The Dutch Standards Accounting Board has changed the requirements of Standard 271 with respect to the accounting for post retirement benefits. The requirements with respect to the classification of post retirement benefits as defined benefit plans (for which the pension costs are recognised in the consecutive financial years applying the Projected Unit Credit Method) have been replaced by requirements to account for pension costs based on the general concepts for the recognition of Provisions.

Deloitte Holding B.V. has applied the requirements of the revised standard 271 starting this financial year.

The effect on the recognition of pension costs is immaterial. As explained in previous financial statements the vast majority of Deloitte’s pension plans are of a Defined Benefit nature, leaving no further commitment or liabilities to Deloitte other than the payment of certain pension premiums. The formerly under the previous version of standard 271 recognised pension provision related only to (i) back service pension premiums for a small (closed group) of employees and (ii) back service liabilities for those (former) employees faced with total or partial disability status (“Arbeidsongeschiktheid”).

Based on the general requirements of standard 252 Provisions it was concluded that for both back service liabilities a provision should be maintained for future premium payments, applying accounting and actuarial concepts which are highly comparable with previously applied concepts. Therefore, in substance, the determination of the pension provision as per 31 May 2011 is consistent with previous years with the exception of the application of the corridor method for differences between certain assumptions and actual outcome as required under the previous standard 271. Whereas the net effect of the release of the cumulative amount of the corridor as per 31 May 2011 appeared to be negligible, for reasons of practicality this amount has been included in the 2010/2011 pension costs. For the same reason and also due to the fact that in essence no differences exist in the calculation of the provision under revised and previous standard 271, comparative figures were not restated.