BackgroundEITF 13-D was originally 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. actions. The question revolved around the discussion of how performance targets affect the accounting for share-based payments. The EITF has debated whether to allow employees to earn their rewards even if the performance goal is met after the required service has been completed (McArthur). Previously, performance conditions were not considered in estimating the fair value of the award on the grant date, but other conditions other than vesting were considered in determining the fair value. value. Additionally, EITF 13-D addresses the fact that ASC 718 (Stock Compensation) does not specify that employees, except those eligible for retirement, must provide services when the performance objective is reached. These emerging concerns reveal some flaws that currently exist in our accounting system. Last month, the Working Group finally reached consensus on the main issue. As part of the conclusion, we will present the final agreement and its associated business-related transitions. Before that, we will explain in detail the three different views on the main question. View A of this issue details the first approach to taking into account a performance objective. From this perspective, a performance objective is synonymous with a performance condition insofar as it will have an effect on the acquisition of rights. Therefore, an entity will not have the ability to record compensation cost 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 ultimately achieved (FASB, 13-D Issue Summary No. 1).For...... middle of document . .....after the required period of service, allow the cost of compensation to be recognized when it is probable that the objective will be achieved, even if this occurs after the required service has been performed by an employee. The non-vesting approach takes into account the probability that the performance objective will be achieved when determining the fair value of the awards. Compensation cost is accrued throughout the required period of service, regardless of the actual performance objective. The liability approach was proposed last year, but was refused due to non-compliance with the cash settlement. Recently, the working group reached an agreement to follow the performance conditions approach and apply a forward-looking transition approach to adapt to new updates (Althoff). However, global companies should be aware of the divergences between IFRS rules, which favor the no-take approach..