The test starts, for example, with determining whether the investor has actual control over the entity.

Let's say your firm has a lower-than-majority voting stake in a company for which your firm's ownership is an investment. "You might conclude that you have a dominant voting position and there is a wide dispersion of other vote holders," Karl Braun told the KPMG panel, noting that IFRS 10 would consider this a controlling stake, and therefore to be consolidated -- even if you have "98-plus percent of the other vote holders aligning against you."

On the other hand, a situation in which two of your opponents each have 26% voting rights would make it "much easier for these two to align against you," he pointed out. "The default is that you do not have power."

This may leave open the "chance that several investors may conclude that they have de-facto control, and need to consolidate," said Braun.