The accountancy regulatory body, the Accounting Standards Board (ASB), has announced a delay in implementing the controversial new accounting standard, FRS 17.

The move, which has been welcomed by the Irish Association of Pension Funds (IAPF), comes on the back of widespread concerns within the accounting profession about the onerous rules attached to the implementation of the standard.

FRS 17 had been due to come into application in December, and was set to impose new reporting requirements on all companies for accounting years ending after June 2001. Companies had been expected to make disclosures under FRS 17 over a transition period, until new international accounting standards come into force in 2005.

They would have been required to calculate, on an actuarial basis, the assets and liabilities of defined retirement and pension benefits on balance sheet date and then include those in the balance sheet. It was widely considered that such a system would lead to the demise of the defined-benefit pension scheme.

"IAPF has been to the forefront in calling for a modification of the standard due to concerns that by introducing excessive volatility to company accounts, the standard could threaten the continued operation of many defined-benefit pension schemes," said Mr Patrick Burke of the IAPF yesterday. Mr Burke is hopeful that the ASB's decision will relieve "some pressures which have unnecessarily been placed on employers".

Also welcoming the postponement, Mr Kevin Reynolds of Mercer Human Resource Consulting said that the aim of achieving a meaningful balance sheet was worthwhile but added that the standard's timing had been difficult.

"The timing of the standard's introduction has coincided with severe falls in equity markets which has placed unforeseen pressures on company balance sheets," Mr Reynolds said.

Mr Aidan Lambe, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, which promulgates ASB standards in Ireland, told The Irish Times that the ASB has postponed the full implementation of FRS 17 "to avoid that scenario where companies have to do one thing in 2003 and something else in 2005."