded using blockchain technology, a distributed ledger system that records transactions across multiple computers rather than a single central ledger, with transactions encrypted throughout. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the most widely recognized examples, though numerous other cryptocurrencies exist with varying structures and use cases.

Crypto-assets are generally treated as assets by holders because they represent a resource the holder controls, with the potential for future economic benefit through use, sale, or exchange. Beyond currency-style tokens, crypto-assets can also take the form of tokens that entitle the holder to future goods or services upon redemption, which affects how they should be accounted for.

Also Check: Accounting and Bookkeeping Services in the UAE

How Is the Accounting Nature of a Crypto-Asset Determined?

The correct accounting treatment for a crypto-asset depends primarily on how the holder uses it, not on the nature of the asset alone. An issuer of a token may treat the tokens it creates as inventory. A holder using crypto-assets purely as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services may look to cash-equivalent treatment, though this treatment is rarely appropriate under current IFRS guidance, as explained below. A holder trading crypto-assets as part of an active trading business may apply inventory treatment under IAS 2, while a holder retaining crypto-assets as a longer-term store of value typically applies intangible asset treatment under IAS 38.

Because crypto-assets often carry unusual terms and conditions depending on the specific token, the holder needs to evaluate those terms carefully to determine which IFRS or IAS standard applies, and where no standard clearly fits, to apply the hierarchy for developing an accounting policy under IAS 8.

Is Cryptocurrency Cash or a Cash Equivalent Under IFRS?

Cryptocurrency does not meet the IFRS definition of cash. Per the IFRS Interpretations Committee’s agenda decision on the topic, cryptocurrency lacks the characteristics of cash because it is not a generally accepted medium of exchange that can be readily exchanged for goods or services on the same basis as government-issued currency, and it is not backed by a central authority. Simply holding cryptocurrency does not, on its own, qualify it for cash or cash equivalent treatment on the balance sheet.

Is Cryptocurrency a Financial Instrument Under IFRS 9?

Cryptocurrency generally does not meet the definition of a financial asset under IFRS 9 or IAS 32. To qualify as a financial asset, an instrument needs to be cash, an equity instrument of another entity, or a contractual right to receive cash or another financial asset from another party. Cryptocurrency typically fails all three tests: it is not cash, it does not represent an equity interest in an issuing entity, and holding it does not create a contractual right to receive cash or another financial asset from a counterparty.

As a result, IFRS 9 does not generally apply to cryptocurrency holdings. This is an important distinction, since it rules out fair-value-through-profit-or-loss treatment under IFRS 9 as a default classification and pushes the analysis toward either IAS 2 or IAS 38 instead.

When Does IAS 2 Inventory Treatment Apply to Cryptocurrency?

According to the IFRS Interpretations Committee, IAS 2 applies where cryptocurrency is held for sale in the ordinary course of business. Physical form is not a requirement for inventory classification under IAS 2. What matters is whether the asset is held with the intention of sale in the normal course of trading activity.

Where IAS 2 applies, the entity generally measures the cryptocurrency at the lower of cost or net realizable value, in line with paragraph 9 of IAS 2. An exception exists for commodity broker-traders under the exemption in paragraph 3(b) of IAS 2, which allows measurement at fair value less costs to sell for entities that meet the specific broker-trader criteria.

Also Check: Accounting Review Services

When Does IAS 38 Intangible Asset Treatment Apply to Cryptocurrency?

Where cryptocurrency is not held for sale in the ordinary course of business, IAS 38, the Intangible Assets standard, generally applies instead. Under this treatment, cryptocurrency is recognized as an intangible asset, typically measured at cost less accumulated amortization and impairment, unless the entity elects the revaluation model where an active market exists for the specific asset held.

This distinction between IAS 2 and IAS 38 treatment is one of the most consequential classification decisions a holder makes, since it affects whether gains and losses are recognized through profit or loss on an ongoing basis or only on disposal or impairment.

What Disclosure Requirements Apply Under IAS 1 and IFRS 13?

Under IAS 1, Presentation of Financial Statements, entities are required to disclose the significant judgments management has made in determining the accounting treatment applied to crypto-assets held, particularly where those judgments had a significant effect on the amounts recognized in the financial statements.

Where an entity measures crypto-asset inventory at fair value less costs to sell under the broker-trader exemption, IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement, sets out the applicable disclosure requirements connected to that fair value measurement, including the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine fair value.

What Happens When No Existing Standard Clearly Applies?

Where none of the standards discussed above fit the specific facts of how a crypto-asset is held, an entity develops its own accounting policy under the hierarchy set out in IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. This generally means looking to the requirements and guidance in IFRS standards dealing with similar issues, then to the IASB’s Conceptual Framework, before considering other accounting frameworks and accepted industry practice.

This scenario is more common with newer or more structurally unusual token types than with widely held cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, where accounting practice has become comparatively more settled.

What Practical Difficulties Arise in Crypto-Asset Accounting?

Businesses accounting for crypto-assets face several recurring practical challenges. The pace of development in the crypto-asset space means accounting teams need to stay current on how new token structures and use cases affect existing classification analysis, rather than assuming last year’s treatment automatically still applies.

Individual crypto-assets can carry a mixture of characteristics that make consistent classification difficult, particularly for tokens that combine features of a currency, a security, and a utility token within a single instrument. The price volatility characteristic of many cryptocurrencies also makes determining a reliable fair value more difficult than for most conventional assets, and because no single IFRS standard was written specifically for crypto-assets, businesses and their auditors need to apply general accounting principles and available interpretive guidance carefully rather than relying on a single definitive rule.

How Does UAE Regulation Intersect With Crypto-Asset Accounting?

Businesses in the UAE dealing in virtual assets should be aware that the accounting treatment discussed above is separate from the regulatory registration and licensing requirements that may apply under VARA, the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, which governs virtual asset activities across its jurisdiction and, through recognition arrangements, extends its remit more broadly across the UAE. Meeting VARA’s regulatory requirements does not determine the correct IFRS accounting treatment for crypto-assets held, and the two should be assessed as separate compliance questions.

How Is Impairment Assessed for Crypto-Assets Held as Intangibles?

Where cryptocurrency is classified as an intangible asset under IAS 38, it remains subject to the impairment requirements that apply to intangible assets generally. Given the price volatility characteristic of most cryptocurrencies, holders need to assess for indicators of impairment at each reporting date rather than treating the asset as a static, low-maintenance holding.

A significant and sustained decline in the market price of the cryptocurrency below its carrying amount is a common trigger for an impairment review. Unlike some other intangible assets, subsequent reversal of an impairment loss is not permitted under the cost model, which means a holder that recognizes an impairment loss during a price downturn cannot simply reverse that loss if the price later recovers, unless the entity has elected the revaluation model and an active market exists to support it.

Worked Example: Classifying a Crypto-Asset Holding

Consider a UAE trading company that holds three types of crypto-assets: Bitcoin purchased and held as a long-term treasury reserve, Bitcoin actively bought and sold as part of a dedicated trading desk, and a smaller holding of a newly issued utility token that entitles holders to discounted access to a third party’s software platform.

The Bitcoin held as a long-term treasury reserve does not meet the definition of cash or a financial asset, and is not held for sale in the ordinary course of business, so IAS 38 intangible asset treatment applies, generally measured at cost less impairment unless an active market supports the revaluation model. The Bitcoin held by the trading desk, by contrast, is held for sale in the ordinary course of business, which brings it within IAS 2, measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value, or at fair value less costs to sell if the trading desk qualifies for the commodity broker-trader exemption. The utility token does not fit neatly into either category, since it functions more like a prepaid right to a future service than a currency or a trading inventory item, which means the company would need to assess whether prepayment asset treatment or another classification under the IAS 8 hierarchy better reflects the substance of what was actually purchased.

This example illustrates why crypto-asset accounting cannot be resolved with a single blanket policy. The same reporting entity can hold economically similar-looking tokens that nonetheless require entirely different accounting treatment based on how each holding is actually used.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How Farahat & Co. Can Help

Farahat & Co. supports UAE businesses with crypto-asset accounting classification, IFRS-compliant financial statement preparation, and audit services for businesses holding or trading digital assets.

Contact Farahat & Co. today to discuss your cryptocurrency accounting requirements.