Background EITF 13-D was initially raised by the FASB on May 30, 2013, and discussed the issue of how to account for the terms of a share-based payment award. The issue revolved around the discussion of how performance objectives influence the accounting for share-based payments. The EITF has debated whether to allow employees to earn their bonuses even if the performance goal is met after completion of the required service (McArthur). Previously, performance conditions were not reflected in estimating the fair value of the award at the grant date, but other unvested conditions were considered in deciding the fair value. Additionally, EITF 13-D addressed the fact that ASC 718 (Equity-Based Compensation) did not specify that employees, except those eligible for retirement, must provide service once the performance goal is achieved. These emerging concerns reveal some flaws that currently exist in our accounting system. Last month, the Task Force finally reached a consensus on the main issue. In the conclusion we will present the final agreement and related business-related transitions. Before that, we will explain in detail the three different points of view on the main issue. View A in this issue details the first approach to accounting for a performance objective. From this perspective, a performance goal is synonymous with a performance condition as it will affect maturation. Therefore, an entity will not have the granted ability to record compensation costs until it is very likely that the performance objective will be achieved (Prince). Currently, a performance condition does not specify whether or not an employee must provide the current service when the performance objective is finally achieved (FASB, 13-D Issue Summary No. 1). For ... half the document. .....ter period of required service, allow the cost of compensation to be recognized when the objective is likely to be achieved, even if this occurs after the employee has completed the required service. The non-vesting approach takes into account the probability of achieving the performance objective when determining the fair value of the awards. The cost of the compensation is recognized for the entire period of service requested, regardless of the actual performance objective. The liability approach was proposed last year, but was denied because it did not comply with cash settlement. Recently the Task Force has come to an agreement to follow the performance conditions approach and apply a prospective transition approach to adapt to new updates (Althoff). However, multinationals need to be aware of the discrepancy between IFRS standards, which favor the non-vesting approach.