IFRS 16 vs IAS 17: What Changed, What Stayed and Why the Balance Sheet Exploded
Author
Sai Manikanta Pedamallu
Published
Reading Time
17 min read
Table of Contents
IFRS 16 vs IAS 17: What Changed, What Stayed and Why the Balance Sheet Exploded
By Sai Manikanta Pedamallu (ACCA, CMA US, CSCA US, CGMA, ACMA, Dip IFRS, M.Com, MBA, MA)
Lead Instructor, Global Fin X | www.globalfinx.in/manikanta
IAS 17 had a fundamental structural problem. It let lessees classify leases as either finance or operating, and if a lease was operating, nothing appeared on the balance sheet. Just a note disclosure. Analysts at credit rating agencies and investment banks routinely added back estimated operating lease obligations to get a true picture of leverage. They were doing manually what the balance sheet should have shown automatically.
The IASB estimated that listed companies using IFRS or US GAAP held roughly $3.3 trillion in lease commitments at the time IFRS 16 was being developed, with more than 85% of that kept off the balance sheet. That number did not represent unknown information. It was in the notes. The problem was that it required reconstruction, and different analysts made different assumptions. IFRS 16 forced the reconstruction onto the face of the financial statements.
This post compares IAS 17 and IFRS 16 across every dimension that changed: lessee classification, income statement presentation, financial ratios, cash flow classification, lessor accounting, and the transition. It also identifies what genuinely stayed the same.
The Core Change: From Two Lessee Models to One
IAS 17 gave lessees two accounting models and required them to choose based on whether the lease transferred substantially all risks and rewards of ownership.
Finance lease: transfer occurred. Asset and liability on the balance sheet. Depreciation and interest in the income statement. Identical in principle to buying the asset on credit.
Operating lease: transfer did not occur. Nothing on the balance sheet. Single straight-line expense in the income statement. Off balance sheet.
The classification decision was judgment-driven and the line was blurry. IFRS 16 eliminated the judgment for lessees entirely. Almost every lease goes on the balance sheet. The only exceptions are short-term leases and low-value asset leases, which are elective policy choices, not classification outcomes.
The right-of-use asset and lease liability appear for what previously would have been operating leases. The accounting treatment for what previously would have been finance leases is broadly unchanged: asset on balance sheet, depreciated over the shorter of useful life and lease term; liability at amortised cost using the effective interest method.
Master Comparison Table
| Area | IAS 17 (Lessee) | IFRS 16 (Lessee) |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | Finance or operating, based on risks and rewards | Single model: all leases on balance sheet (with two narrow exemptions) |
| Balance sheet: operating lease | No asset or liability | ROU asset and lease liability recognised |
| Balance sheet: finance lease | Asset and liability recognised | Same |
| Income statement: operating lease | Single straight-line expense | Depreciation (ROU asset) + finance cost (lease liability) |
| Income statement: finance lease | Depreciation + finance cost | Same |
| EBITDA: operating lease | Lease expense included (reduces EBITDA) | Depreciation and finance cost excluded from EBITDA (increases EBITDA) |
| Total P&L over lease life | Same total cost | Same total cost |
| P&L timing | Straight-line operating lease expense, even each year | Front-loaded: higher charges in early years, lower in later years |
| Operating cash flow | Lease payments included in operating activities | Only interest portion (if presented as operating) in operating activities; principal repayment in financing activities |
| Financing cash flow | No lease payments | Principal repayment of lease liability |
| Definition of a lease | Transfer of right to use an asset | Same concept; additional detailed guidance on identified asset and substitution rights |
| Short-term exemption | Not available | Available by class of asset |
| Low-value exemption | Not available | Available asset by asset |
| Lessor: operating lease | Asset on lessor's balance sheet, straight-line income | Same |
| Lessor: finance lease | Net investment recognised, finance income | Same |
| Sale and leaseback: operating | Off balance sheet for seller-lessee; full gain sometimes recognised | Always on balance sheet; partial gain only |
| Sublease classification | Based on underlying asset | Based on ROU asset |
Why EBITDA Improved: The Income Statement Mechanics
This is the ratio effect that surprised many analysts most when IFRS 16 was adopted.
Under IAS 17, an operating lease produced one line: operating lease expense. That expense sat above EBITDA. It reduced EBITDA. A retailer paying Rs. 100 crore in annual operating lease rents had Rs. 100 crore reducing its EBITDA each year.
Under IFRS 16, those same rents disappear from operating expenses. Instead, the income statement shows depreciation of the ROU asset and finance cost on the lease liability. Depreciation is added back when calculating EBITDA (as it is a non-cash charge). Finance cost sits below EBIT. Neither reduces EBITDA.
For the retailer above: if the ROU asset depreciates at Rs. 90 crore per year and finance cost is Rs. 15 crore per year, EBITDA improves by Rs. 100 crore (the old rent expense disappears) and is then reduced by zero from the new charges (neither depreciation nor finance cost touches EBITDA). EBITDA increases by Rs. 100 crore purely from the accounting change, with no change in the underlying business.
Research on real adoption data found that EBITDA increased by approximately 16 to 17% on average across companies that transitioned from IAS 17 operating leases to IFRS 16. For lease-intensive industries, the increase was substantially higher.
This EBITDA inflation is mechanical, not economic. The cash flows are identical. The same rent is paid in both periods. Analysts comparing pre-2019 and post-2019 EBITDA for companies with significant operating leases must adjust. EV/EBITDA multiples are not directly comparable across the IAS 17 and IFRS 16 periods without adjustment.
The Front-Loading Effect
Total P&L charges over a lease's full life are identical under IAS 17 and IFRS 16. This is worth stating directly: IFRS 16 does not increase the total cost of leasing. It changes when the cost is recognised.
Under IAS 17 operating lease: Rs. 12 crore per year, straight-line, for five years = Rs. 60 crore total.
Under IFRS 16 for the same lease: depreciation is Rs. 9.40 crore per year (flat). Finance cost starts at Rs. 4.20 crore in Year 1 and falls to Rs. 0.99 crore in Year 5 as the lease liability reduces. Total P&L charges by year:
| Year | Depreciation (Rs. Cr) | Finance Cost (Rs. Cr) | Total (Rs. Cr) | IAS 17 Expense (Rs. Cr) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.40 | 4.20 | 13.60 | 12.00 |
| 2 | 9.40 | 3.50 | 12.90 | 12.00 |
| 3 | 9.40 | 2.73 | 12.13 | 12.00 |
| 4 | 9.40 | 1.90 | 11.30 | 12.00 |
| 5 | 9.40 | 0.99 | 10.39 | 12.00 |
| Total | 47.00 | 13.32 | 60.32 | 60.00 |
The small difference from Rs. 60 crore is rounding on the present value calculation. Total cost is the same. Year 1 is more expensive under IFRS 16; Year 5 is cheaper. Companies with large, recently-signed lease portfolios report higher charges in early years than they did under IAS 17.
The Cash Flow Statement: Operating to Financing
The cash paid does not change under IFRS 16. Rs. 12 crore per year is the same cash regardless of the accounting standard.
What changes is where that cash appears in the statement of cash flows.
Under IAS 17, the entire operating lease payment appeared in operating activities. Simple.
Under IFRS 16, the payment is split. The principal repayment portion of the lease liability is a financing activity. The interest portion goes to either operating or financing activities depending on the entity's policy (IAS 7 permits a choice on interest paid). Non-lease components and short-term/low-value lease payments remain in operating activities.
The practical effect: operating cash flow improves. Not because the business generates more cash, but because a portion of the same cash outflow moves from operating activities to financing activities. This affects free cash flow calculations, operating cash flow ratios, and debt service coverage metrics.
For Indian IT companies that adopted Ind AS 116, the operating cash flow improvement was immediate and visible in the FY2020 results relative to FY2019. Analysts tracking operating cash flow conversion ratios needed to adjust their models.
Why the Balance Sheet Exploded: Numbers
The IASB estimated over $3 trillion of off-balance sheet operating leases globally when IFRS 16 was being developed. That number landed on balance sheets from 1 January 2019 onwards.
The sectors most affected were those with the heaviest operating lease portfolios: retail, aviation, hospitality, telecommunications, and logistics. In India, the sectors with the most visible balance sheet impact were IT services, retail, and aviation.
Indian IT companies: Infosys, TCS, Wipro, HCL Technologies, and Tech Mahindra collectively lease tens of millions of square feet of office and development centre space across India and in major global delivery locations. Under IAS 17, these were operating leases: off balance sheet, straight-line expense. Under Ind AS 116, ROU assets and lease liabilities for this portfolio appeared on balance sheets for the first time in FY2020 financial statements. For companies like Wipro, the recognised lease liabilities ran into thousands of crores of rupees on transition.
Indian retail: companies operating large store networks on operating leases, such as DMart, Reliance Retail, and Shoppers Stop, saw their balance sheets expand materially. Debt-to-equity ratios increased not because borrowing increased but because lease liabilities now appeared as debt. The economic leverage of these companies had always been present; IFRS 16 simply made it visible.
Indian aviation: IndiGo and Air India lease virtually their entire fleets. Under IAS 17, aircraft operating leases did not appear as liabilities. Under Ind AS 116, every leased aircraft appears as a ROU asset with a corresponding lease liability. This is the most dramatic balance sheet effect in a single sector. IndiGo's balance sheet pre-Ind AS 116 looked asset-light. Post-adoption, the ROU assets for aircraft represent one of the largest line items on the balance sheet.
The Ratio Impact: What Changed and By How Much
The table below shows the directional impact on key financial ratios for a company with significant operating leases transitioning from IAS 17 to IFRS 16.
| Ratio | Direction of Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Total assets | Increases | ROU asset added |
| Total liabilities | Increases | Lease liability added |
| Debt-to-equity | Increases | Lease liability counted as debt |
| Net debt | Increases | Lease liability included in net debt |
| EBITDA | Increases | Operating lease expense removed from above-EBITDA costs |
| EBIT | Broadly unchanged | Depreciation replaces operating lease expense |
| Net profit (early years) | Decreases | Front-loading of total cost |
| ROA | Mixed | Asset base increases; profit impact varies by year |
| Interest coverage | Mixed | Finance cost increases; EBITDA also increases |
| Operating cash flow | Increases | Principal repayment moves to financing activities |
| Free cash flow | Unchanged | Total cash paid is the same |
The most commercially sensitive ratio change for Indian listed companies was net debt. Lenders and credit rating agencies include lease liabilities in net debt calculations under IFRS 16. Debt covenants referencing net debt thresholds or debt-to-EBITDA ratios needed renegotiation at the transition date for companies whose covenants were calibrated under IAS 17 metrics.
What Genuinely Stayed the Same
Three things did not change in any meaningful way.
Cash flows. Every rupee of lease payments is identical. IFRS 16 is a reclassification exercise on the income statement and balance sheet. It does not change economics.
Lessor accounting. Lessors continue to classify each lease as finance or operating under the same risks-and-rewards test used under IAS 17. The mechanics for each type are identical. Lessor balance sheets and income statements did not change at transition.
Finance lease lessee accounting. For leases that were already classified as finance leases under IAS 17, the accounting under IFRS 16 is essentially identical. Asset on balance sheet, depreciated over the shorter of useful life and lease term. Liability at amortised cost using the EIR. The transition had no effect on these leases.
The Definition of a Lease: A Subtle Change
IAS 17 defined a lease as an agreement whereby the lessor conveys the right to use an asset for an agreed period of time in return for a payment. IFRS 16 requires a more detailed assessment: an identified asset, the right to obtain substantially all economic benefits, and the right to direct the use.
The practical consequence is that some contracts previously treated as service contracts are now identified as containing leases under IFRS 16. Cloud computing arrangements, outsourcing contracts, and dedicated logistics contracts all require assessment. Under IAS 17, if the accounting treatment for service and operating lease was the same (straight-line expense), there was no incentive to perform the analysis. Under IFRS 16, the analysis matters because a lease goes on the balance sheet while a service contract does not.
This is where the lease identification work proved onerous at transition. Indian companies had to review thousands of contracts to identify embedded leases that had previously been expensed as services.
The Transition: Two Methods
Entities transitioning to IFRS 16 had two options.
Full retrospective: Restate all comparative periods as if IFRS 16 had always applied. More comparable across periods but operationally demanding.
Modified retrospective: Apply IFRS 16 from the transition date. No restatement of comparative periods. The cumulative effect of adoption is recognised in opening retained earnings. Most Indian entities chose this method because it was less disruptive.
Under modified retrospective, the FY2019 comparative in FY2020 financial statements continues to show IAS 17 accounting. The FY2020 figures show IFRS 16. Year-on-year comparison requires adjustment. This created a one-time comparability problem in the first year of adoption that has now largely passed.
Ind AS 116 vs IFRS 16: The Transition Comparison
| Area | IFRS 16 | Ind AS 116 (India) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective date | 1 January 2019 | 1 April 2019 (FY2020) |
| Transition methods available | Full retrospective or modified retrospective | Same |
| Practical expedients on transition | Several available | Same |
| Lessor accounting | Unchanged from IAS 17 | Same |
| Definition of a lease | Identified asset + economic benefits + direction | Same |
| EBITDA impact | Increases for operating lease-heavy companies | Same |
| Ratio impact | Debt-to-equity, net debt increase | Same; additionally affects RBI's regulatory metrics for NBFCs |
| Covenant impact | Debt covenants may need renegotiation | Same; Indian loan agreements referencing Indian GAAP ratios needed updating |
The covenant issue was real for Indian companies. Many loan agreements referenced financial ratios computed under Indian GAAP or under Ind AS without Ind AS 116. The transition created technical covenant breaches for some borrowers whose debt-to-equity or interest coverage ratios moved outside agreed thresholds because of the accounting change rather than any economic deterioration. Banks and borrowers generally renegotiated these covenants at transition.
What Big 4 Auditors Focus On in the Comparison Context
Transition completeness. At the first-time adoption date, auditors tested whether all leases had been identified, whether the incremental borrowing rate used was supportable, and whether practical expedients applied had been correctly documented and applied consistently.
Comparative period disclosures. Under modified retrospective, auditors verify that the prior period comparative figures are clearly labelled as prepared under IAS 17 and that the reconciliation between IAS 17 and IFRS 16 at the transition date is complete and accurate.
Covenant breach assessment. Auditors consider whether any debt covenants were technically breached on transition due to the accounting change, and whether this triggers disclosure or reclassification of the related borrowings as current liabilities.
Contract reassessment. Auditors test whether management's contract review at transition was complete and whether service contracts that contain leases were identified. Large Indian entities with outsourcing, dedicated logistics, and cloud infrastructure contracts are at risk of incomplete identification.
Dip IFRS Exam Angle
Comparison questions between IAS 17 and IFRS 16 appear in the Dip IFRS exam as part of scenario analysis. The examiner expects candidates to explain not just what changed but why the change was made.
Most tested areas:
The classification change for lessees: IAS 17 required judgment between finance and operating; IFRS 16 eliminated that choice for lessees. Know why: operating leases represented real obligations that IAS 17 kept off the balance sheet.
Income statement differences: straight-line operating expense under IAS 17 versus depreciation plus finance cost under IFRS 16. Know the front-loading effect and why Year 1 charges are higher under IFRS 16 for the same lease.
EBITDA impact: the removal of operating lease expense from above-EBITDA costs increases EBITDA mechanically. Know this is accounting mechanics, not economic improvement.
Cash flow reclassification: principal repayments move from operating to financing activities. Operating cash flow improves without any change in cash generated.
Common traps:
Saying total costs are higher under IFRS 16. They are not. Total costs over the full lease life are identical. Only timing changes.
Applying IFRS 16 mechanics to lessor accounting comparisons. Lessor accounting did not change. Finance lessors and operating lessors account identically under IAS 17 and IFRS 16.
Forgetting that the low-value and short-term exemptions did not exist under IAS 17. These are IFRS 16 innovations. Under IAS 17, short operating leases also went off balance sheet simply because of the classification outcome, not an explicit exemption.
FAQ
Did IFRS 16 increase the total cost of leasing for companies?
No. Total P&L charges over the full life of a lease are the same under IAS 17 and IFRS 16. The timing differs: higher charges in early years, lower in later years under IFRS 16. Total cash flows are unchanged.
Why did analysts still use off-balance sheet adjustments before IFRS 16?
Because IAS 17 operating leases were not on the balance sheet, analysts added back estimated present values of disclosed operating lease commitments to calculate adjusted net debt and leverage. Different analysts used different discount rate assumptions, making comparisons inconsistent. IFRS 16 standardised this by requiring a single recognised measure.
Did the EBITDA improvement under IFRS 16 make companies look better than they actually were?
It made the reported EBITDA higher, which could affect valuation multiples if analysts did not adjust. The underlying business performance did not change. Investors and analysts familiar with the accounting change typically adjusted their models. Those who did not risked overstating value.
Did all companies see the same balance sheet impact?
No. The impact is proportional to the volume and term of operating leases. Asset-light service businesses with minimal leases saw negligible impact. Retailers, airlines, and IT companies with extensive long-term operating leases saw material balance sheet expansion.
How should analysts compare pre-IFRS 16 and post-IFRS 16 financial statements?
Add back the IAS 17 operating lease commitment (or remove the IFRS 16 ROU asset and lease liability) to make the balance sheets comparable. Adjust EBITDA by removing the depreciation add-back and re-inserting the estimated operating lease expense for the period. Some data providers publish adjusted ratios for this purpose.
Did lease liabilities under IFRS 16 affect credit ratings?
Rating agencies including Moody's and S&P had already been adding estimated operating lease obligations to debt in their analytical models before IFRS 16. For those agencies, the transition largely formalised what they were already doing. The impact on credit ratings at transition was therefore limited for most rated entities, since the lease obligations were not new information to the agencies.
Enroll with Global Fin X
Understanding IFRS 16 versus IAS 17 is not just exam preparation. It is essential context for reading financial statements of Indian companies across the IAS 17 and IFRS 16 periods, and for understanding why the same company's EBITDA, net debt, and operating cash flow look so different before and after 2019. Our programme covers the full IFRS 16 series across four posts with detailed lectures, worked examples, and a dedicated LMS for working professionals.
Enroll Now: Dip IFRS Programme
Faculty profile: www.globalfinx.in/manikanta
This is Post 31 of the Global Fin X IFRS Series. Previous: IFRS 16: Sale and Leaseback. Next: Post 32: IFRS 16 in Indian Airlines, Retail Chains and IT Parks.