IASB Refused Proposals on Goodwill Accounting The IASB's deliberations on goodwill subsequent measurement under IFRS 3 Business Combinations have been iterative, with several proposals rejected in favor of retaining the impairment-only model established in 2004. No comprehensive "refused filings" archive exists as a single docket, but meeting minutes, exposure drafts, and post-implementation reviews document key rejections. The primary refused proposal centers on reintroducing systematic amortization, which was debated extensively but ultimately dismissed for conceptual and practical reasons. Core Refusal: Reintroduction of Amortization (2018–2023): Following the 2015–2018 post-implementation review of IFRS 3, which highlighted criticisms of delayed impairment recognition (e.g., "big bath" accounting and optimistic projections), the IASB issued a 2020 Discussion Paper exploring amortization over 10 years or a rebuttable presumption of 20 years. Stakeholder feedback (over 150 letters) was mixed, with preparers citing increased volatility and costs, while users advocated for it to curb earnings management. In November 2022, the IASB unanimously voted to reject amortization, affirming the impairment-only approach as superior for indefinite-lived assets. This was formalized in the March 2024 Exposure Draft Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment, which instead proposed enhancements to IAS 36 Impairment of Assets (e.g., smaller cash-generating units to reduce "shielding" and mandatory sensitivity disclosures) without altering the core model. Comments closed in July 2024, with redeliberations ongoing into 2025; final amendments are expected by late 2026. Other Historical Rejections: Earlier, the 1998 revision of IAS 22 proposed capping amortization at 20 years but was superseded by IFRS 3's full pivot to impairment in 2004, rejecting finite-life presumptions amid convergence with U.S. GAAP. No recent (2023–2025) proposals for reversal of impairments or hybrid models have advanced, as they contradict IAS 36's non-reversibility principle. These decisions reflect a balance of evidence from empirical studies showing amortization's arbitrariness, though critics argue they perpetuate balance sheet inflation.