ACCA P2 Revsion Pack June 2015

ACCA Paper P2
(International)
Corporate Reporting
Revision Pack
June 2015
P 2 C O R P O R A T E R E P O R T I N G R E V IS I O N P A C K
The Accountancy College Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of The Accountancy College Ltd.
Must should could

All these sequences are based on the following all taken from the revision kit:Q1
Q1
Q1
Q2
b/s
i/s
cfs
Themed mix
Must
Rose
Marchant
Angel
Aron
Q3 Industry mix
Cate
Q4 current
issues
Jones
Whitebirk
Should
Grange
Ashanti
Warrburt
Norman
Savage
Verge
Ethan
High quality
FI
Could
Traveler
Base
Jocatt
Panel
Macaljoy
Greenie
Havana
Transition
Holcombe
But any question from q30 onwards is useful. The earlier questions are good, but
your examiner is a forward thinking man, so earlier questions are often less useful.
Four Day Revision Sequence

These are the questions we will do together.
Day
Subject
Kit Q
Financial instruments
Pensions
Group cfs
Group B/S
44
24
77 Dec 2013
59
2(focus)
2(focus)
1(Groups)
1(Groups)
Aron
Savage
Angel
Rose
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
76 June 2013
69
52
84 June 2014
3(Mix)
3(Mix)
3(Mix)
3(Mix)
Verge
Ethan
Cate
Aspire
SMEs
Current issues
Integrated reporting
Current issues
58
Revision pack
16
Revision pack
4(Current)
4(Current)
4(Current)
4(Current)
Whitebirk
Godzilla
Jones
GH Articles
Group B/S
Groups B/S
Group B/S
47
74 June 2013
87 Dec 2014
1(Groups)
1(Groups)
1(Groups)
Grange
Traveller
Joey
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Exam Q
Q Name
Two Day Revision Sequence

Day
Subject
Kit Q
Exam Q
Q Name
Pensions
Group B/S
Group cfs
43
12
58
77 Dec 2013
2(focus)
2(focus)
1(Groups)
1(Groups)
Aron
Savage
Rose
Angel
Mixed Standards
Mixed Standards
Current issues
Current issues
75 June 2013
68 June 2012
Revision pack
Revision pack
3(Mix)
3(Mix)
4(Current)
4(Current)
Verge
Ethan
Godzilla
GH Articles
Four evening online sequence

Evening
Subject
Kit Q
Exam Q
Q Name
Pensions
43
12
2(focus)
2(focus)
Aron
Savage
Group B/S
Group cfs
58
77 Dec 2013
1(Groups)
1(Groups)
Rose
Angel
Mixed Standards
Mixed Standards
75 June 2013
68 June 2012
3(Mix)
3(Mix)
Verge
Ethan
Current issues
Current issues
Revision pack
Revision pack
4(Current)
4(Current)
Godzilla
GH
Articles
REVISION FOCUS
The following revision sequence is comprehensive. The questions cover all the
content. But as you are revising remember to go back to the class questions to
ensure that the stuff you learnt in class is accessible to you in the exam. Then
once you are comfortable with all the questions you have done with me, it is time
to turn to the supplementary questions. The effect of this is that there are three
bodies of questions with which you should be intimately familiar. In order of
importance they are:(1)
the revision questions
(2)
the class questions
(3)
the supplementary questions.
Supplementary Questions
The above revision sequence is intended to be largely comprehensive. In other
words, there is little new to learn once you have repeated the above and the class
questions until you know them. However, because I have done all the above for
you first, if you limit yourself to the above then you will never have to think for
yourself until you are in the exam.
So, I suggest that all the more recent exam questions since December 2007
(question 30 in the kit) are all valid and will improve your chances of passing P2. It
probably makes sense to work backwards from the more recent questions simply
because of the examiners forward thinking brain being reflected in the exams the
examiner sets. Also it probably makes sense to focus on the narrative questions
from the B section as most students improve most noticeably in their narrative
answers when they apply themselves to these questions as the exam approaches.
RECENT EXAM CONTENT

Q June 2011
Dec 2011
June 2012
Dec 2012
June 2013
Dec 2013
June 2014
Dec 2014
1 Rose
Traveler
Straight b/s
with
segments
and ethics
Minny
B/S with lots
of
impairment
Trailer
Complex b/s
with lots
and lots to
do
Angel
Accessible
cfs with
plenty to do
and solid
discussion
on cash and
ethics.
Marchant
Challenging
p/l very
similar to
earlier q
Ashanti.
Joey
Awkward
b/s with sbp
and ethics
2 Lockfine
Decany
Horrid group
restructure
Robby
Group B/S
with plenty
going on,
plus a
difficult
discussion of
derecognitio
n
William
Lovely mix
of leases,
pensions,
sbp &
provisions
Coate
Messy mix
with JV,
intangibles
and forex.
Verge
Lovely mix
question
with
segments
revenue and
other stuff
Havana
Challenging
mix question
with leases
revenue and
other stuff.
Coatmin
Challenging
banking mix
3 Alexandra
Scramble
Challenging
mix with lots
of
intangibles
Ethan
Technical
mix of
goodwill, dt,
FVO and
equity
Blackcutt
Mix of nca
with
impairment,
provisions
and others.
Janne
Good mix
question
with leasing
FVM and
other stuff
4 Grainger
Venue
Lovely
revenue
developmen
t
Royan
Surprise
subject of
provisions
Jayach
Lovely fvm.
Lizzer
Solid current
issues
question on
presentation
and clutter
Bental
Absolutely
rock hard
mix on debt
reverse
acquisitions
and
hedging!!
Zack
Solid current
issues
question on
judgement
and policies
Aspire
Wide
ranging mix
question
with a heavy
slant
towards
currency.
Minco
Hard mix
question
with lots to
talk about
but getting
really tough
at end.
Avco
Good
question on
the mind
bending
problem of
debt v
equity.
Fairly
straight b/s
with a
foreign sub
and
transfers
First time
adoption
Classic mix
question
with usual
suspects
Lovely FI
question
addressing
IFRS9 and
current
issues
Kayte
Challenging
mix in
shipping
industry
Estoil
Solid current
issue on
impairment
EXAM TIPS
The tips derived from the above are therefore as follows. Tips do not tend to
change much from sitting to sitting because the same stuff stays current in the
examiners mind for years. Use the above table to see if you agree with me. Maybe
you have different gut feelings.
Question
Top Tips
1 (groups)
2 (mix)
Position statement
Cash flow statement
Performance statement
Usual suspects
3 (mix)
Usual suspects
4 (Current Issues)
Integrated reporting
Equity accounting
Framework & Sploci
SMEs
Leases
Changes
Groups (JA + Subs + Associates)
Financial instrument impairment (see Q Grainger June 2011)
Revenue (see Q Venue December 2011)
But watch out! All the above could be wrong. So make sure you go through all the
revision questions, class questions and supplementary questions. Then you should
still be fine.
QUESTION SPOTTERS
For those super obsessive question spotters amongst you, here is the full list of
question one formats over recent years:Year
Sitting
Question
Subject
2014
Joey
b/s
2014
Marchant
i/s
2013
Angel
cfs
2013
Trailer
b/s
2012
Minny
b/s
2012
Robby
b/s
2011
Traveler
b/s
2011
Rose
b/s
2010
Jocatt
cfs
2010
Ashanti
i/s
2009
Grange
b/s
2009
Bravado
b/s
2008
Warrburt
cfs
2008
Ribby
b/s
2007
Beth
b/s
2007
Glove
b/s
2006
Andash
cfs
2006
Ejoy
i/s
2005
Lateral
b/s
2005
Jay
b/s
2004
AAP
cfs
2004
Memo
b/s
2003
Largo
b/s
2003
Base
i/s
Please feel free to make of that what you will!
EXAM ADVICE
Here is some very basic exam advice that despite its simplicity is often the
difference between a pass and a fail:
Question selection
This is a tricky but important subject. The hardest question in the B section in
recent past has been the mix question (also known as the industry question or the
analysis question). So try and prepare yourself for all styles of question. Students
during class tend to shy away from the current issues question because of its
narrative content. But try to overcome this as this question is often the easiest on
the paper.
Reading time
Use this to decide which questions to do and in which order. Then allocate your
time on the question paper, so that you know to the very minute when your time is
up on each question.
Time
Perhaps the most important advice of all is stick to the timings of questions. The
examiner actively encourages markers to be very generous with weak answers and
hard on excellent answers. This means if you have 8 out of 10, you are unlikely to
persuade the marker to give away another mark. But in the first few lines of the
next answer, the marker will be keen to give you marks.
Completeness
Closely related to the above is completeness. Make sure you answer 100 marks,
especially those parts of the exam where you feel weak and know you are
guessing. This leads to the next point.
Write anything
Obviously it is always best to write the correct answer. But if you really have no
clue, write something anyway. Not only might you strike lucky and get the answer
correct, you will also find markers are generous even when you are wrong.
Requirements
Really try to answer the requirements. A nice simple answer directly answering the
question will always score higher than irrelevant technical wizardry.
Write clearly
The new online marking has many advantages, but one definite disadvantage is the
quality of the image. Dont worry, image quality is not bad. But its very definitely
not the same as looking at the original scripts. This has no negative impact on
clear scripts, but makes scribbled chaotic scrawl even harder to mark.
10
Write big
Another down side of online marking is the default image size. Its about A5. That
is, the scripts appear on the markers screens at half the original size that you see
when you write the script on exam day. Markers can zoom in, but the functionality
of this is jerky and so many markers like, where possible, to view a virtual page in
its entirety. If you can make this possible for them, they will really appreciate it.
You make this possible by writing big (and clear). Writing does not have to be
enormous, but the classic 8 words per line looks just great on screen.
Alternate lines
This advice only applies to those who know they have a tendency to write small. If
you are that student, then force yourself to write bigger by skipping every alternate
line during your narrative answers.
Number circles
At the top of every page are the number circles. They are for you to communicate
the question you are doing. Use the circles. Markers dont want to guess which
question you are answering.
Question per page
When starting a new question always start a new page. You can do this for each
part of each question. I think this helps with clarity, but this is not vital. But every
time you start a new question, you must start a new page.
Blank pages
The online system copes fine with blank pages. Try to keep them minimal, but use
them if you find them useful.
Continuity
Once you start a question, try to finish it. Do the individual parts in any order. So
for example, answering q3b followed by q3a followed by q3d followed by q3c is
perfectly acceptable. But dont throw q4a in the middle of that lot!
Volume
Write as much as you feel comfortable writing. Just make sure you answer all the
questions in full and give the markers sufficient ideas to give you marks. Some
students are unbelievably concise and score good marks in half a booklet (12
pages). Others need three booklets (24+6+6 pages). But if I can be so bold, I
suggest you are looking to fill one booklet (24 pages).
Balance
Try to balance the effort to the number of marks. It is shocking to see the number
of students who write twice as much for their 4 mark answer as they do for their 8
mark answer.
Finally, good luck
Martin
11
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTITIES

But another big political issue is the accounting for SMEs. It is widely accepted that
IFRS are bulky and the presentation of fs using IFRS is a substantial bureaucratic
burden. Large companies are big enough to shoulder this burden, but small and
medium companies feel this expense disproportionately because of their size.
So many countries have utilised a two tier accounting system widely called big
GAAP little GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles). Each country has set
a threshold above which companies are required to produce full fs using full IFRS
(or equivalent) and below which companies are required to produce reduced fs with
less disclosure. This makes SME accounting much cheaper in these countries.
The IASB have until recently ignored this issue. However, following extreme
pressure, they have reviewed the problem and a Standard has resulted. It
proposes that all companies should be able to produce reduced fs, provided they
are not public interest companies (that is, not quoted or offering financial services).
So unless your company is quoted or offering financial services, then it is an SME
and can produce reduced fs.
However, the IFRS for SMEs has been widely criticised because the reduced fs are
very little reduced from the full fs. This means that even if your company qualifies
as SME, you will produce fs just as bulky as would have been required had your
company failed to qualify.
Simplifications
Some of the main simplification in the IFRS for SMEs are as follows:(1)
Goodwill recognition
Partial method recognition is required (see Basic Groups Chapter).

(2)
Goodwill amortisation
Amortisation is required (over 10 years) to avoid the annual impairment test.

(3)
PPE Model
Only the cost model is allowed.

(4)
Investment Property Model
Only the fair value model is allowed.

(5)
Borrowing Costs
The capitalisation of finance cost on PPE is not allowed.

(6)
Development
Development is written off like research.
Article
An article here written by the examiner gives more detail.
12
ACOUNTING & BUSINESS

The examiner writes monthly for A&B.
articles.
Here is a selection of potentially relevant
For more articles by the examiner go to the ACCA CPD webpage and scroll down
picking out the corporate reporting articles. Here is the link:http://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/member/accounting-business/ab-cpd.html
or just search acca cpd.
13
INTEGRATED REPORTING
Here is an article by Graham Holt.
The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has recently released a
framework for integrated reporting. This follows a three-month global consultation
and trials in 25 countries. The framework establishes principles and concepts that
govern the overall content of an integrated report.
An integrated report sets out how the organisation's strategy, governance,
performance and prospects lead to the creation of value. There is no benchmarking
for the above matters and the report is aimed primarily at the private sector, but it
could be adapted for public sector and not-for-profit organisations.
The primary purpose of an integrated report is to explain to providers of financial
capital how an organisation creates value over time. An integrated report benefits
all stakeholders interested in a company's ability to create value, including
employees, customers, suppliers, business partners, local communities, legislators,
regulators and policymakers, although it is not directly aimed at all stakeholders.
Providers of financial capital can have a significant effect on the capital allocation
and attempting to aim the report at all stakeholders would be an impossible task
and would reduce the focus and increase the length of the report. This would be
contrary to the objectives of the report, which is value creation.
Historical financial statements are essential in corporate reporting, particularly for
compliance purposes, but do not provide meaningful information regarding business
value. Users need a more forward-looking focus without the necessity of companies
providing their own forecasts.
Companies have recognised the benefits of showing a fuller picture of company
value and a more holistic view of the organisation. The International Integrated
Reporting Framework will encourage the preparation of a report that shows their
performance against strategy, explains the various capitals used and affected, and
gives a longer-term view of the organisation. The integrated report is creating the
next generation of the annual report as it enables stakeholders to make a more
informed assessment of the organisation and its prospects.
CULTURE CHANGE
The IIRC has set out a principle-based framework rather than specifying a detailed
disclosure and measurement standard. This enables each company to set out its
own report rather than adopt a checklist approach. The culture change should
enable companies to communicate their value creation better than the often
boilerplate disclosures under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The report acts as a platform to explain what creates the underlying value in a
business and how management protects this value. This gives the report more
business relevance than the compliance-led approach currently used. Integrated
reporting will not replace other forms of reporting, but the vision is that preparers
will pull together relevant information already produced to explain the key drivers
of their business's value.
14
Information will only be included in the report where it is material to the

stakeholder's assessment of the business. There were concerns that the term
'materiality' had a certain legal connotation, with the result that some entities may
feel they should include regulatory information in the integrated report. However,
the IIRC concluded that the term should continue to be used in this context as it is
well understood.
The integrated report aims to provide an insight into the company's resources and
relationships which are known as the capitals and how the company interacts with
the external environment and the capitals to create value. These capitals can be
financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relationship, and natural
capital, but companies need not adopt these classifications. The purpose of this
framework is to establish principles and content that governs the report, and to
explain the fundamental concepts that underpin them. The report should be
concise, reliable and complete, including all material matters, both positive and
negative, and presented in a balanced way without material error.
KEY COMPONENTS
Integrated reporting is built around the following key components:
Organisational overview and the external environment under which it operates.
Governance structure and how this supports its ability to create value.
Business model.
Risks and opportunities and how they are dealing with them and how they affect
the company's ability to create value.
Strategy and resource allocation.
Performance and achievement of strategic objectives for the period and outcomes.
Outlook and challenges facing the company and their implications.
The basis of presentation needs to be determined, including what matters are to be
included in the integrated report and how the elements are quantified or evaluated.
The framework does not require discrete sections to be compiled in the report, but
there should be a high-level review to ensure that all relevant aspects are included.
The linkage across the above content can create a key storyline and can determine
the major elements of the report, such that the information relevant to each
company would be different.
An integrated report should provide insight into the nature and quality of the
organisation's relationships with its key stakeholders, including how and to what
extent the organisation understands, takes into account and responds to their
needs and interests. Furthermore, the report should be consistent over time to
enable comparison with other entities.
An integrated report may be prepared in response to existing compliance
requirements; for example, a management commentary. Where that report is also
prepared according to the framework or even beyond the framework, it can be
considered an integrated report. An integrated report may be either a standalone
report or be included as a distinguishable part of another report or communication.
For example, it can be included in the company's financial statements.
15
NATURE OF VALUE
The IIRC considered the nature of value and value creation. These terms can
include the total of all the capitals, the benefit captured by the company, the
market value or cashflows of the organisation, and the successful achievement of
the company's objectives. However, the conclusion reached was that the framework
should not define value from any one particular perspective, because value depends
upon the individual company's own perspective. It can be shown through
movement of capital and can be defined as value created for the company or for
others. An integrated report should not attempt to quantify value, as assessments
of value are left to those using the report.
Many respondents felt that there should be a requirement for a statement from
those 'charged with governance' acknowledging their responsibility for the
integrated report in order to ensure the reliability and credibility of the integrated
report. Additionally it would increase the accountability for the content of the
report.
The IIRC feels that the inclusion of such a statement may result in additional
liability concerns, such as inconsistency with regulatory requirements in certain
jurisdictions and could lead to a higher level of legal liability. The IIRC also felt that
the above issues might result in a slower take-up of the report and decided that
those 'charged with governance' should, in time, be required to acknowledge their
responsibility for the integrated report, while at the same time recognising that
reports in which they were not involved would lack credibility.
There has been discussion about whether the framework constitutes suitable
criteria for report preparation and for assurance. The questions asked concerned
measurement standards to be used for the information reported and how a
preparer can ascertain the completeness of the report.
FUTURE DISCLOSURES
There were concerns over the ability to assess future disclosures, and
recommendations were made that specific criteria should be used for measurement,
the range of outcomes and the need for any confidence intervals to be disclosed.
The preparation of an integrated report requires judgment, but there is a
requirement for the report to describe its basis of preparation and presentation,
including the significant frameworks and methods used to quantify or evaluate
material matters. Also included is the disclosure of a summary of how the company
determined the materiality limits and a description of the reporting boundaries.
The IIRC has stated that the prescription of specific key KPIs (key performance
indicators) and measurement methods is beyond the scope of a principles-based
framework. The framework contains information on the principle-based approach
and indicates that there is a need to include quantitative indicators whenever
practicable and possible. Additionally, consistency of measurement methods across
different reports is of paramount importance. There is outline guidance on the
selection of suitable quantitative indicators.
16
A company should consider how to describe the disclosures without causing a

significant loss of competitive advantage. The entity will consider what advantage a
competitor could actually gain from information in the integrated report, and will
balance this against the need for disclosure.
Companies struggle to communicate value through traditional reporting. The
framework can prove an effective tool for businesses looking to shift their reporting
focus from annual financial performance to long-term shareholder value creation.
The framework will be attractive to companies who wish to develop their narrative
reporting around the business model to explain how the business has been
developed.
17
EQUITY ACCOUNTING
Here is another article by Graham Holt
With IAS 28 now in force, its a good time to consider how it affects you. But be
prepared not everything in the standard is as cut and dried as might be hoped,
says Graham Holt
In May 2011, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a new
version of IAS 28, Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures, that requires both
joint ventures and associates to be equity-accounted. The standard is effective from
1 January 2013 and entities need to be aware of its implications, although the EU
has endorsed IAS 28 from 1 January 2014.
An associate is an entity in which the investor has significant influence, but which is
neither a subsidiary nor a joint venture of the investor. 'Significant influence' is the
power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee,
but not to control those policy decisions. It is presumed to exist when the investor
holds at least 20% of the investee's voting power. If the holding is less than 20%,
the entity will be presumed not to have significant influence unless such influence
can be clearly demonstrated. A substantial or majority ownership by another
investor does not preclude an entity from having significant influence.
Loss of influence
An entity loses significant influence over an investee when it loses the power to
participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of that investee. The loss
of significant influence can occur with or without a change in absolute or relative
ownership levels.
A joint venture is defined as a joint arrangement where the parties in joint control
have rights to the net assets of the joint arrangement. Associates and joint
ventures are accounted for using the equity method unless they meet the criteria to
be classified as 'held for sale' under IFRS 5, Non-current Assets Held for Sale and
Discontinued Operations.
On initial recognition, the investment in an associate or a joint venture is
recognised at cost, and the carrying amount is increased or decreased to recognise
the investor's share of the profit or loss of the investee after the date of acquisition.
IFRS 9, Financial Instruments, does not apply to interests in associates and joint
ventures that are accounted for using the equity method.
Instruments containing potential voting rights in an associate or a joint venture are
accounted for in accordance with IFRS 9 unless they currently give access to the
returns associated with an ownership interest in an associate or a joint venture. An
entity's interest in an associate or a joint venture is determined solely on the basis
of existing ownership interests and, generally, does not reflect the possible exercise
or conversion of potential voting rights.
18
Investments in associates or joint ventures are classified as non-current assets

inclusive of goodwill on acquisition and presented as one-line items in the
statement of financial position. The investment is tested for impairment in
accordance with IAS 36, Impairment of Assets, as single assets, if there are
impairment indicators under IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement.
The entire carrying amount of the investment is tested for impairment as a single
asset - that is, goodwill is not tested separately. The recoverable amount of an
investment in an associate is assessed for each individual associate or joint
venture, unless the associate or joint venture does not generate cashflows
independently.
IFRS 5 applies to associates and joint ventures that meet the classification criteria.
Any portion of the investment that has not been classified as held for sale is still
equity-accounted until the disposal. After disposal, if the retained interest continues
to be an associate or joint venture, it is equity-accounted.
Under the previous version of the standard, the cessation of significant interest or
joint control triggered remeasurement of any retained investment even where
significant influence was succeeded by joint control. IAS 28 now requires that any
retained interest is not remeasured. If an entity's interest in an associate or joint
venture is reduced but the equity method continues to be applied, then the entity
reclassifies to profit or loss the proportion of the gain or loss previously recognised
in other comprehensive income relative to that reduction in ownership interest.
Consolidation parallels
The IASB states that many of the procedures appropriate for equity accounting are
similar to those for consolidation of entities and the concepts used in accounting for
the acquisition of a subsidiary are also applicable to the acquisition of an associate
or joint venture.
However, it is not always appropriate to apply IFRS 10, Consolidated Financial
Statements, or IFRS 3, Business Combinations. There is disagreement over whether
equity accounting is a one-line consolidation or a valuation approach. When an
associate is impairment-tested, it is treated as a single asset and not as a collection
of assets as would be the case under acquisition accounting.
Additionally as associates and joint ventures are not part of the group, not all of the
consolidation principles will apply in the context of equity accounting.
There is no definition of the cost of an associate or joint venture in IAS 28. There is
debate over whether costs should be defined as including the purchase price and
other costs directly attributable to the acquisition such as professional fees and
other transaction costs. It might be appropriate to include transaction costs in the
initial cost of an equity-accounted investment, but IFRS 3 would require these to be
expensed if they relate to the acquisition of businesses. IFRS 9 includes directly
attributable transaction costs in the initial value of the investment.
19
IAS 28 states that profits and losses resulting from 'upstream' and 'downstream'
transactions between an investor (including its consolidated subsidiaries) and an
associate or joint venture are recognised only to the extent of the unrelated
investors' interests in the associate or joint venture. Upstream transactions are
sales of assets from an associate to the investor and downstream transactions are
sales of assets by the investor to the associate.
Elimination
There is no specific guidance on how the elimination should be carried out but
generally in the case of downstream transactions any unrealised gains should be
eliminated against the carrying value of the associate. In the case of upstream
transactions any unrealised gains could be eliminated either against the carrying
value of the associate or against the asset transferred.
The standards are currently unclear on whether this elimination also applies to
unrealised gains and losses arising on transfer of subsidiaries, joint ventures and
associates. An example would be where an investor sells its subsidiary to its
associate and the question would be whether part of the gain on the transaction
should be eliminated.
There is an inconsistency between guidance dealing with the loss of control of a
subsidiary and the restrictions on recognising gains and losses arising from sales of
non-monetary assets to an associate or a joint venture. IFRS 10 requires
recognition of both the realised gain on disposal and the unrealised holding gain on
the retained interest. In contrast, IAS 28 requires gains or losses on the sale of a
non-monetary asset to an associate or a joint venture to be recognised only to the
extent of the other party's interest.
The IASB accordingly issued an exposure draft in December 2012 stating that any
gain or loss resulting from the sale of an asset that does not constitute a business
between an investor and its associate or joint venture should be partially
recognised. However, any gain or loss arising from the sale of an asset that does
constitute a business between an investor and its associate or joint venture should
be fully recognised.
IFRS 3 defines a business as an integrated set of activities and assets that is
capable of being conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a return
directly to investors or other owners, members or participants.
Under the equity method, the investment is initially recognised at cost and adjusted
to recognise the investor's share of the profit or loss and other comprehensive
income (OCI) of the investee. Additionally, the investment is reduced by
distributions received from the invest.
However, IAS 28 is silent on how to treat other changes in the net assets of the
investee in the investor's accounts, which might include:
issues of additional share capital to parties other than the investor;
buybacks of equity instruments from shareholders other than the investor;
writing of a put option over the investee's own equity instruments to other
shareholders;
purchase or sale of non-controlling interests in the investee's subsidiaries'
equity-settled share-based payments.
20
Inconsistent
The IASB proposed in an exposure draft issued in November 2012 that an investor's
share of certain net asset changes in the investee should be recognised in the
investor's equity. The draft contains an alternative view by one board member who
believes the amendment to be inconsistent with the concepts of IAS 1 and IFRS 10,
and would cause serious conceptual confusion. This board member believes this
short-term solution would not improve financial reporting and would undermine a
basic concept of consolidated financial statements.
The draft notes that an investor may discontinue the use of the equity method for
various reasons including where the investment in the investee becomes a
subsidiary or a financial asset. The draft proposes that an investor should reclassify
to profit or loss the cumulative amount of other net asset changes previously
recognised in the investor's equity when an investor discontinues the use of the
equity method for any reason.
21
REALIGNING THE FRAMEWORK

By Graham Holt
Graham Holt examines the discussion paper on the conceptual framework for
financial reporting issued by the IASB in July
In July 2013 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a
discussion paper on a new version of its conceptual framework, which provides the
fundamental basis for development of International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS).
The discussion paper gives users and preparers of financial statements an
opportunity to offer input into the direction of financial reporting standards. The
paper sets out the fundamental principles of accounting necessary to develop
robust and consistent standards. While it lacks the immediacy of other IASB
proposals, it will nevertheless be a significant long-term influence on the direction
that accounting standards will take.
The paper introduces revised thinking on the reporting of financial performance, the
measurement of assets and liabilities, and presentation and disclosure. The paper
proposes that the primary purpose of the framework - which underpins the
accounting standards - is to identify consistent principles that the IASB can use in
developing and revising those standards. The framework may also help in
understanding and interpreting the standards.
The IASB framework was originally published in the late 1980s. In 2010 two
chapters of a new framework were issued: Chapter 1, The Objective of General
Purpose Financial Reporting, and Chapter 3, Qualitative Characteristics of Useful
Financial Information. There are no plans for a fundamental reconsideration of
these chapters. The concept of a reporting entity is not considered in the discussion
paper because the exposure draft of 2010 is to be used, with related feedback, in
developing guidance in this area.
The discussion paper proposes to redefine assets and liabilities as:
An asset is a present economic resource controlled by the entity because of past
events.
A liability is a present obligation of the entity to transfer an economic resource
because of past events.
An 'economic resource', it should be noted, is a right, or other source of value, that
is capable of producing economic benefits.
Currently the definitions of assets and liabilities require a probable expectation of
future economic benefits or resource outflow. The IASB's initial view is that the
definitions of assets and liabilities should not require an expected or probable inflow
or outflow as it should be sufficient that a resource or obligation can produce or
result in a transfer of economic benefits. Thus, a guarantee could qualify as a
liability even though the obligation to transfer resources is conditional. However,
the measurement of an asset or liability will be affected by the potential outcome.
The IASB still believes that a liability should not be defined as limited to obligations
that are enforceable against the entity.
22
Under the discussion paper, constructive obligations would qualify as liabilities.

Liabilities would not arise where there is an economic necessity to transfer an
economic resource unless there is an obligation to do so. Thus a group
reconstruction would not necessarily create a liability.
However, the IASB believes that certain avoidable obligations could qualify as a
liability - for example, directors' bonuses depending on employment conditions. No
decision has been made on whether the definition of a liability should be limited to
obligations that the entity has no practical ability to avoid or should include
conditional obligations resulting from past events.
The discussion paper sets out that the framework's definition of control should be in
line with its definition of an asset. An entity controls an economic resource if it has
the present ability to direct the resource's use so as to obtain economic benefits
from it. The exposure draft on revenue recognition uses the phrase 'substantially
all' when referring to benefits from the asset but the IASB feels this phrase in this
context would be confusing as an entity would recognise only the rights which it
controls. For example, if an entity has the right to use machinery on one working
day per week, then it should recognise 20% of the economic benefits (assuming a
five-day working week) as it does not have all or substantially all of the economic
benefits of the machinery.
The discussion paper proposes that equity remain defined as being equal to assets
less liabilities. However, the paper does propose that an entity be required to
present a detailed statement of changes in equity that provides more information
regarding different classes of equity, and the transfers between these different
classes.
The distinction between equity and liabilities focuses on the definition of a liability.
The current guidance on the difference between equity and liability is complicated.
The paper identifies two types of approach: narrow equity and strict obligation.
The narrow equity approach treats equity as being only the residual class issued,
with changes in the measurement of other equity claims recognised in profit or loss.
Under the strict obligation approach, all equity claims are classified as equity with
obligations to deliver cash or assets being classified as liabilities. Any changes in
the measurement of equity claims would be shown in the statement of changes in
equity.
If the latter approach were adopted, certain transactions (eg the issuance of a
variable number of equity shares worth a fixed monetary amount) currently classed
as liabilities would not be so designated because they do not involve an obligation
to transfer cash or assets.
The IASB has come to the view that the objective of measurement is to contribute
to the faithful representation of relevant information about the resources of the
entity, claims against the entity and changes in resources and claims, and about
how efficiently and effectively the entity's management and governing board have
discharged their responsibilities to use the entity's resources. The IASB believes
that a single measurement basis may not provide the most relevant information for
users.
23
When selecting the measurement basis, the information that measurement will
produce in both the statement of financial position and the statement of profit or
loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) should be considered. Further, the
selection of a measurement of a particular asset or a particular liability should
depend on how that asset contributes to the entity's future cashflows and how the
entity will settle or fulfil that liability.
NARROW AND BROAD
The current framework does not contain principles to determine the items to be
recognised in profit or loss, and in OCI and whether, and when, items can be
recycled from OCI to profit or loss. In terms of what items would be included in
OCI, the paper proposes two approaches: 'narrow' and 'broad'.
Under the narrow approach, OCI would include bridging items and mismatched
remeasurements. OCI would be used to bridge a measurement difference between
the statement of financial position and the statement of profit or loss. This would
include, for example, investments in financial instruments with profit or losses
reported through OCI. Mismatched remeasurements occur when the item of income
or expense represents the effects of part of a linked set of assets, liabilities or past
or planned transactions. It represents their effect so incompletely that, in the
opinion of the IASB, the item provides little relevant information about the return
the entity has made on its economic resources in the period.
An example is a cashflow hedge where fair value gains and losses are deferred in
OCI until the hedged transaction affects profit or loss. The paper suggests that
under the narrow OCI approach, an entity should subsequently have to recycle
amounts from OCI to profit or loss; and under the mismatched remeasurements
approach the amount should be recycled when the item can be presented with the
matched item.
The issue that arises here is that, under the narrow approach, the treatment of
certain items would be inconsistent with current IFRS - eg revaluation gains and
losses for property, plant and equipment.
The paper also sets out a third category - 'transitory remeasurements'. These are
remeasurements of long-term assets and liabilities that are likely to reverse or
significantly change over time. These items would be shown in OCI - for example,
the remeasurement of a net defined pension benefit liability or asset. The IASB
would decide in each IFRS whether a transitory remeasurement should be
subsequently recycled. However, the IASB has not yet determined which approach
it will use.
24
RECOGNITION
Recognition and derecognition deals with the principles and criteria for assets and
liabilities to be included or removed from an entity's financial statements. The
paper sets out to bring this into line with the principles used in IASB's current
projects. It proposes that assets and liabilities should be recognised by an entity,
unless that results in irrelevant information, the costs outweigh the benefits, or the
measure of information does not represent the transaction faithfully enough.
Derecognition is not currently addressed in the framework and the paper proposes
derecognition should occur when the recognition criteria are no longer met. The
question for the IASB is whether to replace the current concept based on the loss of
the economic risks and benefits of the asset with the concept based on the loss of
control over the legal rights comprised in the asset. A concept based on control
over the legal rights could result in several items going off balance sheet.
Proposed revisions to the disclosure framework include the objective of the primary
financial statements, the objective of the notes to the financial statements,
materiality and communication principles. The IASB has also identified both shortterm and long-term steps for addressing disclosure requirements in existing IFRS.
These proposals are an attempt to make the conceptual framework a blueprint for
developing consistent, high-quality, principles-based accounting standards. It is
important that there is dialogue about the whole of IFRS and for the IASB to
achieve buy-in to its core principles by enabling constituents to help shape the
future of IFRS.
25
SPLOCI
This is essentially an extension of the framework article by Graham Holt
The purpose of the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income
(OCI) is to show an entity's financial performance in a way that is useful to a wide
range of users so they may attempt to assess the future net cash inflows of an
entity. The statement should be classified and aggregated in a manner that makes
it understandable and comparable.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) currently require that the
statement be presented as either one statement, being a combined statement of
profit or loss and other comprehensive income, or two statements, being the
statement of profit or loss and the statement of other comprehensive income. An
entity has to show separately in OCI, those items which would be reclassified
(recycled) to profit or loss and those items which would never be reclassified
(recycled) to profit or loss. The related tax effects have to be allocated to these
sections.
Profit or loss includes all items of income or expense (including reclassification
adjustments) except those items of income or expense that are recognised in OCI
as required or permitted by IFRS.
Reclassification adjustments are amounts recycled to profit or loss in the current
period that were recognised in OCI in the current or previous periods. An example
of items recognised in OCI that may be reclassified to profit or loss are foreign
currency gains on the disposal of a foreign operation and realised gains or losses on
cashflow hedges. Those items that may not be reclassified are changes in a
revaluation surplus under IAS 16, Property, Plant and Equipment, and actuarial
gains and losses on a defined benefit plan under IAS 19, Employee Benefits.
However, there is a general lack of agreement about which items should be
presented in profit or loss and in OCI. The interaction between profit or loss and
OCI is unclear, especially the notion of reclassification and when or which OCI items
should be reclassified.
A common misunderstanding is that the distinction is based on realised versus
unrealised gains. This lack of a consistent basis for determining how items should
be presented has led to an inconsistent use of OCI in IFRS. It may be difficult to
deal with OCI on a conceptual level since the International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB) is finding it difficult to find a sound conceptual basis.
However, there is urgent need for some guidance around this issue.
Opinions vary, but there is a feeling that OCI has become a 'dumping ground' for
anything controversial because of a lack of clear definition of what should be
included in the statement. Many users are thought to ignore OCI as the changes
reported are not caused by the operating flows used for predictive purposes.
26
Financial performance is not defined in the Conceptual Framework, but could be

viewed as reflecting the value the entity has generated in the period and this can
be assessed from other elements of the financial statements and not just the
statement of comprehensive income. Examples would be the statement of
cashflows and disclosures relating to operating segments. The presentation in profit
or loss and OCI should allow a user to depict financial performance, including the
amount, timing and uncertainty of the entity's future net cash inflows and how
efficiently and effectively the entity's management have discharged their duties
regarding the resources of the entity.
There are several arguments for and against reclassification. If reclassification
ceased, there would be no need to define profit or loss, or any other total or
subtotal in profit or loss, and any presentation decisions can be left to specific
IFRSs. It is argued that reclassification protects the integrity of profit or loss and
provides users with relevant information about a transaction that occurred in the
period. Additionally, it can improve comparability where IFRS permits similar items
to be recognised in either profit or loss or OCI.
Those against reclassification argue that the recycled amounts add to the
complexity of financial reporting, may lead to earnings management, and the
reclassification adjustments may not meet the definitions of income or expense in
the period as the change in the asset or liability may have occurred in a previous
period.
The original logic for OCI was that it kept income-relevant items that possessed low
reliability from contaminating the earnings number.
Markets rely on profit or loss and it is widely used. The OCI figure is crucial because
it can distort common valuation techniques used by investors, such as the
price/earnings ratio. Thus, profit or loss needs to contain all information relevant to
investors. Misuse of OCI would undermine the credibility of net income. The use of
OCI as a temporary holding for cashflow hedging instruments and foreign currency
translation is non-controversial.
However, other treatments such as the policy of IFRS 9 to allow value changes in
equity investments to go through OCI, are not accepted universally.
US GAAP will require value changes in all equity investments to go through profit or
loss. Accounting for actuarial gains and losses on defined benefit schemes are
presented through OCI and certain large US corporations have been hit hard with
the losses incurred on these schemes. The presentation of these items in OCI would
have made no difference to the ultimate settled liability, but if they had been
presented in profit or loss the problem may have been dealt with earlier. An
assumption that an unrealised loss has little effect on the business is an incorrect
one.
The discussion paper on the Conceptual Framework considers three approaches to
profit or loss and reclassification. The first approach prohibits reclassification. The
other approaches, the narrow and broad approaches, require or permit
reclassification. The narrow approach allows recognition in OCI for bridging items or
mismatched remeasurements, while the broad approach has an additional category
of 'transitory measurements' (for example, remeasurement of a defined benefit
obligation), which would allow the IASB greater flexibility. The narrow approach
significantly restricts the types of items that would be eligible to be presented in
OCI and gives the IASB little discretion when developing or amending IFRSs.
27
A bridging item arises where the IASB determines that the statement of
comprehensive income would communicate more relevant information about
financial performance if profit or loss reflected a different measurement basis from
that reflected in the statement of financial position. For example, if a debt
instrument is measured at fair value in the statement of financial position, but is
recognised in profit or loss using amortised cost, then amounts previously reported
in OCI should be reclassified into profit or loss on impairment or disposal of the
debt instrument.
The IASB argues that this is consistent with the amounts that would be recognised
in profit or loss if the debt instrument were to be measured at amortised cost.
A mismatched remeasurement arises where an item of income or expense
represents an economic phenomenon so incompletely that presenting that item in
profit or loss would provide information that has little relevance in assessing the
entity's financial performance. An example of this is when a derivative is used to
hedge a forecast transaction; changes in the fair value of the derivative may arise
before the income or expense resulting from the forecast transaction.
The argument is that before the results of the derivative and the hedged item can
be matched together, any gains or losses resulting from the remeasurement of the
derivative, to the extent that the hedge is effective and qualifies for hedge
accounting, should be reported in OCI. Subsequently those gains or losses are
reclassified into profit or loss when the forecast transaction affects profit or loss.
This allows users to see the results of the hedging relationship.
The IASB's preliminary view is that any requirement to present a profit or loss total
or subtotal could also result in some items being reclassified. The commonly
suggested attributes for differentiation between profit or loss and OCI
(realised/unrealised,
frequency
of
occurrence,
operating/non-operating,
measurement certainty/uncertainty, realisation in the short/long-term or outside
management control) are difficult to distil into a set of principles.
Therefore, the IASB is suggesting two broad principles, namely:
Profit or loss provides the primary source of information about the return an entity
has made on its economic resources in a period. To support profit or loss, OCI
should only be used if it makes profit or loss more relevant.
The IASB feels that changes in cost-based measures and gains or losses resulting
from initial recognition should not be presented in OCI and that the results of
transactions, consumption and impairments of assets and fulfilment of liabilities
should be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they occur. As a
performance measure, profit or loss is more used, although there are a number of
other performance measures derived from the statement of profit or loss and OCI.
28
IFRS FOR SMES

Here is an article by Graham Holt.
The principal aim when developing accounting standards for small- to medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) is to provide a framework that generates relevant, reliable and
useful information, which should provide a high-quality and understandable set of
accounting standards suitable for SMEs. In July, the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) issued IFRS for Small and Medium-Sized Entities (IFRS for
SMEs). This standard provides an alternative framework that can be applied by
eligible entities in place of the full set of International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS).
IFRS for SMEs is a self-contained standard, incorporating accounting principles
based on existing IFRS, which have been simplified to suit the entities that fall
within its scope. There are a number of accounting practices and disclosures that
may not provide useful information for the users of SME financial statements. As a
result, the standard does not address the following topics:
Earnings per share
Interim financial reporting
Segment reporting
Insurance (because entities that issue insurance contracts are not eligible to use
the standard)
Assets held for sale.
In addition, there are certain accounting treatments that are not allowable under
the standard. Examples are the revaluation model for property, plant and
equipment and intangible assets, and proportionate consolidation for investments in
jointly controlled entities. Generally, there are simpler methods of accounting
available to SMEs than the disallowed accounting practices. The standard also
eliminates the 'available-for-sale' and 'held-to maturity' classifications of IAS 39,
Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
All financial instruments are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest
method, except that investments in non-convertible and non-puttable ordinary and
preference shares that are publicly traded, or whose fair value can otherwise be
measured reliably, are measured at fair value through profit or loss. All amortised
cost instruments must be tested for impairment. At the same time, the standard
simplifies the hedge accounting and derecognition requirements. However, SMEs
can also choose to apply IAS 39 in full.
29
The standard also contains a section on transition, which allows all of the
exemptions in IFRS 1, First-Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting
Standards. It also contains 'impracticability' exemptions for comparative
information and the restatement of the opening statement of financial position. As a
result of the above, IFRS require SMEs to comply with less than 10% of the volume
of accounting requirements applicable to listed companies.
What is an SME?
There is no universally agreed definition of an SME. No single definition can capture
all the dimensions of a small- or medium-sized enterprise, nor can it be expected to
reflect the differences between firms, sectors, or countries at different levels of
development. Most definitions based on size use measures such as number of
employees, balance sheet total, or annual turnover. However, none of these
measures apply well across national borders. IFRS for SMEs is intended for use by
entities that have no public accountability (ie, their debt or equity instruments are
not publicly traded).
Ultimately, the decision regarding which entities should use IFRS for SMEs stays
with national regulatory authorities and standard-setters. These bodies will often
specify more detailed eligibility criteria. If an entity opts to use IFRS for SMEs, it
must follow the standard in its entirety it cannot cherry pick between the
requirements of IFRS for SMEs and the full set.
The IASB makes it clear that the prime users of IFRS are the capital markets. This
means that IFRS are primarily designed for quoted companies and not SMEs. The
vast majority of the world's companies are small and privately owned, and it could
be argued that full International Financial Reporting Standards are not relevant to
their needs or to their users. It is often thought that small business managers
perceive the cost of compliance with accounting standards to be greater than their
benefit. Because of this, the IFRS for SMEs makes numerous simplifications to the
recognition, measurement and disclosure requirements in full IFRS. Examples of
these simplifications are:
Goodwill and other indefinite-life intangibles are amortised over their useful lives,
but if useful life cannot be reliably estimated, then 10 years.
A simplified calculation is allowed if measurement of defined benefit pension plan
obligations (under the projected unit credit method) involve undue cost or effort.
The cost model is permitted for investments in associates and joint ventures.
The main argument for separate SME accounting standards is the undue cost
burden of reporting, which is proportionately heavier for smaller firms. The cost of
applying the full set of IFRS may simply not be justified on the basis of user needs.
Further, much of the current reporting framework is based on the needs of large
business, so SMEs perceive that the full statutory financial statements are less
relevant to the users of SME accounts. SMEs also use financial statements for a
narrower range of decisions, as they have less complex transactions and therefore
less need for a sophisticated analysis of financial statements. Therefore, the
disclosure requirements in the IFRS for SMEs are also substantially reduced.
30
Differing approaches
Those who argue against different reporting requirements for SMEs say the system
could lead to a two-tier system of reporting. Entities should not be subject to
different rules, which could give rise to different 'true and fair views'.
There were a number of approaches that could have been taken to developing
standards for SMEs. An alternative could have been for generally accepted
accounting principles for SMEs to have been developed on a national basis, with
IFRS focusing on accounting for listed company activities. However, the main issue
here would be that the practices developed for SMEs may not have been consistent
and may have lacked comparability across national boundaries. Also, if an SME
wished to later list its shares on a capital market, the transition to IFRS could be
harder.
Under another approach, the exemptions given to smaller entities would have been
prescribed in the mainstream accounting standard. For example, an appendix could
have been included within the standard, detailing those exemptions given to
smaller enterprises. Yet another approach would have been to introduce a separate
standard comprising all the issues addressed in IFRS that were relevant to SMEs.
As it stands
IFRS for SMEs is a self-contained set of accounting principles, based on full IFRS,
but simplified so that they are suitable for SMEs. The standard has been organised
by topic with the intention that the standard is user-friendlier for preparers and
users of SME financial statements. IFRS for SMEs and full IFRS are separate and
distinct frameworks.
Therefore, the standard for SMEs is by nature not an independently developed set
of standards. It is based on recognised concepts and pervasive principles and it
allows easier transition to full IFRS if the SME later becomes a public listed entity.
In deciding on the modifications to make to IFRS, the needs of the users have been
taken into account, as well as the costs and other burdens imposed upon SMEs by
the IFRS.
Relaxation of some of the measurement and recognition criteria in IFRS had to be
made in order to achieve the reduction in these costs and burdens. Some disclosure
requirements are intended to meet the needs of listed entities, or to assist users in
making forecasts of the future. Users of financial statements of SMEs often do not
make these kinds of forecasts.
Small companies pursue different strategies, and their goals are more likely to be
survival and stability rather than growth and profit maximisation. The stewardship
function is often absent in small companies, with the accounts playing an agency
role between the owner-manager and the bank.
Where financial statements are prepared using the standard, the basis of
presentation note and the auditor's report will refer to compliance with IFRS for
SMEs. This reference may improve SME's access to capital. The standard also
contains simplified language and explanations of the standards.
31
The IASB has not set an effective date for the standard because the decision as to
whether to adopt IFRS for SMEs is a matter for each jurisdiction.
In the absence of specific guidance on a particular subject, an SME may, but is not
required to, consider the requirements and guidance in full IFRS dealing with
similar issues. The IASB has produced full implementation guidance for SMEs.
IFRS for SMEs is a response to international demand from developed and emerging
economies for a rigorous and common set of accounting standards for smaller and
medium-sized enterprises that is much easier to use than the full set of IFRS.
It should provide improved comparability for users of accounts while enhancing the
overall confidence in the accounts of SMEs, and reduce the significant costs
involved in maintaining standards on a national basis.
32
LEASES
As we wait for a definitive leasing standard, Graham Holt explores the original 2013
exposure draft and the current state of play
Leasing is an important activity for many organisations with the majority of leases
not currently reported on a lessees statement of financial position. The existing
accounting models for leases require lessees and lessors to classify their leases as
either finance leases or operating leases and to account for those leases differently.
The existing standards have been criticised for failing to meet the needs of users of
financial statements because they do not always provide a faithful representation of
leasing transactions.
The exposure draft (ED), Leases (May 2013), attempted to solve the lease
accounting problem by requiring an entity to classify leases into two types type A
and type B and recognise both types on the statement of financial position. The
ED was the result of a joint project by the International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB) (the
boards).This article sets out the current deliberations of the boards as at the end of
2014 and, therefore, as such, the final leasing standard may vary from the
discussions below.
The ED sets out that type A leases would normally mean that the underlying asset
is not property, while type B leases mean that the underlying asset is property.
However, the entity classifies a lease other than a property lease as type B if the
lease term is for an insignificant part of the total economic life of the asset; or the
present value of the lease payments is insignificant relative to the fair value of the
underlying asset at the leases commencement date.
Conversely, the entity classifies a property lease as type A if the lease term is for
the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset; or the
present value of the lease payments accounts for substantially all of the fair value
of the underlying asset at the commencement date. At this date, the lessee
discounts the lease payments using the rate the lessor charges the lessee, or if that
rate is unavailable, the lessees incremental borrowing rate.
The lessee recognises the present value of lease payments as a liability. At the
same time it recognises a right-of-use (ROU) asset equal to the lease liability, plus
any lease payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement date, less
any lease incentives received from the lessor; and any initial direct costs incurred
by the lessee. After the commencement date, the liability is increased by the
unwinding of interest and reduced by lease payments made to the lessor.
A lessee will recognise in profit or loss, for type A leases, the unwinding of the
discount on the lease liability as interest and the amortisation of the ROU asset
and, for type B leases, the lease payments will be recognised in profit or loss on a
straight-line basis over the lease term and reflected in profit or loss as a single
lease cost.
Following the feedback received on the ED, the FASB still remains supportive of the
dual-model approach to bringing leases on to the statement of financial position.
33
Under this approach, a lessee would account for most existing finance leases as
type A leases and most existing operating leases as type B leases. Both type A and
B leases result in the lessee recognising a ROU asset and a lease liability. However,
the IASB has stated that feedback on the 2013 ED indicates that the dual model is
too complex and, therefore, has opted currently for a single lessee model that is
easy to understand. The IASB decided on a single approach for lessee accounting
where a lessee would account for all leases as type A leases.
The boards decided that a lessor should determine lease classification (type A or
type B) on the basis of whether the lease is effectively a financing or a sale, rather
than an operating lease. A lessor would make that determination by assessing
whether the lease transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to
ownership of the underlying asset. A lessor will be required to apply an approach
substantially equivalent to existing International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) finance lease accounting to all type A leases.
A lease is currently defined by the boards as a contract that conveys the right to
use an asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. An entity would
determine whether a contract contains a lease by assessing whether the use of the
asset is either explicitly or implicitly specified and the customer controls the use of
the asset. The definition of a lease does not require the customer to have the ability
to derive the benefits from directing the use of an asset.
The boards have decided that the leases guidance should not include specific
requirements on materiality and retain the recognition and measurement
exemption for a lessees short-term leases (12 months or less) with the IASB
specifically favouring a similar exemption for leases of small assets for lessees.
The boards have decided that, when determining the lease term, an entity should
consider all relevant factors that may affect the decision to extend, or not to
terminate, a lease. The lease term should only be reassessed when a significant
event occurs or there is a significant change in circumstances that are within the
control of the lessee. A lessor should not be required to reassess the lease term.
Only variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate should be included
in the initial measurement of leases and the IASB has determined that
reassessment of variable lease payments would only occur when the lessee remeasures the lease liability for other reasons. A lessor will not be required to
reassess variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate.
The definition of the discount rate remains unchanged as the rate implicit in the
lease, as does the requirement for a lessee to reassess the discount rate only when
there is a change to either the lease term or the assessment of whether the lessee
is (or is not) reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the asset.
A lease modification for both a lessee and a lessor should be accounted for as a
new lease, separate from the original lease, when:
the lease grants the lessee an additional right-of-use not included in the original
lease, and
the additional right-of-use is priced commensurate with its standalone price in the
context of that particular contract.
34
In terms of the initial direct costs for both lessors and lessees, they should include
only incremental costs that would not have incurred if the lease had not been
executed. These include commissions or payments made to existing tenants to
obtain the lease. A lessor in a type A lease should include initial direct costs in the
initial measurement of the lease receivable and they should be taken into account
in determining the rate implicit in the lease.
A lessor in a type A lease who recognises selling profit at lease commencement
should recognise initial direct costs as an expense. A lessor in a type B lease should
expense such costs over the lease term on the same basis as lease income. A
lessee should include initial direct costs in the initial measurement of the right-ofuse asset and amortise those costs over the lease term.
The guidance in the ED has been retained for sale and leaseback transactions with
a sale having to meet the requirements of a sale as set out in IFRS 15. A buyerlessor should account for the purchase of the underlying asset consistent with the
guidance that would apply to the purchase of any non-financial asset.
This article sets out the deliberations of the IASB/FASB as regards lease accounting
at the end of December 2014. The IFRS is due for publication in 2015, but it seems
that the FASB and IASB will have differing views on several recognition and
measurement issues when the IFRS is finally published. There may yet however be
further changes of opinion.
Graham Holt is director of professional studies at the accounting, finance and
economics department at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School
The FASB reThe FASB remains supportive of the dual-model approach to bringing
leases on to the statement of financial position mains supportive of the dual-model
approach to bringing leases on to the statement of financial position
35
CHANGES
By Graham Holt
The introduction of a new accounting standard or a change in an accounting

standard can have a significant impact on an entity from an internal as well as an
external perspective. As a result, the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB) has recently agreed to conduct an effects analysis before publishing any
International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS).
When the IASB issues a new or significantly amended IFRS, it changes the way in
which financial statements show particular transactions or events. Changes in
reporting requirements always come with a cost.
The IASB uses discussion papers and the basis for conclusions to explain the steps
taken to ensure that a proposed IFRS has taken into account the costs and benefits
of the new reporting practice that it introduces.
WHATS THE IMPACT?
The IASB considers a variety of matters prior to the issue of a standard. These
matters include how the changes improve the comparability of financial information
and the assessment of the effect on an entitys future cashflows.
Further considerations include whether the changes will result in better economic
decision-making, the likely compliance costs for preparers, and the potential cost
for users of extracting the data.
On application of the new IFRS, investors will be provided with different information
on which to base their decisions. Investors assessment of how management has
discharged its stewardship responsibilities could be changed as could the cost of the
entitys capital. This, in turn, could affect how investors vote at a shareholder
meeting or influence their investment decisions. New financial reporting
requirements may call for the disclosure of information that is of competitive
advantage to third parties, which would be a cost to the entity.
A change in an accounting standard could result in some entities no longer
investing in certain assets or change how they contract for some activities. For
example, the comment letters on the exposure draft on leases suggest that some
entities would change their leasing arrangements if operating leases had to be
shown on the balance sheet with adverse economic impacts including the loss of
thousands of jobs.
Further IFRS-based financial statements are used in contracts or regulation.
Banking agreements often specify maximum debt levels or financial ratios that refer
to figures prepared in accordance with IFRS. New financial reporting requirements
can affect those ratios, with potential breach of contracts. Many jurisdictions have
regulation that restricts the amount that can be paid out in dividends, by reference
to accounting profit. Further, some governments use IFRS numbers for statistical
and economic planning purposes and the data as evidence for constraints on
profitability in regulated industries.
36
Taxation is often calculated on the profit measured for financial reporting purposes.
Where IFRS is used as the basis for income tax, a change in a standard can affect
the tax base. The economic consequences of the link of accounting with tax
liabilities can be significant. If the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
were no longer to permit use of the last-in first-out (LIFO) method, companies
using LIFO would have to pay income taxes sooner because of the higher cost of
sales under LIFO. The impact has been estimated to be greater than US$80bn if the
tax law was not changed. However, neither the FASB nor the IASB base accounting
policy decisions on tax consequences.
Some jurisdictions require an impact assessment before a new standard, or an
amendment to a standard, is incorporated into the law. Such a review may take
into account the increased administrative burden on entities in that country or its
consistency with local company law.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
On a micro level, where new and revised pronouncements are applied for the first
time, there can be an impact on the drafting of the financial statements. The
financial statements will need to reflect the new recognition, measurement and
disclosure requirements. For example IFRS 10, Consolidated financial statements,
was amended for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014. This
amendment provides an exemption from consolidation of subsidiaries for entities
that meet the definition of an investment entity, such as some investment funds.
Instead, such entities measure their investment in certain subsidiaries at fair value
through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9, Financial instruments, or IAS 39,
Financial instruments: recognition and measurement. The consequences of this
amendment will be far-reaching for those entities.
IAS 8, Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors, contains a
general requirement that changes in accounting policies are fully retrospectively
applied. However, this does not apply where there are specific transitional
provisions. For example, when first applying IFRS 15, Revenue from contracts with
customers, entities should apply the standard in full for the current period,
including retrospective application to all contracts that were not yet complete at the
beginning of that period.
For prior periods, the transition guidance allows entities an option to either:
apply IFRS 15 in full to prior periods (some limited practical expedients are
available)
retain prior period figures as reported under the previous standards, recognising
the cumulative effect of applying IFRS 15 as an adjustment to the opening balance
of equity as at the date of the beginning of the current reporting period.
Further, IAS 8 requires the disclosure of a number of matters about the new IFRS.
These include the title of the IFRS, the nature of the change in accounting policy, a
description of the transitional provisions, and the amount of the adjustment for
each financial statement line item that is affected.
37
Additionally, IAS 1, Presentation of financial statements, requires a third statement

of financial position to be presented if the entity retrospectively applies an
accounting policy, restates items or reclassifies items, and those adjustments had a
material effect on the information in the statement of financial position at the
beginning of the comparative period.
IAS 33, Earnings per share, requires basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) to
be adjusted for the impacts of adjustments resulting from changes in accounting
policies accounted for retrospectively, and IAS 8 requires the disclosure of the
amount of such adjustments. Where there are new accounting policies, the impact
on the interim financial statements will not be as great as on the year-end
accounts. However, IAS 34, Interim financial reporting, requires disclosure of the
nature and effect of any change in accounting policies and methods of computation.
ENTITY ASSESSMENT
The entity itself should prepare an impact assessment relating to the introduction of
any new IFRS. There may be significant changes to processes, systems and
controls, and management should communicate the impact to investors and other
stakeholders. This would include plans for disclosing the effects of new accounting
standards that are issued but not yet effective, as required by IAS 8. Audit
committees have an important role in overseeing implementation of any new
standard in their organisations.
For example, under IFRS 15, an entity may need to evaluate its relationships with
contract counterparties to determine whether a vendor-customer relationship
exists. Existing revenue recognition policies will also need to be evaluated to
determine whether any contracts within the scope of IFRS 15 will be affected by the
new requirements.
Where a new standard requires significantly more disclosures than current IFRS,
the entity may want to understand whether it has sufficient information to satisfy
the new disclosure requirements or whether new systems, processes and controls
must be implemented to gather such information and ensure its accuracy. The
entity should choose a path to implementation and establish responsibilities and
deadlines. This may help to determine the accountability of the implementation
team and allow management to identify gaps in resources.
For example, IFRS 15 requires entities that select the full retrospective approach to
apply the standard to each year presented in the financial statements. This will
require entities to begin tracking revenue using the new standard from the current
period to the effective date of 1 January 2017.
IMPLEMENTATION TIME
A key thing about recent standards is that the IASB has given entities a reasonable
amount of time to plan implementation. For example IFRS 9, Financial instruments,
has an effective date of 1 January 2018. However, insurance companies will need
this time to plan their implementation.
The new IFRS 9 standard includes revised guidance about the classification and
measurement of financial assets, including a new expected credit loss model for
calculating impairment. It also supplements the new general hedge accounting
requirements that were published in 2013.
38
Insurance companies will be greatly affected as they plan to adopt new standards
on financial instruments and insurance contracts. However, before insurers reach
conclusions about how they apply IFRS 9, they will want to consider its interaction
with the forthcoming standard on insurance contracts.
Accounting standards have economic effects, which can be beneficial for some
entities and detrimental to others. The IASBs evaluation of costs and benefits are
by nature qualitative. The quantitative effects should be anticipated by entities as
they are the ones that will feel them.
39
TRANSPARENT AND CONSISTENT

By Graham Holt
Transparency and the consistent application of IFRS in financial reporting are key to
making financial markets work smoothly
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has recently published its
annual statement defining the European common enforcement priorities for 2013
financial statements. The aim is to try to foster transparency and the consistent
application of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) to help the
financial markets function.
With the help of European national enforcers, ESMA has identified several financial
reporting topics that should be considered in the preparation of the financial
statements of listed companies for the year ending 31 December 2013. Those
topics are:
impairment of non-financial assets
measurement and disclosure of post-employment benefit obligations
fair value measurement and disclosure
disclosures related to significant accounting policies, judgments and estimates
measurement of financial instruments and disclosure of related risk with relevance
to financial institutions.
Not surprisingly, ESMA says that national regulators may also focus on additional
relevant topics. It issued a similar statement a year ago and post-employment
benefit obligations appears on both listings. ESMA builds on its 2012 statement by
emphasising the need for transparency and the importance of appropriate and
consistent application of recognition, measurement and disclosure principles. ESMA
and the European national enforcers will monitor and assess the application of IFRS
requirements relating to the items in this statement.
These European common enforcement priorities will be incorporated into the
reviews performed by national enforcers. The guidelines are not statutory, but
ESMA hopes that awareness campaigns will lead national regulators to take account
of the new priorities. The watchdog will also monitor national regulators' application
of the priorities and will publish progress reviews to encourage national regulators
to comply.
Users of financial statement have expressed concerns over the use of 'boilerplate'
disclosures for transactions that are not relevant or are immaterial to the entity.
The view is that entities should disclose only applicable accounting policies and
focus on entity-specific information rather than quoting extensively from IFRS.
IMPAIRMENT OF NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS
Continued slow economic growth in Europe could indicate that non-financial assets
will continue to generate lower than expected cashflows especially in those
industries experiencing a downturn in fortunes. In 2012, ESMA suggested paying
particular attention to the valuation of goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite
life spans.
40
This year, it has again included the impairment of non-financial assets in the
common enforcement priorities with a focus on certain specific areas. These areas
are cashflow projections, disclosure of key assumptions and judgments, and
appropriate disclosure of sensitivity analysis for material goodwill and intangible
assets with indefinite useful lives.
In measuring value-in-use, cashflow projections should be based on reasonable and
supportable assumptions that represent the best estimate of the range of future
economic conditions. IAS 36, Impairment of Assets, points out that greater weight
should be given to external evidence when determining the best estimate of
cashflow projections. IAS 36 says entities should assess the reasonableness of the
assumptions on which cashflow projections are based. Each key assumption should
be consistent with external sources of information, or how these assumptions differ
from experience or external sources of information should be disclosed.
ESMA considers that disclosures made by entities are often uninformative because
they are only provided at an aggregate level and not at the level of the cashgenerating unit. Financial statements generally are not providing disclosures that
are entity-specific or appropriately disaggregated.
ESMA has reviewed 2012 financial statements, and the disclosures relating to the
sensitivity analysis of goodwill or other intangible assets with indefinite useful lives
are poor. IAS 36 requires disclosures on the sensitivity of the key assumptions to
change when determining the recoverable amount.
Entities have regularly used the assertion that 'no reasonable possible change in a
key assumption would result in an impairment loss'. ESMA believes that this
disclosure does not give users sufficient detail to allow them to assess sensitivity
properly.
MEASUREMENT OF POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT OBLIGATIONS
IAS 19, Employee Benefits, requires the discount rate applied to post-employment
benefit obligations to be determined using market yields based on high-quality
corporate bonds. 'High quality' reflects absolute credit quality and not that of a
given collection of corporate bonds.
The policy for determining the discount rate should be applied consistently over
time and a reduction in the number of high-quality corporate bonds should not
normally result in a change to this policy.
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has tentatively decided to
amend IAS 19 to clarify that the depth of the bond market should be assessed and
this should be at the currency level and not at the country level.
In jurisdictions where there is no deep market in these bonds, the standard
requires that market yields on government bonds should be used. ESMA expects
issuers to use an approach consistent with this amendment.
There is an additional reminder by ESMA regarding the importance of disclosing the
significant actuarial assumptions used in determining the present value of the
defined benefit obligation and the related sensitivity analysis. The discount rate is a
significant actuarial assumption, the details of which should be disclosed together
with any disaggregation information on plans and the fair value of the plan assets
where the level of risk of those plans is different.
41
FAIR VALUE
ESMA has indicated that entities should assess the impact of the requirements of
IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement. In particular, the effect of non-performance risk
should be reflected in the value of a liability. As an example, the fair value of a
derivative liability should incorporate the entity's own credit risk. ESMA emphasises
the need for proper recognition of counterparty credit risk when determining the
fair value of financial instruments and providing relevant disclosure.
IFRS 13 requires all valuation techniques to maximise the use of relevant
observable inputs, which should be consistent with the asset or liability's
characteristics. In some cases, a premium or discount to the market value may be
applied but it should be consistent with the nature of the asset or liability.
ESMA stresses the need to provide disclosures related to fair value, particularly
when the measurement is based on significant unobservable inputs (level 3). The
more unobservable the data, the more important that uncertainties are clearly
identified. Further, IFRS 13 (and ESMA) requires entities to categorise
measurements into each level of the fair value hierarchy.
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, JUDGMENTS AND ESTIMATES
ESMA expects issuers to focus on the quality and completeness of disclosures
relevant to the entity's financial statements. These should be entity-specific and not
boilerplate. ESMA believes that disclosures could be improved in the following
areas: significant accounting policies, judgments made by management, sources of
estimation uncertainty, going concern, sensitivities, and new standards issued but
not yet effective.
Significant accounting policies and management judgments could be included in the
financial statements in order of materiality and significance. IAS 1, Presentation of
Financial Statements, requires disclosure of estimation uncertainties with a
significant risk of being adjusted in the next year.
ESMA reiterates that disclosure of new standards that have been issued but are not
yet effective (IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and
Errors) is relevant where the new standard could have a material impact on the
financial statements.
42
TOPICS RELATED TO FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Transparency and comparability of financial reporting of financial institutions is in
the interest of market participants. ESMA states that issuers should ensure that
they meet the requirements of IFRS 7, Financial Instruments: Disclosures, for
qualitative and quantitative disclosures and assess whether there is objective
evidence of impairment while disclosing sufficient detail to provide a comprehensive
picture of the liquidity risk and funding needs of the entity.
Disclosures should enable users to evaluate the nature and extent of risks, and the
elements related to the valuation of financial instruments, the latter reflecting
economic reality.
Experience during the financial crisis showed diverging accounting treatments in
relation to forbearance practices. Forbaearance occurs where the terms of the loan
are modified due to the borrower's financial difficulties. ESMA expects issuers to
provide quantitative information on the effects of forbearance, enabling investors to
assess the level of impairment of financial assets.
ESMA also expects disclosure of the accounting policies applied to financial assets
that have been assessed individually for impairment but for which no objective
evidence of impairment was available. The purpose of this disclosure is to allow
users to assess credit risk.
Entities should also disclose the time bands in the maturity analysis and include
maturity analysis of financial assets held for managing liquidity risk.
ESMA is attempting to foster consistent application of accounting standards while
ensuring the transparency and accuracy of financial information. As noted above,
ESMA and the national regulators will monitor the application of the IFRS
requirements outlined in the priorities, with national regulators incorporating them
into their reviews and taking corrective actions where appropriate. Auditors and
issuers ignore the guidance at their peril.
43
Potential exam question: Godzilla

Godzilla is considering partnering with two other businesses, Chimp and Lemur.
Godzilla is a multinational conglomerate including high tech business and food
stuffs. Chimp is a mass manufacturer. Lemur is a small manufacturer on the
island of Madagascar. The proposal is to build high tech mass manufacturing plant
in Madagascar to produce large volumes of computer components for worldwide
sales. The new entity will be known as Madagascar. Godzilla will bring machines.
Chimp will build the factory. Lemur will bring local knowledge. There are four
structures being considered. But in all cases each of the partners will have the
right to one third of the profits in the new business. The four options are:Option one
The new entity will be incorporated. Each partner will hold one third of the shares.
However, only Godzilla shares will have voting rights. The Chimp and Lemur shares
will have equal ownership to the Godzilla shares but will have no voting power.
Option two
All shares will have equal voting rights and equal ownership and all decisions must
be made by majority vote.
Option three
All shares will have equal voting rights and equal ownership but all decisions must
be made by unanimous vote.
Option four
The new entity will not be incorporated. Each partner will have the right to one
third of the profit. But each partner will continue to own their contributory assets.
So Godzilla will continue to own the machines that it brings to the business. All the
partners will have equal voting rights and equal ownership but all decisions must be
made by unanimous vote.
Required
(a)(i) Explain the basis for accounting for joint arrangements required by
IFRS11 Joint Arrangements.
(3 marks)
(a)(ii) Discuss the options above explaining how each option would be
recognised by Godzilla group.
(8 marks)
44
Further Godzilla has two similar leases related to two buildings. Both contracts
were signed at the year start and both involve three payments of $1million at the
end of each accounting year. The first is related to offices in a prestigious old office
block. The building is well maintained and under a preservation order. There is
good reason to believe the building will continue in use for many years after the
end of the lease. The second is related to a new warehouse that is scheduled for
demolition immediately after the end of the lease. There are plans to build a
supermarket on the site. A discount rate of 10% can be assumed throughout.
Required
(b)(i) Explain the principles of lease accounting under IAS17 and describe
how those principles would apply to the two lease contract above.
(5 marks)
(b)(ii) Discuss the inconsistency of the principles in IAS17 with the
framework for financial reporting.
(3 marks)
Godzilla is aware of development in the area of revenue and financial instrument
impairment and other changes to IFRS.
Required
(c)
Discuss how changes in IFRS can effect entities.

(6 marks)
(25 marks)
Alright, I admit it, this is a fake question written to squeeze Three subjects
into one question. Of course, a real current issues question has only one
subject and 25 marks.
45
IVORY TOWER IFRS COLUMN

As you may know, I write the column on the development of IFRS for PQ magazine.
These articles are targeted at students trying to get a feel for current issues and
their corporate social responsibility angle. Here are a few recent editions. Please
keep up with the column by signing up to receive PQ at pqaccountant.com.
The articles are all aimed at giving P2 students a flavour of current issues, in order
to give them the edge when addressing those tricky current issues questions in the
P2 exam.
Winter 2012 Financial instruments and recycling

The ivory tower column is moving to quarterly reporting; after all if quarterly
reporting is good enough for Tescos then it is good enough for me. So that means
every quarter I shall bring you news from the rarefied atmosphere around the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in London. I think I shall use the
extra space to solve practical problems to illustrate IASB developments.
I am going to start with Elton John. Imagine Elton John is thinking of coming back
into football. He used to own Watford Football Club, you know. Well he decides he
is interested in buying back the club he sold many years ago. But he knows things
have moved on since the days that John Barnes was a young man in a Watford
strip. He knows that his multiple millions are really small fry compared to the likes
of Roman Abramovich. So he buys just 2% of the equity shares of Watford Football
Club with a view to buying more and maybe all the equity if things work out. He
pays 10k for the shares. By the year end the shares have risen in value to 13k.
In the new year he starts to question his investment and by the first month end in
the new year has decided that he wants out of football. The shares are now worth
14k. But perversely, because of the rising value, a buyer is hard to find.
Eventually a month later Elton sells for 16k. Let us have a look at how this should
be accounted for and the current issue hidden in the numbers.
Firstly, I guess you know that the equity shares are financial instruments. FI are
contracts that give rise to an asset in one entity and a liability or equity in another
entity. Also I guess you can see that Elton has the asset (and Watford have the
equity obligation). This means Elton must use the financial asset (FA) classification
rules in International Financial Reporting Standard 9 (IFRS9) as follows:-
Cash flow characteristics test

(Is the FA a simple loan?)
No
Yes
Business model test
(Is there intent to keep the FA?)
No
Yes
Amortised cost
Fair value
46
Of course, the equity investment is not a simple loan; it is not a loan asset at all.
So the equity is carried at fair value. Now the default recognition for gains and
losses on fair value changes is the income statement, which the IASB somewhat
perversely call profit or loss, giving us the expression financial asset at fair value
through profit or loss (FVPL). But hidden in IFRS9 is a special option to carry
strategic equity at fair value through other comprehensive income (FVOCI). The
OCI is an ugly wart like performance report growing off the bottom of the income
statement that accommodates gains that are not allowed through the p/l. The
classic example is revaluation gains on property plant and equipment. But now you
know that strategic equity gains go there too. But there are two recognition criteria
for strategic equity:(1)
Strategic
The entity must be able to show a strategic intent to keep the asset.
(2)
Equity
The asset must be equity.
Clearly the shares in Watford fulfil both criteria and so will be carried FVOCI. But
what does that mean in this case? It means the rise in value in the year of
purchase of 3k (13-10) will go through the OCI. It also means that the first 1k
(14-13) will go to the new year OCI. It is at that point Elton changes his mind
about the investment and at that point that the equity no longer fulfils the
strategic criteria given above. So now the asset is classed FVPL and the final 2k
gain goes into the income statement.
Now comes the development issue. The gain of 2k that went through the income
statement will end up in an equity bucket on the balance sheet called retained
earnings (RE). But the two earlier gains of 1k from this year and 3k from last
year went through the OCI. So they have been accumulated in an equity bucket
called other components of equity (OCE). Now in old fashioned language this
accumulated gain of 4k is described as unrealised. But now that the related
asset has been sold the 4k is realised and must move to RE. In the old days of
awful IAS39 this 4k was realised by the long route. It was taken off the balance
sheet put into the income statement and thereby it would drop in RE. This was
called recycling. But under the new IFRS9 the gain is simply moved from one
equity reserve to the other directly on the balance sheet. So the 4k goes from
OCE to RE.
Spring 2013 Property and performance

The Ivory Tower is going to visit the world of property. I will start with 20
Fenchurch Street, also known as the walkie talkie because it is said to look like
the walkie talkie telephones of Vietnam movies. For those of you who work in the
City of London you will know it is the big fat tower that is wider at the top than the
base. And you will know that whilst progress has been fast since it got above mud
level last year, the building is notably unfinished. The building is owned by an
investment property company. So let us ask can the property be classified as an
investment property?
The criteria for investment properties can be given by the following mnemonic:I
C
E
Investment
The property must be held for gain or rent or both.
Complete
The property must be finished (otherwise it is work in progress)
Empty
The property must be unoccupied by the group (otherwise it is PPE)
47
I think you can see straight away that the walkie talkie fails the middle criteria and
so is classified as wip using construction contract accounting. Now that gets us
started but to get into the weird twists and turns of property accounting it would be
good to imagine two identical recently completed warehouses on an estate in
Swindon. In this imaginary story both are owned by an investment company with a
view to capital gain (let us call the company Land). The first building is full of
building material owned by Land and the second is occupied by a retailer who use it
as a distribution warehouse (let us say the retailer is Sainsburys). Both have risen
in value by 100k during the year but Land want to carry both at cost. Land has
the policy of carrying PPE property (property plant and equipment property) at fair
value.
Let us start by testing the first warehouse against the ICE criteria. This property
fails the E criteria. Of course, the property does not need to be literally empty; but
it does need to be empty of the group. This first warehouse is occupied by Land
stock and so is classified as PPE property. PPE can be carried at cost or fair value
(IAS16). There is a choice. But this choice must be applied consistently across a
class of assets. And Land has already made their choice by selecting a fair value
policy for PPE property.
So the first warehouse must be capitalised then
depreciated then revalued and the revaluation gain must go to the lower
performance statement called Other Comprehensive Income (OCI).
Now let us look at the second warehouse occupied by Sainsburys. All three of the
ICE criteria are fulfilled. So the second warehouse is an investment property. In
theory investment property can be carried at cost or fair value (IAS40). In theory
there is a choice. But unlike in PPE, this choice is purely theoretical. The worldwide
culture of carrying investment property at fair value is so strong that to deviate
from this is to be seen as a maverick. So this too is carried at fair value. But there
is no depreciation and the gain goes to the income statement.
Well that is all the financial reporting sorted. Now let us travel to the Ivory Tower
of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and find out some of the
things that drive them nuts about the property accounting that has been inherited
from these old standards that themselves reflect older cultures.
The first issue is choice. The choice of policies for PPE introduces inconsistency and
the choice that is not really a choice at all for investment properties is just plain
silly. So there should be no choice between alternatives in the standards.
The second issue is the performance reporting and this is the one that really drives
the IASB crazy. In the above, there are two property gains of 100k. The figures
are the same because the two properties are identical. And yet one gain goes
boldly and directly into the income statement (the investment property gain) and
the other gets hidden away in the other comprehensive income (the ppe
revaluation). This defies all logic and it was an area into which the IASB tried to
introduce logic by proposing a single holistic performance report where similar
gains are gathered together. Like a lot of good ideas, this idea proved too
contentious and the IASB gave up.
48
Summer 2013 Contingent liability inconsistency

I have just won over 1 billion on the galactic lotto and foolishly I decide to sink
some of the cash into football. So I buy Liverpool Football Club from Fenway. Not
unreasonably, Fenway want to get some return if Liverpool get into the top four
next season and qualify for Europe. They argue that any outstanding performance
next season must be partly down to Fenway management. I accept, but I also
want equivalent protection from an awful first season. So Fenway and I agree the
following terms:
250m now in cash.
220m in one year if Liverpool finishes in the top half of the table next season (80%).
121m in two years if Liverpool finishes in the top four next season (15%).
The probabilities are given above and the net assets are valued at 230m at
acquisition. I buy all the shares and so there is no non-controlling interest. The
cost of capital is 10%. That is plenty enough information to calculate the goodwill
which requires both consideration and net assets to be valued at fair value. I am
not a massive fan of double entry but I think it will help me make my point. So
here goes:
Dr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Consideration
Bank
Current liability (220x80%/1.1)
Non-current liability (121x15%/1.12)
425
250
160
15
You probably know that the two liabilities represent contingent consideration
liabilities and as said previously that is measured at fair value. So the goodwill is
measured as follows:
m
Fair value of consideration
425
Fair value of net assets
(230)
___
Goodwill
195
___
So far so good. But what I have not told you is that litigious claimants are trying to
get their grubby hands on my winnings. There are two in particular. The first has
an 80% chance of getting 220m in one years time and the second has a 15%
chance of getting 121m in two years time. The timing and the probabilities are
identical to those above for the contingent consideration. But these two are simple
contingent liabilities and are not valued at fair value. Instead these liabilities use
an on off switch style of recognition where probable outflows (>50%) are
recognised in full and others are not recognised at all (being either disclosed or
ignored altogether). So I ignore the second liability and recognise the first in full as
follows:
Dr
Cr
Cost
Current liabilities (220/1.1)
200
200
So when I draw up my balance sheet a few days after the acquisition I find that I
have inconsistency between my liabilities. Of course, identical liabilities should be
recognised the same but they are not. How did this ridiculous situation arise?
49
What we have hit upon is the clash between IFRS3 on business combinations and
IAS37 on provisions. The newer standard, IFRS3, was developed with getting a fair
value for goodwill in mind and as a result used fair value for contingent
consideration.
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) thought
nothing of this as it was both logical and in tune with a wider aim of getting all
contingencies at fair value. But when the IASB actually came to roadshow their
ideas on contingencies at fair value then a riot broke out in the ivory towers of
financial reporting. The IASB thought maybe that it was the way that they had
presented their ideas that was the problem. So they withdrew the project and later
reissued a simplified proposal. But again it was roundly thrown back in their faces.
So that was it. Game over. We now find ourselves in the bizarre situation where
two identical liabilities are recognised differently depending on whether they are
tied up in an acquisition or not.
Autumn 2013 Revenue

The revenue project is hotting up again as it comes to a close. It has been a long
and winding road to this point and I do not think any of us would benefit from a
historical recap. But a little reminder of the issues and the proposal does seem to
me to be overdue. So here goes. As usual I will use a question and answer to
illustrate my points.
Question: One Direction
Simon Cowell has asked your company to make a movie about the boy band One
Direction. The movie will be a mix of footage and interviews. The contract is for
$2m but it is broken down into components. $600k is payable after the filming has
been shot. Another $600k is payable after the editing is completed and approved
by Simon Cowell. The final $800k is payable once the head of studio has agreed
the film is ready.
All the filming has been completed and most of the editing has been done. Simon
Cowell is happy with the vast majority of the movie but would like a little more of
Harry Styles and his bouncing bouffant in order to get the girls into a frothing
frenzy. You have agreed and it will only be a few days before that content is in the
movie and Simon approves and the film can go to the head of studio for final
approval.
However, the year end has fallen and you are required to recognize revenue for the
current year. As mentioned all the hard work has been done. So you recognize
80% of $2m as revenue in what you see as a prudent estimate of work done.
Required
Discuss the above in the context of current and proposed revenue recognition.
Answer
Current revenue recognition
Current rules under IAS18 have two models:Sale of goods: this is recognized at the point that risks and rewards flow.
Sale of services: this is recognized over the period and so in accordance with
completion.
50
Intuition
The two models are described as sale of goods and sale of services but really the
pair are just the at model and the over model. IAS18 encourages preparers to
use either model for goods or services depending on intuition and the
circumstances of the revenue.
You
You have selected the over model. The reference to 80% means that you are
recognizing the revenue over the period of the service and have concluded that
80% has been done. Perhaps without realizing it, you have drawn a parallel with
constructing a movie over a period and constructing a hotel over a period. This is
absolutely fine and accords with IAS18.
Others
But other companies with similar revenue recognize that revenue at the point that
risks and rewards flow. And of those that use the at model, some will recognize
at the point that Simon Cowell approves and others will recognize at the point that
the head of studio approves. This is also true in the hotel building industry. Some
hotel construction is recognized at the point that the customer accepts the new
hotel.
Problem
And of course this is the point. IAS18 actually works quite well for preparers. But
because it is so subjective there is great inconsistency in application leading to
incomparability and creative accounting.
Solution
So the IASB propose to harden up revenue recognition. They are trying to replace
subjectivity with objectivity. The IASB see the current focus on the performance
statement as the issue and propose that the focus should move to the position
statement. In essence they propose that the revenue should be measured by
measuring the growth in the asset.
Asset
To paraphrase the framework an asset is a present right to a future economic
inflow. In this context the key word is right. You have the right to the first
$600k under the contract because you have finished the filming. But you do not
have the right to the other two flows because the film has not been approved by
either key player.
Revenue
So as your opening asset was zero at the year start and your closing asset is $600k
then your revenue would be $600k under the proposed rules.
But more
significantly anyone else looking at your revenue and using the proposals would get
the same answer thus showing that the subjectivity has gone leaving cold hard
objectivity.
Conclusion
There it is; the revenue proposals in a nutshell. But I should be honest. I have
stripped away all the fancy layers of complexity in the actual proposal to give you
the key to this subject. Let me tell you there are more layers than an onion and its
best to keep well away until the standard is finalized.
51
Winter 2013 Integrated Reporting

Everybody is talking about integrated reporting. There is even a funny little
arrow symbol invented to jazz up the abbreviation as follows: <IR>. I am not one
to refuse a bandwagon. So here goes my two pence worth.
The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) tells me that <IR> is a
process that results in communication by an organization, most visibly a periodic
integrated report, about value creation over time. An integrated report is a concise
communication about how an organizations strategy, governance, performance and
prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value
over the short, medium and long term.
That is a lot of fancy words, but what does it mean? Well essentially the IIRC are
talking about the published annual report. Currently there is a culture of publishing
the statutory financial statements in a pdf document with a management
commentary appended. As the name suggests, the management commentary is
the commentary of management on the fs plus their wider comments on strategy
and corporate social responsibility (CSR). All the IIRC are doing is trying to
encourage companies to publish annual reports that are integrated; in other
words, annual reports that tell a clear useful story in a document that hangs
together. Some entities like BP on the London Stock Exchange are brilliant at this
already, perhaps because of a defensive reaction to their dirty business image.
Some are improving like Telefonica the parent of O2 on the Madrid Stock Exchange.
And some businesses are awful like Omnicom quoted on the New York Stock
Exchange. Omnicom in particular have no excuse as they are the worlds biggest
advertising agency and so should know how to tell a story.
So what is new? Well this is the thing. As far as I can see, nothing is new, except
maybe one element. This push for improved corporate reporting seems to have
really captured the imagination of a few hard core believers; then spread to the
press who have picked up on the story and now everybody is talking about it. I
have not seen so much interest in annual report presentation since the
management commentary first burst on the scene in the 1980s. In the 1980s
companies like Sainsburys hit on the idea of explaining their numbers in a
commentary. Of course the city boys and girls loved it and so there was a visible
rise in the Sainsburys share price.
So everybody got interested and soon
everybody was doing it. But the commentary grew like a wild unmanaged garden
and soon all consistency was lost and worse some businesses lost sight of the
purpose of the commentary. Many interested parties had a bash at cleaning up;
the IASB had a go, even the UK government took a bite, but all to no avail because
there was not the motivation to improve or the profile for the story. But now there
is and for the life of me I cannot figure out what is so special about the IIRC and
their words. But who cares? They do appear to have captured imaginations and
maybe the poorer annual reports will start to tell the story going forward.
52
So let us look at what exactly the IIRC are saying. The IIRC have a framework in
development which tells us that there are six guiding principles for the publication
of one of these integrated reports:A Strategic focus and future orientation
B Connectivity of information
C Stakeholder responsiveness
D Materiality and conciseness
E Reliability and completeness
F Consistency and comparability
The IIRC also have core of a hundred trailblazers who have adopted the framework
even though it is still in progress. But here is where the progress goes wobbly.
Some of the trailblazers have published <IR> that really do lock in to the essence
of holistic reporting. Companies like Marks & Spencer and our own ACCA clearly
get it. But there is a huge swathe of trailblazers that seem to think that <IR>
means CSR or sustainability reporting. Coca cola have a lovely report on the
quality of the water going into their cans and Tata has some good stuff on their
employment responsibilities. But the reports are not really integrated. I think this
is a minor point, however. The big news is that the big businesses in the US and
across the world really do seem interested in making their annual reports useful
and that has to be good news for everybody.
Spring 2014 Policies

I am in the mood to deliver a sermon. The subject will be the same word can
mean different things to different people. This appears to be true in all walks of
life. However, accounting appears to be particularly susceptible. Words like debt,
equity, gearing, bank, realised, operating and employee mean different
things to different accountants. If you have moved around in your career and have
seen a few cultures then you will be familiar with this. However, if not then this
little lesson might just save you a whole load of heartache. The word I am going to
use to illustrate the point is policy.
The particular problem with the word policy shows itself in stark relief when a
student asks this deceptively tricky question: I have changed my depreciation
policy from straight line to reducing balance. Why does the text say this is not a
change in policy? It obviously is a change in policy! Goodness, I can feel myself
quake. It is a horrible question with an even more horrible answer. But I think you
deserve the answer in full technicolour. So I will do my best not to pull my
punches.
The word policy comes to us from the mists of time long before anyone had the
bold idea of inventing accounting standards and trying to impose consistency. Back
then you could do pretty much what you felt like with the numbers; but not quite.
Essentially accountants had a wide range of choices for their financial reporting and
the choices they made became known as policies. For example, in the context of
leasing there was a choice between ignoring all finance resulting in pure operating
lease accounting and accommodating some finance resulting in the mixed model of
operating and finance lease accounting like we do today. Back before standards
most companies chose pure operating lease accounting and that was their lease
policy. But others chose the mixed model and that was their lease policy.
53
Then along came International Accounting Standard (IAS) 8 and it required the
disclosure of policies. So after IAS 8 accountants still had plenty of choice but had
to say what choices they had applied. So a company using pure operating leases
still could but had to say so.
Then slowly, one by one, standards were issued and choices were closed until now
there are almost no choices left. So after IAS 17, a company previously applying
pure operating leases had to swap to the mixed model and their policy became the
mixed model because that is what the standard says you must do and the policy
choice disappeared. And so on with the policies for deferred tax, share based
payment and depreciation. As each standard was issued the choice disappeared
and companies had to align their policies with the standard. The idea of a policy as
a choice has effectively gone. Policy choice has disappeared.
But as this was going on a new and different meaning of policy sprang into use.
This meaning is nowhere in the standards and everywhere in real life and this
conflict is the root of the confusion. This new meaning is policy formula. This
very different animal is all about volume, compromise and materiality. It is
absolutely true to say that IAS 16 on depreciation contains no policy choice. You
must depreciate an asset on an individual asset by asset basis over its life to match
the cost with use.
You must match cost with use. There is no choice. So
matching cost with use is everybodys policy choice. And many companies do just
that. They simply look at each asset on an individual basis and estimate its use
and thereby derive depreciation for each asset. But in big companies with lots of
similar assets, a little trick called a formula is used. Say there are hundreds of
machines that are similar and all last roughly five years, some more and some less.
In that company the accountant might say I shall depreciate all of them over five
years. Now this is in direct contradiction to IAS 16 which says that depreciation
must be on an asset by asset basis. But here is the trick. The accountant comes
back and says I know that, but if I do as I propose, the error will be immaterial
and therefore I can. Neat trick. Now this becomes the company formula. So
the policy is to match cost with use and the formula is the five year life
compromise.
Now say that same company realises that reducing balance would better reflect the
matching of cost with use. Well then that company will keep its policy of
matching cost to use and change its formula to reducing balance. Obviously that
is a change of formula and not a change of policy. Now comes the rub. As you
know, accountants who routinely use these formula in their accounting do not call
them formula. They call them policies. You can now see this meaning is in
direct contradiction to the standards. But these formula are still called policies
just the same.
Hence the problem. The original meaning of policies is in the context of choice.
Policy choice is the meaning in the standards. The newer meaning of policies is
in the context of formula. Policy formula is what most people mean by policy
in the real world. So the standards have one meaning and people in the real world
have another meaning for the same word. And this is common. So when someone
uses a word and the context seems skewed then ask them to explain a little more
and you might find they are using that word to mean something quite different to
what you understand by that word. There is no need to correct them. But you can
now understand them and save yourself a whole load of heartache. Here endth the
lesson.
54
Summer 2014 Sploci

"Sploci". It is a beautiful Icelandic fishing village with chocolate box houses. I am
joking. It is both a wonderful acronym and an admission of defeat. The letters
stand for Statement of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income. It is the
new name for the former Comprehensive Income Statement. The former name
worked for me. It was punchy and it revealed intent. The IASB have long held a
torch for a philosophy usually referred to as "position focus". It has served them
well and helped solve problems like share based payment by suggesting that the
way to measure the cost of sbp is to measure the obligation at each year end and
from there measure the cost as the growth in the obligation. Position focus is canny
stuff and I cannot resist suggesting that position focus maybe hard wired into our
brains. You see the birth of writing is tangled up with the desire to express wealth
at a point in time. Those ancient clay tablets measuring 31 units of wheat and 212
head of sheep from Euphrates cities with biblical names are nothing more than
balance sheets. It seems nobody fussed too much about profit back then. But we
do now.
The IASB had been endeavouring to wean us off our obsession with profit; an
obsession that drives our strategies and dominates our financial reporting. You see
the next step from a Comprehensive Income Statement envisaged by the IASB
was the Performance Statement communicating the performance as simply the
categorised growth in position from one position statement to another. This
statement would be unconcerned about measuring a single profit and would
present a holistic picture of performance across broad fronts. That was the intent.
But no longer. The idea of a Performance Statement appealed to the believers but
appalled the markets. "Move away from profit - not on your life" the markets told
the IASB. And the title SPLOCI is the admission of defeat, the white flag waving
over the ivory towers of the IASB. "Ok. You can keep profit say the IASB and
what is more you can call your profit statement The Statement of Profit. or loss
to reinforce the profit focus.
But what exactly is profit? Everybody knows what it is until they come to define it.
Indeed the chairman of the IASB Hans Hoogervorst asked the question 'Defining
Profit or Loss and OCI... can it be done? in the title of a recent seminar. I missed
it it was in Japan. But reading between the lines it is clear the answer from the
urbane Mr Hoogervorst was probably not. He noted that the big brains at the
Accounting Standards Advisory Forum had a bash at defining profit. He described
their attempt as a courageous effort but noted with a wry smile that there was
very little consensus on the meaning of profit. He is smooth, our chairman.
But one thing he did say was that most commentators agree that profit is the
bottom line of the Statement of Profit or Loss. So profit is no more than the sum of
the stuff pumped through the p/l for the year. And most stuff does go through the
p/l. But some stuff is not allowed through p/l because it is not profit and so has
to be pumped through a dumping zone called Other Comprehensive Income. I
use a silly little mnemonic to help me remember the five gains and losses that are
banned from p/l and languish in the oci. It is as follows:-
55
hedging cash flow hedge gains
exchange on subs forex gains on the retranslation of foreign subs
actuarial remeasurement gains in pensions
ppe revaluations gains on occupied properties
strategic equity gains on financial assets classified FVOCI
Heaps get it? The heaps heaps at the bottom of the p/l in a heap. Very funny
Mr Jones. But why are these things driven from the p/l. What did they do wrong?
Just about any argument you put forward can be shot down by example. The
classic argument is that p/l items are near cash and oci items are far cash. But
that argument is shot down by pointing out that a ppe revaluation gain on a
property that you will sell next year goes through oci and an investment property
gain on a property you will keep for a hundred years goes through p/l. Another
classic argument is that the p/l items are realised and oci items are unrealised.
But that fails because there is no definition of realised or unrealised. The IASB
make some progress by using phrases like bridging items, mismatched
remeasurements and transitory remeasurements to describe the oci items. But
in the end the IASB rather dolefully admit that this is little more than fancy labelling
for stuff we put through the oci because we do.
The IASB seem to have concluded that the split between p/l and oci is necessarily
arbitrary and are currently suggesting that the following best describes the
mangled logic:
Profit or loss provides the primary source of information about the

return an entity has made on its economic resources in a period.
To support profit or loss, OCI should only be used if it makes profit or

loss more relevant.
But this is itself is an admission of defeat as, of course, it must be the IASB that
dictate what must go through the oci in order to make the profit or loss more
relevant. And then there is recycling dont get me talking about recycling.
Autumn 2014 Equity accounting

Equity accounting bores the living daylights out of me. In my usual sweeping and
dogmatic manner I will gladly tell you that equity accounting is patently nonsense
and should be replaced by investment accounting. Then I will refuse to debate the
matter because it is nonsense. Well it appears I am out of step with the rest of the
financial reporting universe who are happily debating equity accounting. So I guess
I should give a flavour of the story.
Equity accounting is the name given to the roll forward method used to account for
associates and joint ventures. That is already a bad start as equity accounting has
nothing to do with equity. Associates are defined by influence which is the power
to participate in management policy. Joint ventures are incorporated joint
arrangements defined by joint control which is the power to direct activities divided
between two or more investors with unanimous voting. These tricky ideas of roll
forward and joint control are best illustrated by example.
56
The much hated "walkie talkie" building in central London is a joint venture. The
two investors, Land Securities and Canary Wharf, share the company share capital
50%/50%. They have agreed that nothing happens to the building unless both
agree. This consensus voting represents joint control and so this company is a joint
arrangement. But there are two forms of joint arrangement; joint operation (JO)
and joint venture (JV). The difference is a touch more subtle but essentially a JV is
incorporated and a JO is unincorporated. So as the walkie talkie sits in a limited
company the walkie talkie is a JV and is rolled forward using equity accounting.
To explain these last two terms let us throw in a few numbers. Say you buy the
Canary Wharf half share rights for 1000m at the year start then the walkie talkie
becomes your JV and you will do equity accounting. Say the whole company grows
by 200m over the year then you will carry 1100m (1000+50%*200) on your
balance sheet for your JV at the year end. This accounting is called "roll forward" as
it uses the idea that the balance now is what the balance was earlier rolled forward
for the growth. Roll forward is used widely in accounting but when applied to an
associate or JV roll forward is called "equity accounting".
This way of looking at equity accounting is called the "valuation approach". It is by
far the most common way of viewing the numbers and appears to be the viewpoint
of the relevant Ifrs (Ias28). The valuation approach is saying "the jv is worth now
what it was worth when you bought it plus the growth". The valuation approach
appears to be trying to approximate year end fair value. Written like that the
approach sounds quite reasonable but actually the above reveals equity
accounting's biggest weakness.
Many commentators looking at equity accounting, including the former chairman of
the IASB David Tweedie, have responded as follows: "surely if you want fair value
would it not be quicker and easier to use fair value?" They have a point. When
equity accounting was devised 60 years ago fair value was hard to measure and
guessing at fair value by using cost plus growth was reasonable. But now markets
are far more liquid and there is even a whole Ifrs dedicated to the measurement of
fair value (Ifrs13). It seems rude not to use it. So many commentators think equity
accounting should be replaced by investment accounting where associates and JVs
are carried at fair value with gains to profit or loss (fvpl under Ifrs9).
This argument becomes more attractive once you start to look at the mechanics of
equity accounting under pressure. Equity accounting starts to wobble with
something as simple as a revaluation down in the associate and it falls apart if the
associate has share based payment.
But equity accounting may not be attempting a valuation. Equity accounting may
be a one line consolidation. To get a feel for this I only need to give you one more
number in the example above. Say the net assets of walkie talkie limited are
1400m in total at purchase at the year start. Then your goodwill in your JV is
300m (1000-50%*1400). So the year end carrying value of 1100m can be
attained by the rather convoluted method of combining the unchanged goodwill
with the grown net assets (300+50%{1400+200}). Written like that the one line
consolidation approach is making my eyes go funny. So you can see why it is rarely
used to calculate the carrying value. But it does show that there are two ways of
looking at equity accounting. The IASB are asking first whether equity accounting is
aiming to achieve a one line consolidation or a valuation and then they can develop
a method that best delivers that aim.
57
Spring 2015 Recycling

And then there is recycling dont get me talking about recycling. In an article
last year I ended with that phrase. But maybe you should get me talking about
recycling as it is a current issue that everyone else is talking about. There is a
wonderful Peppa Pig episode called recycling and even a lovely little tune to go.
It is one of my sons favourites and the tune is looping around my head as I write
this. Have a look on YouTube if you have a mo. But recycling in corporate
reporting does not involve keeping your plastic bottles in one bin and the glass in
another. And recycling in corporate reporting is most certainly not a good thing.
Recycling is the rerecognition of a previously recognised gain. There you go that
is all there is to recycling but what a technical phrase this is. Gains and losses
are reported through a performance statement called the Statement of Profit or
Loss and Other Comprehensive Income or SPLOCI for short. As the and tells us,
the SPLOCI is a compound report with two components: the P/L and the OCI. And
as was discussed in the SPLOCI article, most gains and losses go through p/l except
five as follows which go through the OCI:H
hedging cash flow hedge gains
exchange on subs forex gains on the retranslation of foreign subs
actuarial remeasurement gains in pensions
ppe revaluations gains on occupied properties
strategic equity gains on financial assets classified FVOCI
As discussed in that earlier article, there is no underlying logic to the gains that are
banished from the p/l and languish in the oci. It is just the way it is. And likewise
there is no logic with recycling. The top two (hedging gains and forex gains on
foreign subs) do recycle and the other three do not. But how does recycling work?
As usual the best way to get a feel for the process is with an example.
In year one, our imaginary entity makes a forex gain of $60m on a new foreign sub
measured in the home currency and a ppe revaluation gain of $60m on the rise in
the value of the new home factory. Both these gains go through OCI (Other
Comprehensive Income) in the performance statement and both are accumulated in
OCE (Other Components of Equity) on the position statement. Then at the start of
year two the foreign sub and the home factory are both sold for $500m. Both the
sub and the factory have an exit carrying value of $400m. So there is a profit on
disposal of $100m to be reported in the p/l for each. But hang on; there is an
accumulated $120m of gain in OCE related to these two sold items. You may know
that there is a culture of interpreting the OCE as unrealised and undistributable
because the gains in OCE are not represented by cash. But this $120m is
represented by cash. Both the sub and the factory have been sold. So the $120m
must move to the retained earnings (RE) where it is realised and distributable.
So the $60m gain on the factory is simply moved from the OCE to the RE. The gain
goes from one equity bucket to the other on the b/s with no fuss. No need to put
the gain through this years performance because the gain already went through
last years performance. And of course it made perfect sense to recognise the gain
last year as it was last year that the factory rose in value. This is in perfect tune
with sales. Sales are recognised in the year of the sale and not when the cash
flows. If a sale happens just before the year end and the cash is received just after
the new year start then we would not recognise the sale again in the year of cash
receipt. Rerecognition would just be plain silly. Exactly. Now comes the tricky bit.
58
We do rerecognise the $60m forex gain on the sale of the foreign sub. The $60m
sitting in OCE representing the accumulated forex gains on the foreign sub are
dragged out of the OCE and added to the actual profit on foreign sub disposal of
$100m to give a reported profit on disposal of $160m in the p/l. The profit ends up
in the RE, of course, which is fine. The problem is the recognition of the same gain
twice. Once in the year of the gain and again in the year of the cash flow. The
same $60m has appeared in both this years SPLOCI and last years SPLOCI.
This rerecognition of gains and losses on foreign subs and cash flow hedges is
called recycling and has been widely criticised. There appears to be no logic to
the isolation of five gains that go through OCI and there appears to be less logic to
the isolation of the two of those that later go through p/l. But it appears this
culture is so entrenched that the IASB are powerless to reverse it. However, it has
resulted in the cumbersome division of items in the oci between those that will not
be reclassified to profit and those that may be reclassified to profit. You may
have seen these phrases in the OCI and wondered what that was all about. Now
you know.
59
ACCA Paper P2
(International)
Corporate Reporting
Recent Past
Paper Pack
60
ACCA PAPER P2 (INT & UK)

CORPORATE REPORTING
Recent past paper pack
The following is a pack of recent past p2 exam questions with
answers to each. The typesetting is my own and horrendous. I am
not a typesetter and it shows.
The answers are my own also. They will certainly be good enough for
any prize winner, but also it is almost certain there will be typos.
Please inform me of any problems you see.
Thanks,
Martin Jones
61
Question 75 Trailer (Q1 June 2013)

Trailer, a public limited company, operates in the manufacturing sector. Trailer has investments
in two other companies. The draft statements of financial position at 31 May 2013 are as
follows:
Trailer
Park
Caller
$m
$m
$m
Assets:
Non-current assets
Property, plant and equipment
1,440
1,100
1,300
Investments in subsidiaries
Park
1,250
Caller
310
1,270
Financial assets
320
21
141
3,320
2,391
1,441
Current assets
895
681
150
Total assets
4,215
3,072
1,591
Equity and liabilities:

Share capital
1,750
1,210
800
Retained earnings
1,240
930
350
Other components of equity
125
80
95
Total equity
3,115
2,220
1,245
Non-current liabilities
985
765
150
Current liabilities
115
87
196
Total liabilities
1,100
852
346
Total equity and liabilities

4,215
3,072
1,591
The following information is relevant to the preparation of the group financial statements:
1. On 1 June 2011, Trailer acquired 14% of the equity interests of Caller for a cash
consideration of $260 million and Park acquired 70% of the equity interests of Caller for a cash
consideration of $1,270 million. At 1 June 2011, the identifiable net assets of Caller had a fair
value of $990 million, retained earnings were $190 million and other components of equity
were $52 million. At 1 June 2012, the identifiable net assets of Caller had a fair value of $1,150
million, retained earnings were $240 million and other components of equity were $70 million.
The excess in fair value is due to non-depreciable land. The fair value of the 14% holding of
Trailer in Caller was $280 million at 31 May 2012 and $310 million at 31 May 2013. The fair
value of Parks interest in Caller had not changed since acquisition.
62
2. On 1 June 2012, Trailer acquired 60% of the equity interests of Park, a public limited
company. The purchase consideration comprised cash of $1,250 million. On 1 June 2012, the
fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired was $1,950 million and retained earnings of
Park were $650 million and other components of equity were $55 million. The excess in fair
value is due to non-depreciable land. It is the groups policy to measure the non-controlling
interest at acquisition at its proportionate share of the fair value of the subsidiarys net assets.
3. Goodwill of Park and Caller was impairment tested at 31 May 2013. There was no
impairment relating to Caller. The recoverable amount of the net assets of Park was $2,088
million. There was no impairment of the net assets of Park before this date and any impairment
loss has been determined to relate to goodwill and property, plant and equipment.
4. Trailer has made a loan of $50 million to a charitable organisation for the building of new
sporting facilities. The loan was made on 1 June 2012 and is repayable on maturity in three
years time. Interest is to be charged one year in arrears at 3%, but Trailer assesses that an
unsubsidised rate for such a loan would have been 6%. The only accounting entries which have
been made for the year ended 31 May 2013 are the cash entries for the loan and interest received
which have resulted in a balance of $485 million being shown as a financial asset.
5. On 1 June 2011, Trailer acquired office accommodation at a cost of $90 million with a 30year estimated useful life. During the year, the property market in the area slumped and the fair
value of the accommodation fell to $75 million at 31 May 2012 and this was reflected in the
financial statements. However, the market recovered unexpectedly quickly due to the
announcement of major government investment in the areas transport infrastructure. On 31
May 2013, the valuer advised Trailer that the offices should now be valued at $105 million.
Trailer has charged depreciation for the year but has not taken account of the upward valuation
of the offices. Trailer uses the revaluation model and records any valuation change when
advised to do so.
6. Trailer has announced two major restructuring plans. The first plan is to reduce its capacity
by the closure of some of its smaller factories, which have already been identified. This will
lead to the redundancy of 500 employees, who have all individually been selected and
communicated with. The costs of this plan are $9 million in redundancy costs, $4 million in
retraining costs and $5 million in lease termination costs. The second plan is to re-organise the
finance and information technology department over a one-year period but it does not
commence for two years. The plan results in 20% of finance staff losing their jobs during the
restructuring. The costs of this plan are $10 million in redundancy costs, $6 million in retraining
costs and $7 million in equipment lease termination costs. No entries have been made in the
financial statements for the above plans.
7. The following information relates to the group pension plan of Trailer:
1 June 2012 ($m)
31 May 2013 ($m)
Fair value of plan assets
28
29
Actuarial value of defined benefit obligation
30
35
The contributions for the period received by the fund were $2 million and the employee benefits
paid in the year amounted to $3 million. The discount rate to be used in any calculation is 5%.
The current service cost for the period based on actuarial calculations is $1 million. The above
figures have not been taken into account for the year ended 31 May 2013 except for the
contributions paid which have been entered in cash and the defined benefit obligation.
Required:
(a) Prepare the group consolidated statement of financial position of Trailer as at 31 May
2013.
(35 marks)
63
(b) It is the Trailer groups policy to measure the non-controlling interest (NCI) at acquisition at
its proportionate share of the fair value of the subsidiarys net assets. The directors of Trailer
have used this policy for several years and do not know the implications, if any, of changing the
policy to that of accounting for the NCI at fair value. The fair value of the NCI of Park at 1 June
2012 was $800 million. The fair value of the NCI of Caller, based upon the effective
shareholdings, was $500 million at 1 June 2011 and $530 million at 1 June 2012.
Required:
Explain to the directors, with suitable calculations, the impact on the financial statements
if goodwill was calculated using the fair value of the NCI.
(9 marks)
(c) The directors of Trailer are involved in takeover talks with another entity. In the discussions,
one of the directors stated that there was no point in an accountant studying ethics because every
accountant already has a set of moral beliefs that are followed and these are created by simply
following generally accepted accounting practice. He further stated that in adopting a defensive
approach to the takeover, there was no ethical issue in falsely declaring Trailers profits in the
financial statements used for the discussions because, in his opinion, the takeover did not
benefit the company, its executives or society as a whole.
Required:
Discuss the above views of the director regarding the fact that there is no point in an
accountant studying ethics and that there was no ethical issue in the false disclosure of
accounting profits.
(6 marks)
(50 marks)
Question 76 Verge (Q2 June 2013)
(a) In its annual financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2013, Verge, a public limited
company, had identified the following operating segments:
(i)
Segment 1
local train operations
(ii)
Segment 2
inter-city train operations
(iii)
Segment 3
railway constructions
The company disclosed two reportable segments. Segments 1 and 2 were aggregated into a
single reportable operating segment. Operating segments 1 and 2 have been aggregated on the
basis of their similar business characteristics, and the nature of their products and services. In
the local train market, it is the local transport authority which awards the contract and pays
Verge for its services. In the local train market, contracts are awarded following a competitive
tender process, and the ticket prices paid by passengers are set by and paid to the transport
authority. In the inter-city train market, ticket prices are set by Verge and the passengers pay
Verge for the service provided.
(5 marks)
(b) Verge entered into a contract with a government body on 1 April 2011 to undertake
maintenance services on a new railway line. The total revenue from the contract is $5 million
over a three-year period. The contract states that $1 million will be paid at the commencement
of the contract but although invoices will be subsequently sent at the end of each year, the
government authority will only settle the subsequent amounts owing when the contract is
completed. The invoices sent by Verge to date (including $1 million above) were as follows:
Year ended 31 March 2012 $28 million
Year ended 31 March 2013 $12 million
The balance will be invoiced on 31 March 2014. Verge has only accounted for the initial
payment in the financial statements to 31 March 2012 as no subsequent amounts are to be paid
until 31 March 2014. The amounts of the invoices reflect the work undertaken in the period.
Verge wishes to know how to account for the revenue on the contract in the financial statements
to date. Market interest rates are currently at 6%.
(6 marks)
64
(c) In February 2012, an inter-city train did what appeared to be superficial damage to a storage
facility of a local company. The directors of the company expressed an intention to sue Verge
but in the absence of legal proceedings, Verge had not recognised a provision in its financial
statements to 31 March 2012. In July 2012, Verge received notification for damages of $12m,
which was based upon the estimated cost to repair the building. The local company claimed the
building was much more than a storage facility as it was a valuable piece of architecture which
had been damaged to a greater extent than was originally thought. The head of legal services
advised Verge that the company was clearly negligent but the view obtained from an expert was
that the value of the building was $800,000. Verge had an insurance policy that would cover the
first $200,000 of such claims. After the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2013
were authorised, the case came to court and the judge determined that the storage facility
actually was a valuable piece of architecture. The court ruled that Verge was negligent and
awarded $300,000 for the damage to the fabric of the facility.
(6 marks)
(d) Verge was given a building by a private individual in February 2012. The benefactor
included a condition that it must be brought into use as a train museum in the interests of the
local community or the asset (or a sum equivalent to the fair value of the asset) must be
returned. The fair value of the asset was $15 million in February 2012. Verge took possession
of the building in May 2012. However, it could not utilise the building in accordance with the
condition until February 2013 as the building needed some refurbishment and adaptation and in
order to fulfil the condition. Verge spent $1 million on refurbishment and adaptation. On 1 July
2012, Verge obtained a cash grant of $250,000 from the government. Part of the grant related to
the creation of 20 jobs at the train museum by providing a subsidy of $5,000 per job created.
The remainder of the grant related to capital expenditure on the project. At 31 March 2013, all
of the new jobs had been created.
(6 marks)
Required:
Advise Verge on how the above accounting issues should be dealt with in its financial
statements for the years ending 31 March 2012 (where applicable) and 31 March 2013.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the four issues above.
Professional marks will be awarded in question 2 for clarity and quality of presentation.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
Question 77 Janne (Q3 June 2013)
(a) Janne is a real estate company, which specialises in industrial property. Investment
properties including those held for sale constitute more than 80% of its total assets. It is
considering leasing land from Maret for a term of 30 years. Janne plans to use the land for its
own office development but may hold the land for capital gain. The title will remain with Maret
at the end of the initial lease term. Janne can lease the land indefinitely at a small immaterial
rent at the end of the lease or may purchase the land at a 90% discount to the market value after
the initial lease term. Janne is to pay Maret a premium of $3 million at the commencement of
the lease, which equates to 70% of the value of the land. Additionally, an annual rental payment
is to be made, based upon 4% of the market value of the land at the commencement of the lease,
with a market rent review every five years. The rent review sets the rent at the higher of the
current rent or 4% of the current value of the land. Land values have been rising for many years.
Additionally, Janne is considering a suggestion by Maret to incorporate a clean break clause in
the lease which will provide Janne with an option of terminating the agreement after 25 years
without any further payment and also to include an early termination clause after 10 years that
would require Janne to make a termination payment which would recover the lessors remaining
investment.
(12 marks)
65
(b) Janne measures its industrial investment property using the fair value method, which is
measured using the new-build value less obsolescence. Valuations are conducted by a member
of the board of directors. In order to determine the obsolescence, the board member takes
account of the age of the property and the nature of its use. According to the board, this method
of calculation is complex but gives a very precise result, which is accepted by the industry.
There are sales values for similar properties in similar locations available as well as market rent
data per square metre for similar industrial buildings.
(5 marks)
(c) Janne operates through several subsidiaries and reported a subsidiary as held for sale in its
annual financial statements for both 2012 and 2013. On 1 January 2012, the shareholders had, at
a general meeting of the company, authorised management to sell all of its holding of shares in
the subsidiary within the year. Janne had shown the subsidiary as an asset held for sale and
presented it as a discontinued operation in the financial statements at 31 May 2012. This
accounting treatment had been continued in Jannes 2013 financial statements. Janne had made
certain organisational changes during the year to 31 May 2013, which resulted in additional
activities being transferred to the subsidiary. Also during the year to 31 May 2013, there had
been draft agreements and some correspondence with investment bankers, which showed in
principle only that the subsidiary was still for sale.
(6 marks)
Required:
Advise Janne on how the above accounting issues should be dealt with in its financial
statements.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues above.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
Question 78 Lizzer (Q4 June 2013)
(a) Developing a framework for disclosure is at the forefront of current debate and there are
many bodies around the world attempting to establish an overarching framework to make
financial statement disclosures more effective, coordinated and less redundant. It has been
argued that instead of focusing on raising the quality of disclosures, these efforts have placed
their emphasis almost exclusively on reducing the quantity of information. The belief is that
excessive disclosure is burdensome and can overwhelm users. However, it could be argued that
there is no such thing as too much useful information for users.
Required:
(i) Discuss why it is important to ensure the optimal level of disclosure in annual reports,
describing the reasons why users of annual reports may have found disclosure to be
excessive in recent years.
(9 marks)
(ii) Describe the barriers, which may exist, to reducing excessive disclosure in annual
reports.
(6 marks)
66
(b) The directors of Lizzer, a public limited company, have read various reports on excessive
disclosure in the annual report. They have decided to take action and do not wish to disclose any
further detail concerning the two instances below.
(i) Lizzer is a debt issuer whose business is the securitisation of a portfolio of underlying
investments and financing their purchase through the issuing of listed, limited recourse debt.
The repayment of the debt is dependent upon the performance of the underlying investments.
Debt-holders bear the ultimate risks and rewards of ownership of the underlying investments.
Given the debt specific nature of the underlying investments, the risk profile of individual debt
may differ. Lizzer does not consider its debt-holders as being amongst the primary users of the
financial statements and, accordingly, does not wish to provide disclosure of the debt-holders
exposure to risks in the financial statements, as distinct from the risks faced by the companys
shareholders, in accordance with IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures.
(4 marks)
(ii) At the date of the financial statements, 31 January 2013, Lizzers liquidity position was
quite poor, such that the directors described it as unsatisfactory in the management report.
During the first quarter of 2013, the situation worsened with the result that Lizzer was in breach
of certain loan covenants at 31 March 2013. The financial statements were authorised for issue
at the end of April 2013. The directors and auditors reports both emphasised the considerable
risk of not being able to continue as a going concern. The notes to the financial statements
indicated that there was ample compliance with all loan covenants as at the date of the
financial statements. No additional information about the loan covenants was included in the
financial statements. Lizzer had been close to breaching the loan covenants in respect of free
cash flows and equity ratio requirements at 31 January 2013. The directors of Lizzer felt that,
given the existing information in the financial statements, any further disclosure would be
excessive and confusing to users.
(4 marks)
Required:
Discuss the directors view that no further information regarding the two instances above
should be disclosed in the financial statements because it would be excessive.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the two instances above.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
67
Answer 75: Trailer

(a)
Group structure
Of course, this is a vertical group and so the ownership in Caller (sub-sub) is

complex:Direct
14%
Indirect (60% of 70%)
42%
__
Controlling interest
56%
__
Non-controlling interest (100%-56%)
44%
__
Acquisition
Of course we are doing the group position statement for Trailer. So we must look
at the acquisitions from the perspective of Trailer. Trailer gets control in both Park
and Caller on the same day, when Trailer buys the 60% in Park at the star of the
current year.
Net assets
Acq
SC
RE
OCE
FVA (land) {balance}
1210
650
55
35
___
Park
Y/e
1210
930
80
35
___
Caller
Acq
Y/e
800
240
70
40
___
800
350
95
40
___
1950
___
2255
1150
1285
___
___
___
Growth
305
135
__
__
(2 marks: 1 mark for each FVA)
OCE growth (80-55)&(95-70)
25
25
RE growth {balance}
280
110
__
__
Growth
305
135
__
__
Note: If split growth above is beyond you, then treat the whole growth as RE
growth and you will lose nothing.
68
Goodwill
Caller
762
280
40% (40%)(1950)
780
506
(1950)
(1150)
___
___
Goodwill before
80
398
Impairment
(80)
(0)
___
___
Goodwill after
0
398
___
___
(5 marks: 2 marks for Park goodwill before impairment and 3 marks for Caller)
Impairment
The impairment is horrible and well worth ignoring unless you fancy yourself as a
superstar. There is more information on the impairment in the notes at the back of
this answer. But look at (b) first.
FV
FV
FV
FV
of
of
of
of
consideration
previous
NCI
NA
%
60%
Working
Park
1250
Gross carrying value of CGU

[gross gw+na]
Notional Impairment {balance}
%
Working
42% (60%)(1270)
14%
44% (44%)(1150)
[80/60%+2255]
2388
(300)
____
2088
____
Recoverable value of CGU

Goodwill impairment (first)
PPE impairment (balance)
Notional
133
167
____
300
____
Actual
80
167
____
247
____
pure ci & no nci

split ci/nci 60%/40%
(2 marks)
69
Group position statement

Non-current assets
Goodwill (80-80imp + 398)
Property plant and equipment
[3840 +35FVA +40FVA -167imp+32.6para5]
Financial assets [482-1.3para4]
Current assets
Equity
Share capital
Retained earnings
Non-controlling interest
Non-current liabilities (1900+6para7)
Current liabilities (398+14para6)
398
3781
481
1726
____
6386
____
1750
1255
170
893
1906
412
___
6386
___
(2 marks for transferring information on top of those allocated elsewhere)
NCI
Acquisition
Growth
Indirect
Impairment
NCI
Park
Caller
780
506
[305(40%)] 122
[135(44%)]
59.4
[1270(40%)] (508)
[167(40%)] (66.8)
___
___
327.2
565.4
___
___
___
893
___
(3 marks)
70
Paragraph 4 Loan asset

The receivable is a financial asset measured at amortised cost by discounting and
unwinding:
Initial fv
Year
cf
df
pv
1
1500
0.9434
1415
2
1500
0.8900
1335
3
51500
0.8396
43240
___
Initial fv
45990
Initial cf
50000
___
Loss on gift of cheap credit
4010
___
Unwinding
Year
opening
interest
instalment
closing
1
45990
2759
(1500)
47249
Recorded receivable (given)
48500
_____
Adjustment
1251
approximately
_____
(4 marks)
Paragraph 5 Offices
The reversal is restricted to the historical nbv:Cost
Depreciation (90/30years)
Before
Impairment (balance)
Current opening
Depreciation (75/29years)
Before
Reversal of impairment (balance)
Historical nbv (90-3-3)
Revaluation gain (balance)
Current closing
Sum rise in value (11.6+21)
90
(3)
__
87
(12)
__
75
(2.6)
__
72.4
11.6
__
84
21
__
105
__
32.6
__
to last years p/l
to current p/l
to current oci
(3 marks)
Paragraph 6 Provision
The first reorganisation is immanent. The employees have been told of their
redundancy and I assume the lease termination clauses have been triggered.
Retraining provisions are specifically prohibited and the whole of the second
reorganisation can be ignored as too uncertain.
Provision = 9+5 = 14
(1 marks)
71
Paragraph 7 Pension
Pension assets
Market value at start of the year
28
Expected return on the assets (28)(5%)
1.4
Contributions
Benefits paid
(3)
Actuarial gain balancing figure

Market value at end of the year
0.6
29
Pension obligations
Obligation at start of the year
30
Interest (30)(5%)
1.5
Service cost
Benefits paid
(3)
Actuarial loss balancing figure

Obligation at end of the year
5.5
35
The statement of financial position

Pension assets
Pension obligations
Net pension (liability)
29
(30)
(6)
The income statement

Operating
Service cost
(1)
Finance
Finance cost (1.4-1.5) also (30-28)(10%)
(0.1)
Other Comprehensive Income

Actuarial gain on assets
0.6
Actuarial (loss) on obligations
(5.5)
Net Actuarial (loss)
(4.9)
(5 marks)
72
Reserves
Parent
(1) loss on previous (310-280)
(3) goodwill impairment [pure ci]
(3) PPE impairment (60%)(167)
(4) adjustment (loss-interest earned)
(5) rise
(6) reorganisation
(7) pension
Park
25(60%)
280(60%)
Caller
25(56%)
110(56%)
RE
1240
(30)
(80)
(100)
(1.3)
11.6
(14)
(1.1)
OCE
125
21
(4.9)
15
168
14
61.6
___
___
1254.8
170.1
___
___
(Max of 8 marks: 5 for RE & 3 for OCE: 1 mark per line restricted to max)
Reserves note
Note how the marking guide max of 8 marks means that it is pointless to split the
growth between re and oce if you are picking up the other issues. But if you find
split growth easy then do it.
Goodwill note
If you are sharp then you may be able to spot the deliberate double counting in the
Park goodwill. If you are really sharp then you may realise that the best advice is
to ignore this as it gets pretty complicated and earns you no marks. When Trailer
pays $1250m for 60% of Park, Trailer is also buying 60% of the Park 70% in Caller.
The examiner has been careful to tell you that the fv of the Caller shares has not
changed since Park made the acquisition a year ago. So that means that the Park
70% of Caller is still worth $1270m. So buying 60% of that cost Trailer 60% of
$1270m or $762. So when Trailer pays $1250m for the shares is Park, $762m is
for the 60% of 70% of Caller and the rest $488m is for the 60% in Park itself.
We are obliged to break the $1250m consideration into the two components
because as the name suggests IFRS3 Business Combinations requires that we
calculate a goodwill for each business acquired. We know that Caller is a separate
business from Park because it has been living separately from Park until the Park
acquisition.
But the $1270m fv of 70% of Caller is included in the na fv of $1950m quoted by
the examiner. Hence the compensating double counting. A more strict goodwill
schedule would be as follows. But do not do the following in an exam because this
is simply not the way things are done.
Goodwill in strict mathematical format
%
Working
FV of consideration
60%
[1250-762]
FV of NA
60%
[(60%)(1950-1270)]
Park
488
(408)
___
Goodwill before
80
___
You can see I have used the old net goodwill style calculation. I could now move to
the new style calculation with a line for nci but the degree of rocket science goes
up. So I think I will leave it there.
73
Goodwill impairment note

This is also really difficult and rarely examined and unless you think you can do it
all in the 2 marks times 1.8 minutes per mark then the best advice is to forget
about it.
The impairment is a deep impairment meaning that it eats up all the goodwill and
then continues to eat into the rest of the sub. The rules on this are described in
IAS36 as follows; the goodwill impairment allocation goes against (1) specific
assets (2) goodwill (3) remaining assets on a weighted average basis. You can see
that the examiner has ignored the strict rules as just described and has impaired
goodwill first until dead and then started on the specific asset of PPE. This is the
opposite order to that described in the standard. So if the examiner is coming off
the strict path then you know that this must be getting difficult.
The problem relates to partial goodwill. You see partial goodwill or net goodwill is
quoted on the balance sheet net of the nci component. The $80m we calculated is
only the ci element of goodwill and not the whole goodwill. This is inconsistent with
the rest of the balance sheet where PPE and all the other assets are quoted gross.
The whole of PPE goes to the group bs as you know and not just the ci proportion.
So now we find ourselves in the horrible position of trying to figure out what to do
with and impairment that eats into two assets Goodwill and PPE when these two
assets are quoted inconsistently one net and one gross. The traditional solution to
this horrible problem is to gross up the goodwill to an notional gross goodwill based
on the idea that if our 60% of goodwill is worth $80m then maybe the gross
goodwill is worth $80m/60% or $133m.
That then gives a gross carrying value of $2388m and a notional impairment of
$300m. This then kills off the notional goodwill of $133m first and the rest $167m
goes to real PPE. But the notional goodwill is just notional and as we only have an
actual goodwill of $80m and that is what we knock off the top of the bs.
Coming to the bottom of the bs we must be careful that goodwill is net (no nci) and
PPE is gross (including nci). The double entry for the impairment is:
Goodwill impairment
Dr
RE
80
Cr
Goodwill
80
PPE impairment
Dr
RE (60%)
100
Dr
NCI (40%)
67
Cr
PPE
167
74
(b)
Marking guide
1 mark per point of narrative to a maximum of 4 marks and 5 marks for the
calculations.
Goodwill
FV
FV
FV
FV
of
of
of
of
consideration
previous
NCI
NA
%
60%
Working
Park
1250
40%
(given)
800
(1950)
___
100
(100)
___
0
___
Goodwill before
Impairment
Goodwill after
Impairment
Carrying value of CGU
Impairment {balance}
[gw+na]
%
Working
42% (60%)(1270)
14%
44%
(given)
[100+2255]
Recoverable value of CGU

Goodwill impairment
PPE impairment (balance)
Actual
100
167
____
267
____
Caller
762
280
530
(1150)
___
422
(0)
___
422
___
2355
(267)
____
2088
____

Policies
The two policies are usually called full and partial goodwill. Full goodwill is based
upon valuing nci at fv. Partial goodwill is based on valuing nci at the nci proportion
of na.
Choice
In fact IFRS3 is so wobbly that according to the standard groups can apply full
goodwill for one sub acquisition and partial goodwill for another sub acquisition in
the same year. This inconsistency is unlikely to be deemed acceptable in real life
but it is permitted by the standard.
Size
As you can see from the above, full goodwill is usually bigger than partial goodwill.
In this case the difference is small. But in subs with lots of goodwill and a big nci
then the difference between full and partial goodwill can be huge.
NCI goodwill
The technical difference between the two is that full goodwill includes the goodwill
belonging to both ci and nci. The whole goodwill under group control is shown. Full
goodwill has more intellectual merit because the rest of the bs from PPE down to
liabilities is also shown in full. The partial goodwill only shows the goodwill owned
by the ci and excludes the nci element.
75
Impairment
One practical effect of using full goodwill rather partial goodwill is that the
impairment calculation is much easier as is shown by the numbers above.
(c)
Marking guide
Usual 1 mark per valid point.

Ethics
All professional bodies have ethical guidelines. They are essentially all about selfpreservation. The great thing about being in a profession is you get relatively well
paid for doing interesting stuff (sometimes!). The bad thing about being in a
profession is that if one bad apple does some low down dirty stuff then the public
tends to view the whole profession as low down and dirty.
Ethical guidelines
So the ACCA has issued guidance to keep us all on the straight and narrow. The
ACCA has five particular components to ethical guidelines:
P
professionalism
integrity
competence
confidentiality
objectivity
Point
So the point of studying ethics from the perspective of the student is in order to get
into the professional body. The point of making the student study ethics from the
perspective of the professional body is in order to minimise the risk of letting a bad
apple into the profession and mess things up for the existing members.
Generally Accepted Accounting Practice
As I see it, following GAAP (or IFRS as we accountants would call it these days) has
got nothing to do with the ethics. The IFRS are the rules and principals of fr. The
ethical guidelines are much broader. They advise on behaviour in all contexts and
not only fr.
False declaration
The above phrase is just a cute way of saying lying. The director makes an
interesting point. He is saying that it is right to lie if the end product is the survival
of the group. He is arguing that the end justifies the means. The USA government
argue the same thing about torturing prisoners in the war against terrorism. Ok
that is really stepping it up, but you can see the connection.
Conclusion
Well the solution is easy for a professional accountant. He cannot lie in the fs to
achieve a positive result. That would be a breach of integrity from the ethical
guidelines and a breach of fiduciary duty from law.
76
Answer 76: Verge

This was a classic mix question requiring a mix of standards.
Marking guide
Usual 1 mark per valid point.
(a)
Segmental reporting
The big idea behind segmental reporting is that it allows users to get a feel for the
position and performance of the parts that make up the whole business. This
should give investors a better feel for their investments, greater confidence in their
directors and with a little luck result in a higher share price.
Aggregation
But as discussed in question 4 in this exam paper, it is important not to overwhelm
the users with information. This is why the standard on segments gives advice on
aggregation. Operating segments can be aggregated if they are similar.
Similarities
Segments can be deemed similar based on a host of factors such as the nature of
the products, the way the products are made, the class of customer and the way
the products are marketed. But the most useful single factor in identifying
similarities between segments is the risk profile of the product revenues. Two
segments with product revenues that are exposed to similar risks are similar
segments.
Local and inter-city
There can be little doubt that the two above segments bear similarities. If people
stop travelling by train then both segments will take a hit. So perhaps if Verge
were a huge conglomerate that made computers and ships and provided banking
and hospitals (like a Korean Chaebol) then aggregation of rail travel would make
sense.
Recommendation
But Verge only does rail. Local and inter-city are different products with different
risk profiles. One business is government regulated and the other not. One is
primarily for daily commuters and the other for less frequent commuters. So I
suggest all three are kept as separately reportable segments. The users will cope
fine with three segments and it will help the users to understand Verge.
(b)
Construction contract
The contract could be interpreted as a construction contract especially given
segment 3 is called railway construction. The standard on construction (IAS11) is
outstandingly vague on the definition of a construction contract. Here is the quote:
A construction contract is a contract specifically negotiated for construction. Not
very helpful. So if directors interpret the maintenance contract as construction
then construction accounting would apply.
Revenue recognition
The scenario tells us that the invoices reflect the work done. So $2.8m should have
been recognised last year and $1.2m would be recognised this year.
77
Restatement
But last years revenue was not recognised last year. This is clearly a material prior
period error. So a prior period adjustment is required to restate the comparatives.
Revenue
But maintenance could also be interpreted as simple revenue in which case the
main revenue standard would apply (IAS18). This has two models. Revenue at the
point risks transfer for goods and revenue over the period for services.
Services
It seems appropriate to interpret the maintenance contract as a service contract.
So the revenue over a period model would apply. The numbers would be very
similar to those that apply to construction but there is a difference.
Fair value
IAS18 refers to fair value but IAS11 does not. So under IAS18 the figures would
need discounting and unwinding. The first year revenue would be $1m plus
$1.8/1.062. The current year revenue would be $1.2m/1.06.
Current issue
The above is a fantastic illustration of why the IASB have a development project on
revenue. It is exactly this kind of inconsistency of revenue recognition dependent
upon interpretation that has motivated the IASB to try to develop a comprehensive
revenue standard.
(c)
Court ruling
It is a shame that the court ruling came after the fs were authorised. If the ruling
had come before then the information could have been used. But the ruling was
after and so could not be used in the fs.
Provision
Provision recognition is required if the criteria are fulfilled:R
reasonably reliable estimate
obligation (legal or constructive)
probable transfer of economic benefit
Obliging event
The obliging event was the accident and this happened last year. At this point all
the criteria were fulfilled but based on the information available at the prior year
end the outflow was estimated as immaterial because the damage was superficial.
So no provision was provided for the year ended 2012.
Restatement
Restatement in the new year 2013 is only required if there is an error in the
comparatives (or a change of policy). I think Verge were right to ignore the
provision last year 2012 based on what was known last year. The provision was
ignored because it appeared immaterial and not because Verge denied the
obligation. Restatement is not permitted.
78
Current year provision

But clearly they do need a provision in the current year fs. We must not forget the
$300k figure was not available at the time the fs were signed. So an educated
guess is required. The $1,200k sounds like a cheeky overestimate by an injured
party trying it on. So I think this should be ignored too. Perhaps our lawyers and
engineers could get together to make an educated guess. Based on the entire
building being worth $800k then perhaps 40% of $800k would be prudent without
being excessive.
Current year receivable
If the receivable from the insurance company is virtually certain then the $200k
debtor should be recognised.
However, if the receivable is considered only
probable then disclosure would apply.
Contingencies
An argument could be made that the outflow is a contingent liability and the inflow
is a contingent asset. I have not applied this idea because it seems to me that
Verge definitely has an obligation.
(d)
Gifts
There is no standard on gifts. So the accounting for the gift of the building is open
to various interpretations. Here is mine.
Property plant and equipment
Ppe is initially measured at cost then subsequently recognised at cost or fair value.
The scenario does not say but as cost is the default policy generally then I shall
assume cost.
Cost
To quote from the standard (IAS16) Cost includes all costs necessary to bring the
asset to working condition for its intended use. And again to quote from the
standard Cost is the amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of
the other consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or
construction. The property was purchased at no cost to Verge. So the building
would hit the b/s at zero carrying value but then the $1m adaptation costs would
be capitalised on top.
Timing
PPE should be recognised at the point that it becomes probable economic benefit of
the asset will flow. I think the PPE should be recognised at the point Verge takes
possession in May 2012. Early recognition is too early as the benefactor could
change his mind. But later recognition is too late as even at the point of taking
possession it is probable that Verge will do the work to fulfil the benefactors
conditions even if it is not certain. Then from that point Verge will accumulate the
adaptation costs on top of the zero cost.
Depreciation
Depreciation is the recognition of the cost of use. The building became available for
use from February 2013. Since this is so close to the year end of 31 March 2013
then the depreciation may even be ignored on the grounds of materiality.
79
Contingent liabilities
The potential repayment of the $1.5m to the benefactor is a contingent liability.
These are recognised roughly like this:Contingent liability
Contingent asset
Probable
provide
disclose
Possible
disclose
ignore
Remote
ignore
ignore
Evidence
Verge has spent $1m adapting the building to make it safe as a museum. There
seems very little chance that Verge will breach the covenant. I suggest the $1.5m
potential outflow can be ignored.
Revenue grant
It seems that this money is for hiring the staff. So $100k will go first to liabilities
and then $5k can be released to the p/l every time one of the twenty is hired.
Capital grant
It seems this money is for adapting the building. So $150k will go first to liabilities
then a little bit will be released to p/l each year based on the life of the building
adaptations.
80
Answer 77: Janne

This was another mix question. So there were two mix questions in June 2013.
Marking guide
Usual 1 mark per idea well expressed.
(a)
Leasing
A finance lease transfers substantially all the risks and rewards of the related asset
to the user. An operating lease does not.
Land
The simplest test is to look at the life of the lease by comparison to the life of the
asset. Land life is infinite (well it goes on for as long as the planet anyway). So no
matter how long a land lease is for, it is always very short compared to the land
life.
Other factors
But in order to assess the substance of a lease, we must look at the whole deal and
not just the initial rent period.
Key clause
The key clause in the Janne lease is what happens at the end of the 30 years.
Janne can either continue to lease at an immaterial rent or buy at a massive
discount. So that is what Janne will do; one then the other. Janne will continue to
use the land for as long as it is useful then buy it and sell it to someone else.
Conclusion
The land lease is clearly a finance lease and the land and a corresponding liability
will be brought onto the b/s at contract signature. The massive premium will be
knocked off against the liability and subsequent instalments will then reduce the
liability each year.
Cash flow
The cash flows are also indicative of a finance lease. The cash flow from Janne is
190% of the land value (4%x30years plus 70%). Of course, this ignores time
value, but does show that the lessor is getting cash ample to cover the sale of the
land.
Break clauses in general
Break clauses can change everything. A break clause that genuinely allows the
user to just give back the asset midterm is often highly persuasive evidence of an
operating lease.
Break clauses in Janne lease
But the Janne break clauses are both apparently useless. The 10 year clause
requires Janne to pay everything left to pay on the remaining 20 years up front and
then get nothing for the 190% of the land value. The 25 year clause sounds better
because there is nothing further to pay. But if Janne decides it does not want the
land towards the end of the lease then Janne would be far better off holding on for
another 5 years and then buying the land and selling it.
81
Comment
So neither break clause effects the original conclusion that this is a finance lease.
So now we must assess where the property goes within nca.
Investment property criteria
The following criteria must be fulfilled for the recognition of an investment property
(IP):
I
investment
The property must be held with an investment motive; that is capital gain or rental
income or both.
C
complete
The property must be finished.

inventory).
E
(Unfinished property is classified as wip within
empty
The property must be empty of the group. (Owner occupied property is classified
as PPE).
Recommendation
I think I would recommend that Janne put the land straight into PPE on the basis
that Janne plans to build its own offices on the land. But Janne could put the land
into investment properties until the building starts as the land is not occupied until
then.
(b)
Investment property accounting
The IAS allows a theoretical choice between fair value and cost for ip. But in
practice the culture of fv is so strong that Janne is well advised to follow an fv
policy.
Fair value
Fair value is the transaction price between market participants at the measurement
date. So fv is an exit price.
Fair value measurement
The standard outlines a hierarchy in which level 1 is preferred to level 2 and so on:Level 1
exact equivalent active market price
Level 2
approximately equivalent transaction price as a start point
Level 3
unobservable inputs into a model
Approaches
There is also conflicting talk in the standard on approaches. There are three
approaches to fvm says the standard; market based, income based and cost based.
The standard is far from crystal clear, but seems to be saying that levels 1 and 2
are market based and are preferred to income based (DCF on future cash inflow)
and cost based (replacement cost) which are level 3.
82
New build value less obsolescence

It is not clear how the above works. It sounds like a cost based approach to fv.
However, whatever it is, it is a level 3 guess by directors and more reliable
evidence is available below.
Sales values of similar properties
This is a level 2 observable input and Janne should use one of these transactions as
a start point for estimating Janne ip fv.
(c)
Discontinued
An operation is discontinued if it is closed or sold during the year or held for sale at
the year end.
Held for sale
An operation is held for sale if it fulfils all these criteria:
S
sells
There is a clear intent to sell

A
available
The operation is genuinely available for immediate sale

L
locate
The directors are actively locating a buyer

E
expected
The sale is expected to be complete within 12 months

Repeated classification
There is nothing to prevent a sub being classified as held for sale at one year end
and then being classified as held for sale at the next year end. But it does arouse
suspicions.
Correspondence
There is a difficult phrase at the end of the scenario that seems to indicate that the
directors are not really trying to sell the sub. The phrase goes like this some
correspondence with investment bankers showed in principle only that the
subsidiary was still for sale. Investment bankers are the agents that sell subs, like
estate agents sell houses. It sounds like the directors were never really actively
looking for a buyer.
Conclusion
I suggest the sub is not and never was held for sale. The current figures should
reclassify the sub as continuing and the comparatives require restatement.
83
Answer 78: Lizzer

This was a lovely current issues question on presentation.
Marking guide
Of course, the usual 1 mark per idea applies.
(a)(i) Optimal
Striking a balance between too much disclosure and too little disclosure is a tricky
business. It depends on the market expectations, the industry culture and the
accounting standards amongst other things.
Too much
If there is too much disclosure then the users become overwhelmed and the
preparer will struggle to get the central messages across.
Example
A good example can be drawn from segmental reporting. A broad business with
say 30 segments would overburden a user with excessive clutter if all 30 were
reported. This is why the standard on segments gives advice on aggregation into
reportable segments.
Too little
If there is too little information then the user is left wanting more and the preparer
will have to answer the users questions at the annual general meeting or suffer the
consequences of a fall in share price.
Example
A good example can be taken from Lizzer below. The insufficient information on
asset risks described in (b)(i) would result in both the equity and debt investors
asking questions and result in both share and bond prices falling.
Drivers
Over recent years annual reports have become bigger and bigger. It is possible to
point to the drivers that have pushed disclosure up. By the way, the annual report
has two sections; the commentary and the fs and each has its problems.
IFRS
There can be little doubt that the increasing complexity and disclosure demands of
the IFRS have driven excessive disclosure in fs. It does not help that the standards
themselves are far from eloquent. The IFRS are a shining example of how not to
communicate if you want to get your message across.
Law
Legislators around the world have put demands on annual report disclosure in an
effort to make annual reports more robust. But the result has been the cutting and
pasting of meaningless legal jargon from one company report to another in an
effort to cover company backsides. This useless over disclosure is sometimes
called boiler plate and is at its worst in USA commentary. There are sometimes
more than 100 pages of this rubbish in USA annual reports.
84
User Demand
There is often a demand from institutional investors for more disclosure. Even
though this leads to excessive disclosure and the overburdening of the user; these
very users often ask for more.
Preparer supply
Perhaps understandably, preparers want to err on the side of caution and therefore
disclose more than is strictly necessary. We live in a highly litigious world and it
understandable that companies want to avoid being punished for under disclosure.
Other drivers
But of course, there are lots of other drivers pushing disclosure up. There are stock
exchanges demanding more, there are governance codes, there are regulators (eg
USA SEC), there are pressure groups (eg labour rights charities) and so on.
(a)(ii) Barriers
The problem is that once a culture builds up around a particular disclosure, it
becomes very difficult to reverse this. This is why the IASB and others are trying to
get a hold on the problem before it spirals out of control. The barriers to reduction
in disclosure are the divers, looked at in a slightly different way.
IFRS
Once an IFRS is issued it takes an age to change it, even if it is rubbish. This is
beautifully illustrated by IAS39. The development project to replace this standard
still rumbles on many years after IAS39 was discredited.
Law
Law is perhaps worse. It can take many lifetimes to change the law even if it is so
outdated as to become ridiculous. Only this year in 2013 France repealed a 200
year old law forbidding women to wear trousers.
User Demand
Once users get used to seeing a certain disclosure then it can become comforting,
no matter that it is useless. Taking it away can really upset the very people
benefiting from the reduction.
Preparer supply
Once the preparers have the staff in place to provide the disclosure then the
preparer can be locked into a bureaucratic loop whereby the disclosure that the
preparer discloses is what they disclose, no matter that it is unnecessary.
Solutions
The short term solution for preparers is to carefully arrange the annual report in a
clear top down presentation so that the important messages get through in the fore
and the boiler plate gets shunted to the back. The long term solution is for all the
stakeholders to get together and decide what they really need. I cannot see that
happening any time soon.
85
(b)(i) Securitisation
This is a highly specialised financial service. In a nutshell, Lizzer buys up a broad
range of debt assets in one hand and sells a narrow range of debt assets with the
other. So Lizzer gets a bucket load of cash from institutional lenders (like banks)
and then passes it on to a wide range of borrowers (like start-up companies) and
takes a cut in the middle.
Complex
As you can tell even from the above, the business is very complex and fraught with
risk. In fact it was exactly this business under the label subprime derivatives that
is often blamed for starting the financial crisis that led to the current recession of
2010 to 2012 that is coming to an end as I write this.
Users
Lizzer wants to hide from the debt lenders the risks relating to the debt borrowers.
The excuse for this economy with the truth is that debt lenders are not primary
users.
Lizzer clearly views the shareholders as the only users of fs worth
considering. But of course that view is way too limited. Obviously debt lenders are
primary users as described by the framework for fr.
IFRS7
Besides this debate is all irrelevant. The scenario clearly tells us that the risk
disclosure is required by IFRS7. So that is the end of that debate. The risks must
be disclosed.
(b)(ii) Going concern
Going concern is a tricky old area of financial reporting. But cutting to the
essentials, a business is deemed a going concern if it is considered that the
business will continue for the foreseeable future usually interpreted as 12 months.
Going concern disclosure
So a company is required to disclose any issues that might mean the business does
not make it alive to the next year end.
Ample
The directors used the above phrase to describe the covenant clearance at the year
end. But we know this to be a lie. The note should be rewritten to give a very
clear idea of how the covenant works and exactly how close to breach the company
was at the year end.
Events after the reporting period
Further the actual breach after the year end requires disclosure as a non-adjusting
EARP. The going concern disclosure is completely inadequate.
86
Question 79 Angel (Q1 December 2013)

The following draft group financial statements relate to Angel, a public limited company:
Angel Group: Statement of financial position as at 30 November 2013
30 November
30 November
2013
2012
$m
$m
Assets
Non-current assets
475
465
Goodwill
105
120
Other intangible assets
150
240
Investment in associate
80
Financial assets
215
180
1,025
1,005
Current assets
Inventories
155
190
Trade receivables
125
180
Cash and cash equivalents
465
355
745
725
Total assets
1,770
1,730
Equity and liabilities

Share capital
850
625
Retained earnings
456
359
29
20
1,335
1,004
90
65
Total equity
1,425
1,069
Long-term borrowings
26
57
Deferred tax
35
31
Retirement benefit liability
80
74
Total non-current liabilities

141
162
Current liabilities
Trade payables
155
361
Current tax payable
49
138
Total current liabilities

204
499
Total liabilities
345
661

1,770
1,730
87
Angel Group: Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income for the year
ended 30 November 2013
$m
Revenue
1,238
Cost of sales
(986)
Gross profit
252
Other income
30
Administrative expenses
(45)
Other expenses
(50)
Operating profit
187
Finance costs
(11)
Share of profit of equity accounted investees (net of tax)
12
Profit before tax

188
Income tax expense
(46)
Profit for the year

142
Profit attributable to:

Owners of parent
111
31
142
Other comprehensive income:

Items that will not be reclassified to profit or loss
Revaluation of property, plant and equipment
8
Actuarial losses on defined benefit plan
(4)
Tax relating to items not reclassified
(2)
Total items that will not be reclassified to profit or loss

2
Items that may be reclassified to profit or loss

Financial assets
4
Tax relating to items that may be reclassified
(1)
Total items that may be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss

3
Other comprehensive income (net of tax) for the year

5
Total comprehensive income for year

147
Total comprehensive income attributable to:

$m
Owners of the parent
116
31
147
88
Angel Group: Statement of changes in equity for the year ended 30 November 2013
Balance 1 December
Share capital issued
Dividends for year
Total comprehensive
income for the year
Balance 30 November
Share
capital
Retained
earnings
$m
625
225
(10)
850
Other
components
of equity
revaluation
reserve
Total
Noncontrolling
interest
Total
$m
359
Other
components
of equity
financial
assets
reserve
$m
15
$m
5
$m
1,004
225
$m
65
(10)
107
116
(6)
31
$m
1,069
225
(16)
147
456
18
11
1,335
90
1,425
The following information relates to the financial statements of the Angel Group:
(i) Angel decided to renovate a building which had a zero book value at 1 December 2012. As a
result, $3 million was spent during the year on its renovation. On 30 November 2013, Angel
received a cash grant of $2 million from the government to cover some of the refurbishment
cost and the creation of new jobs which had resulted from the use of the building. The grant
related equally to both job creation and renovation. The only elements recorded in the financial
statements were a charge to revenue for the refurbishment of the building and the receipt of the
cash grant, which has been credited to additions of property, plant and equipment (PPE). The
building was revalued at 30 November 2013 at $7 million. Angel treats grant income on capitalbased projects as deferred income.
(ii) On 1 December 2012, Angel acquired all of the share capital of Sweety for $30 million. The
book values and fair values of the identifiable assets and liabilities of Sweety at the date of
acquisition are set out below, together with their tax base. Goodwill arising on acquisition is not
deductible for tax purposes. There were no other acquisitions in the period. The tax rate is 30%.
The fair values in the table below have been reflected in the year-end balances of the Angel
Group.
Carrying values
Tax base Fair values
$million
$million
$million
12
10
14
Inventory
5
4
6
Trade receivables
3
3
3
2
2
2
Total assets
22
19
25
Trade payables
(4)
(4)
(4)
Retirement benefit obligations
(1)
(1)
Deferred tax liability
(06)
Net assets at acquisition

164
15
20
89
(iii) The retirement benefit is classified as a long-term borrowing in the statement of financial
position and comprises the following:
$m
Net obligation at 1 December 2012
74
Net interest cost
3
Current service cost
8
Contributions to scheme
(9)
Remeasurements actuarial losses
4
Net obligation at 30 November 2013

80
The benefits paid in the period by the trustees of the scheme were $6 million. Angel had
included the obligation assumed on the purchase of Sweety in current service cost above,
although the charge to administrative expenses was correct in the statement of profit and loss
and other comprehensive income. There were no tax implications regarding the retirement
benefit obligation. The defined benefit cost is included in administrative expenses.
(iv) The property, plant and equipment (PPE) comprises the following:
Carrying value at 1 December 2012
Additions at cost including assets acquired on the purchase of subsidiary
Gains on property revaluation
Disposals
Depreciation
$m
465
80
8
(49)
(29)
Carrying value at 30 November 2013

475
Angel has constructed a machine which is a qualifying asset under IAS 23 Borrowing Costs and
has paid construction costs of $4 million. This amount has been charged to other expenses.
Angel Group paid $11 million in interest in the year, which includes $1 million of interest
which Angel wishes to capitalise under IAS 23. There was no deferred tax implication regarding
this transaction. The disposal proceeds were $63 million. The gain on disposal is included in
administrative expenses.
(v) Angel purchased a 30% interest in an associate for cash on 1 December 2012. The net assets
of the associate at the date of acquisition were $280 million. The associate made a profit after
tax of $40 million and paid a dividend of $10 million out of these profits in the year ended 30
November 2013.
(vi) An impairment test carried out at 30 November 2013 showed that goodwill and other
intangible assets were impaired. The impairment of goodwill relates to 100% owned
subsidiaries.
(vii) The following schedule relates to the financial assets owned by Angel:
$m
180
(26)
57
4
Balance at 30 November 2013

215
The sale proceeds of the financial assets were $40 million. Profit on the sale of the financial
assets is included in other income in the financial statements.
Balance 1 December 2012
Less sales of financial assets at carrying value
Add purchases of financial assets
Add gain on revaluation of financial assets
(viii) The finance costs were all paid in cash in the period.
90
Required:
(a) Prepare a consolidated statement of cash flows using the indirect method for the Angel
Group plc for the year ended 30 November 2013 in accordance with the requirements of
IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows.
Note: The notes to the statement of cash flows are not required.
(35 marks)
(b) The directors of Angel are confused over several issues relating to IAS 7 Statement of Cash
Flows. They wish to know the principles utilised by the International Accounting Standards
Board in determining how cash flows are classified, including how entities determine the nature
of the cash flows being analysed. They have entered into the following transactions after the
year end and wish to know how to deal with them in a cash flow statement, as they are unsure of
the meaning of the definition of cash and cash equivalents. Angel had decided after the year end
to deposit the funds with the bank in two term deposit accounts as follows:
(i) $3 million into a 12-month term account, earning 35% interest. The cash can be withdrawn
by giving 14 days notice but Angel will incur a penalty, being the loss of all interest earned.
(ii) $7 million into a 12-month term account earning 3% interest. The cash can be withdrawn by
giving 21 days notice. Interest will be paid for the period of the deposit but if money is
withdrawn, the interest will be at the rate of 2%, which is equivalent to the banks stated rate for
short-term deposits.
Angel is confident that it will not need to withdraw the cash from the higher-rate deposit within
the term, but wants to keep easy access to the remaining $7 million to cover any working capital
shortfalls which might arise.
Required:
Discuss the principles behind the classifications in the statements of cash flows whilst
advising Angel on how to treat the two transactions above.
(9 marks)
(c) All accounting professionals are responsible for acting in the public interest, and for
promoting professional ethics. The directors of Angel feel that when managing the affairs of a
company the profit motive could conflict with the public interest and accounting ethics. In their
view, the profit motive is more important than ethical behaviour and codes of ethics are
irrelevant and unimportant.
Required:
Discuss the above views of the directors regarding the fact that codes of ethics are
irrelevant and unimportant.
(6 marks)
(50 marks)
91
Question 80 Havanna (Q2 December 2013)

(a) Havanna owns a chain of health clubs and has entered into binding contracts with sports
organisations, which earn income over given periods. The services rendered in return for such
income include access to their database of members, and admission to health clubs, including
the provision of coaching and other benefits. These contracts are for periods of between 9 and
18 months. Havanna feels that because it only assumes limited obligations under the contract
mainly relating to the provision of coaching, this could not be seen as the rendering of services
for accounting purposes. As a result, Havannas accounting policy for revenue recognition is to
recognise the contract income in full at the date when the contract was signed.
(6 marks)
(b) In May 2013, Havanna decided to sell one of its regional business divisions through a mixed
asset and share deal. The decision to sell the division at a price of $40 million was made public
in November 2013 and gained shareholder approval in December 2013. It was decided that the
payment of any agreed sale price could be deferred until 30 November 2015. The business
division was presented as a disposal group in the statement of financial position as at 30
November 2013. At the initial classification of the division as held for sale, its net carrying
amount was $90 million. In writing down the disposal groups carrying amount, Havanna
accounted for an impairment loss of $30 million which represented the difference between the
carrying amount and value of the assets measured in accordance with applicable International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In the financial statements at 30 November 2013,
Havanna showed the following costs as provisions relating to the continuing operations. These
costs were related to the business division being sold and were as follows:
(i) A loss relating to a potential write-off of a trade receivable which had gone into liquidation.
The trade receivable had sold the goods to a third party and the division had guaranteed the
receipt of the sale proceeds;
(ii) An expense relating to the discounting of the long-term receivable on the fixed amount of
the sale price of the disposal group;
(iii) A provision was charged which related to the expected transaction costs of the sale
including legal advice and lawyer fees.
The directors wish to know how to treat the above transactions.
(9 marks)
(c) Havanna has decided to sell its main office building to a third party and lease it back on a
10-year lease. The lease has been classified as an operating lease. The current fair value of the
property is $5 million and the carrying value of the asset is $42 million. The market for
property is very difficult in the jurisdiction and Havanna therefore requires guidance on the
consequences of selling the office building at a range of prices. The following prices have been
achieved in the market during the last few months for similar office buildings:
(i) $5 million
(ii) $6 million
(iii) $48 million
(iv) $4 million
Havanna would like advice on how to account for the sale and leaseback, with an explanation of
the effect which the different selling prices would have on the financial statements, assuming
that the fair value of the property is $5 million.
(8 marks)
Required:
Advise Havanna on how the above transactions should be dealt with in its financial
statements with reference to International Financial Reporting Standards where
appropriate.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
92
Question 81 Bental (Q3 December 2013)

(a) Bental, a listed bank, has a subsidiary, Hexal, which has two classes of shares, A and B. Ashares carry voting powers and B-shares are issued to meet Hexals regulatory requirements.
Under the terms of a shareholders agreement, each shareholder is obliged to capitalise any
dividends in the form of additional investment in B-shares. The shareholder agreement also
stipulates that Bental agrees to buy the B-shares of the minority shareholders through a put
option under the following conditions:
The minority shareholders can exercise their put options when their ownership in B-shares
exceeds the regulatory requirement, or
The minority shareholders can exercise their put options every three years. The exercise price
is the original cost paid by the shareholders.
In Bentals consolidated financial statements, the B-shares owned by minority shareholders are
to be reported as a non-controlling interest.
(7 marks)
(b) Bental has entered into a number of swap arrangements. Some of these transactions qualified
for cash flow hedge accounting in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition
and Measurement. The hedges were considered to be effective. At 30 November 2013, Bental
decided to cancel the hedging relationships and had to pay compensation. The forecast hedged
transactions were still expected to occur and Bental recognised the entire amount of the
compensation in profit or loss.
Additionally, Bental also has an investment in a foreign entity over which it has significant
influence and therefore accounts for the entity as an associate. The entitys functional currency
differs from Bentals and in the consolidated financial statements, the associates results
fluctuate with changes in the exchange rate. Bental wishes to designate the investment as a
hedged item in a fair value hedge in its individual and consolidated financial statements.
(6 marks)
(c) On 1 September 2013, Bental entered into a business combination with another listed bank,
Lental. The business combination has taken place in two stages, which were contingent upon
each other. On 1 September 2013, Bental acquired 45% of the share capital and voting rights of
Lental for cash. On 1 November 2013, Lental merged with Bental and Bental issued new Ashares to Lentals shareholders for their 55% interest.
On 31 August 2013, Bental had a market value of $70 million and Lental a market value of $90
million. Bentals business represents 45% and Lentals business 55% of the total value of the
combined businesses. After the transaction, the former shareholders of Bental excluding those
of Lental owned 51% and the former shareholders of Lental owned 49% of the votes of the
combined entity. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lental is the biggest individual owner
of the combined entity with a 25% interest. The purchase agreement provides for a board of six
directors for the combined entity, five of whom will be former board members of Bental with
one seat reserved for a former board member of Lental. The board of directors nominates the
members of the management team. The management comprised the COO and four other
members, two from Bental and two from Lental. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the
COO of Lental is the COO of the combined entity. Bental proposes to account for the
transaction as a business combination and identify Lental as the acquirer.
(10 marks)
Required:
Discuss whether the accounting practices and policies outlined above are acceptable under
International Financial Reporting Standards.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
93
Question 82 Zack (Q4 December 2013)

(a) Due to the complexity of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), often
judgements used at the time of transition to IFRS have resulted in prior period adjustments and
changes in estimates being disclosed in financial statements. The selection of accounting policy
and estimation techniques is intended to aid comparability and consistency in financial
statements. However, IFRS also place particular emphasis on the need to take into account
qualitative characteristics and the use of professional judgement when preparing the financial
statements. Although IFRS may appear prescriptive, the achievement of all the objectives for a
set of financial statements will rely on the skills of the preparer. Entities should follow the
requirements of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors when
selecting or changing accounting policies, changing estimation techniques, and correcting
errors.
However, the application of IAS 8 is additionally often dependent upon the application of
materiality analysis to identify issues and guide reporting. Entities also often consider the
acceptability of the use of hindsight in their reporting.
Required:
(i) Discuss how judgement and materiality play a significant part in the selection of an
entitys accounting policies.
(ii) Discuss the circumstances where an entity may change its accounting policies, setting
out how a change of accounting policy is applied and the difficulties faced by entities
where a change in accounting policy is made.
(iii) Discuss why the current treatment of prior period errors could lead to earnings
management by companies, together with any further arguments against the current
treatment.
Note: The total marks will be split equally between each part. Credit will be given for relevant
examples.
(15 marks)
94
(b) In 2013, Zack, a public limited company, commenced construction of a shopping centre. It
considers that in order to fairly recognise the costs of its property, plant and equipment, it needs
to enhance its accounting policies by capitalising borrowing costs incurred whilst the shopping
centre is under construction. A review of past transactions suggests that there has been one other
project involving assets with substantial construction periods where there would be a material
misstatement of the asset balance if borrowing costs were not capitalised. This project was
completed in the year ended 30 November 2012. Previously, Zack had expensed the borrowing
costs as they were incurred. The borrowing costs which could be capitalised are $2 million for
the 2012 asset and $3 million for the 2013 asset.
A review of the depreciation schedules of the larger plant and equipment not affected by the
above has resulted in Zack concluding that the basis on which these assets are depreciated
would better reflect the resources consumed if calculations were on a reducing balance basis,
rather than a straight-line basis. The revision would result in an increase in depreciation for the
year to 30 November 2012 of $5 million, an increase for the year end 30 November 2013 of $6
million and an estimated increase for the year ending 30 November 2014 of $8 million.
Additionally, Zack has discovered that its accruals systems for year-end creditors for the
financial year 30 November 2012 processed certain accruals twice in the ledger. This meant that
expenditure services were overstated in the financial statements by $2 million. However, Zack
has since reviewed its final accounts systems and processes and has made appropriate changes
and introduced additional internal controls to ensure that such estimation problems are unlikely
to recur.
All of the above transactions are material to Zack.
Required:
Discuss how the above events should be shown in the financial statements of Zack for the
year ended 30 November 2013.
(8 marks)
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
95
Answer 79 Angel
Cash Flow Statement
Operating
Profit before tax [188given +5machine (iv) +3refurb (i) +1job grant (i)]
Equity accounted {share of associate pat}
Finance
Operating profit
Inventory
Receivables
Payables
Depreciation
Disposal
Impairment
Defined benefit cost
[190-155+3]
[180-125+3]
[361-155+4]
[ppe profit=63-49] + [fa profit=40-26]
[gw=26.5 +intangible=90]
[3interest +8given -1acquired]
Cash generated from operations

Interest paid
Tax paid
Operating cash flow
Investing
Purchase of financial assets (vii)
Sale of financial assets (vii)
Associate dividend received (v)
Associate purchase (v)
Ppe additions (iv)
[80given -14 acq(ii) +2grant(i)]
Ppe disposals (iv)
Machine (iv)
[4 +1 borrowing cost(iv)]
Contributions to pension investment (iii)
Sub acquisition
Cash in hand of incoming sub
Renovation (i)
Grant received for renovation
Financing
Share issue
[850-625]
Borrowing repayment
[57-26]
Parent dividend to controlling interest
Non controlling interest dividend
Cash flow {calculated from opening and closing below}
Opening cash
Closing cash
Total marks
197
(12)
11
____
196
41
58
(210)
29
(28)
116.5
10
____
212.5
(11)
(135.5)
____
66
marks
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
(57)
40
3
(71)
(68)
63
(5)
(9)
(30)
2
(3)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
225
(31)
(10)
(6)
____
110
355
____
465
____
1
1
1
1
1
35
96
Workings
Goodwill
Opening
Closing
Acquired [30 consideration given {20 na given 1.5 DT calculated below}]
Impairment described in (vi)
Intangible
Opening
Closing
Impairment described in (vi)
Associate
Opening
Closing
i/s ($40m)(30%) from (v) and also given
dividend ($10m)(305) from (v)
Associate purchase
Tax
Opening ct
Closing ct
Opening dt
Closing dt
p/l
oci
oci
acquisition deferred tax [20cv-15tb](30%)
Tax paid
120
(105)
11.5
____
26.5
____
240
(150)
____
90
____
0
(80)
12
(3)
____
(71)
____
138
(49)
31
(35)
46
2
1
1.5
____
135.5
____
97
Further comments
Full marks
Note that the above scores full marks. Note that no other information than the above is required
for full marks. Note that there is no narrative content in the answer to the numerical component
of the exam. Note that I have provided no explanation of anything for full marks. So the
comments below form no part of the required answer and only serve to explain some of the
trickier elements of the above.
Face of cfs
Note the importance of the face of the cfs. The face of p/l or b/s is important in consolidation
questions; but not quite so important. The face of the cfs is crucial. The examiner placed all the
marks there. Of course, markers will look in your workings if you have made mistakes to award
method marks. But the key is get all you can on the face.
Reverse order
It is usually best to do the examiners following information in reverse order from (viii) to (i).
So this answer has that structure.
Profit before tax
It is unfortunate that the answer above necessarily starts with the adjustment to pbt because in
the exam you would do the adjustment to pbt last. The 3 marks are 1 for copying the $188m
and 2 further marks for the adjustments. These adjustments are very awkward and it is dubious
whether they are even worth thinking about in the hour you have.
Real life
In real life, if you were working through your cfs and discovered that there was an error on
renovations (i) and machine construction (iv) and grant accounting (i) that meant your p/l and
b/s were wrong then you would stop doing the cfs then go back to restate the p/l and b/s finally
coming back to the cfs to finish the cfs. So the challenge of restating pbt in the middle of a cfs
is challenging because it is not something you would do in real life. I think it is a valid
challenge and I think you must accept that all numerical questions have their challenges but it is
reasonable to note that restating pbt in the middle of a cfs is not something accountants do in
real life.
Restated profit or loss
Here is the restated p/l so you can see how the $197m pbt would be extracted in real life:Revenue
Cost of sale
Other income
Administration
Other expenses
1238
(983)
31
(45)
[50 -4 to remove machine construction (iv)]
(46)
____
Operating profit
195
Finance costs
[11 -1 to remove borrowing cost and capitalise in ppe]
(10)
Associate
12
____
Profit before tax
197
____
Of course, it would be terrible exam technique to do any of the above in the exam as this
restatement scores no marks and is time consuming.
[986 -3 to remove the refurb(i)]
[30 +1 for the jobs grant(i)]
98
Restated cfs
Restating the p/l as above means there must be a corresponding restatement of the operating
section of the cfs as follows:Operating
marks
Profit before tax [188given +5machine (iv) +3refurb (i) +1job grant (i)]
197
3
Equity accounted {share of associate pat}
(12)
1
Finance
[11 -1 borrowing cost]
10
1
____
Operating profit
195
Inventory
[190-155+3]
41
1
Receivables
[180-125+3]
58
1
Payables
[361-155+4]
(210)
1
Depreciation
29
1
Disposal
[ppe profit=63-49] + [fa profit=40-26]
(28)
2
Impairment
[gw=26.5 +intangible=90]
116.5
2
Defined benefit cost
[3interest +8given -1acquired]
10
1
____
Cash generated from operations
211.5
Interest paid
[11 -1 borrowing cost]
(10)
1
Tax paid
(135.5)
3
____
Operating cash flow
66
____
Note the slight change to the interest.
Movements
The movements given are also not quite right. The question tells you the movements are not
quite right but to actually restate the movements in the exam would be another huge waste of
time. But here are the true movements.
PPE
Actual ppe additions are $82m including the acquisition. Angel has $80m in their books
because they have used net recognition instead of gross. Angel has set the credit balance of
$2m against the actual additions of $82m to show $80m. So angel should gross up their balance
sheet to put an extra $2m in the top and an extra $2m in the bottom for the income as follows:Dr
ppe
2
Cr
deferred income (liabilities)
1
Cr
other income (and into retained earnings)
1
Further angel has made the error of bundling the additions with acquisitions. Here is ppe
restated:Opening
465
Additions
[actual total gross additions 82 -14 acq below]
68
Machine construction
[4 construction +1 borrowing]
5
Renovation and refurbishment
3
Acquisition
14
Revaluation gains
8
Disposals
(49)
Depreciation
(29)
____
Closing
[475given +2 grant +5machine +3refurb]
485
____
99
Retirement benefit liability

Here it is restated:Opening
Interest
Current service cost
[8 -1 acq below]
Acquisition
Contributions
Remeasurements
74
3
7
1
(9)
4
____
Closing
80
____
Hence you can see why we only add $10m back to operating profit. It is because only $10m
(3+7) is in there.
(1)(b) Marking guide
The usual 1 mark per relevant point but with up to 2 marks for each deposit discussion. As
usual the discussion can bring in any relevant ideas or examples.
Classification
Cfs are presented under three headings; operating, investing and financing. Classification is the
process of putting a cash flow under a heading. So if you put a share issue into financing then
you are said to have classified the cash flow as financing.
Summary
The standard on cfs (IAS7) is imprecise in its definitions, but roughly speaking operating flows
relate to operations, investing flows relate to nca and financing flows relate to debt and equity.
Deciding
When deciding where to put a cash flow you should look at who paid or received the cash,
where the cash went and what it was for.
Subjective
But this process is highly subjective. So it is common for two companies to put identical cash
flows in quite different places. For example, the above cfs has the pension contribution in
investing because the money goes into investments. But the cfs could have had the pension
contribution in operating because the cash is eventually for employees.
However there is one more class in a cfs that you hardly notice and that is cash itself. Cash is
defined as notes and coins plus asset or overdraft current account. Cash equivalents are highly
liquid highly stable investments that are so close to being cash that we may as well class them
as cash.
Meaning
Highly stable means little change in fv from day to day. Highly liquid means the cash can be
accessed quickly without undue penalty. The standard hints that quickly can be taken as within
3 months.
Example fails
So, for example, equity investments are highly liquid but fail the cash equivalent test because
their fv is unstable. Locked in 12 month deposits are highly stable but fail because you cannot
get at the cash quickly. But the deposits in the scenario are not locked in and so subjective
analysis is required.
100
Deposit (i)
Both deposits are stable because the fv of deposit accounts hardly changes at all from day to
day. In fact the fv of a deposit does not change much from year to year. But I think deposit (i)
is a fail. I think deposit (i) is an investment and not cash. I think that the penalty of losing all
interest accrued for withdrawal means that Angel would be very unlikely to treat the asset as a
liquid cash balance. [But you could argue the opposite.]
Meaning
This means that when Havana put their money into deposit (i) then Havana would record a
decrease in cash and an increase in investments and therefore an investing cash flow.
Deposit (ii)
This looks like a cash equivalent to me. The penalty for early withdrawal is small. So Angel
would quite happily liquidate this cash equivalent and turn it into cash and not worry about
losing 1% interest down to 2% from 3%. [But you can argue the opposite.]
Meaning
This means that when Havana put their money into deposit (ii) then Havana would record a
decrease in cash and an increase in cash equivalents and therefore no cash flow at all. This is a
movement from one cash bucket to another.
(1)(c) Marking guide
The usual 1 mark per idea well expressed applies. As ever, any idea will score provided it is
relevant. In this case the discussion can be so wide ranging that almost anything will score.
Ethics
The ACCA have the following principles in their guidelines to ethics:
Professionalism
Integrity
Competence
Confidentiality
Objectivity
And all the other accounting bodies have something similar.
CFO
The chief financial officer will almost certainly be a qualified accountant. So the code of ethics
should certainly be important to him or her at the very least.
Profit motive
It is widely accepted that profit is important in ethics. Of course, Karl Marx had other ideas.
But there is a classic ethics model by a guy called Tucker that puts the question of profitability
first on his list and this model is on the ACCA syllabus in p1. So it is clear the ACCA agree
that profit is important.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
But there is more to ethics than profit. There are other considerations like legality,
sustainability and honesty. And there is more to ethics than shareholders. There are employees,
environment and society. These ideas about public interest and accounting ethics are often
termed CSR.
101
Conflict
It is quite true that the profit motive does often conflict with public interest and accounting
ethics and wider CSR. A really simple example is lying. All a company has to do to increase
profit is to lie about its costs.
Directors
The directors sound quite selfish to me. So I do not think I would appeal to their honesty or
their integrity or anything like that. I think I would appeal to their pocket. There is substantial
evidence that companies that have good CSR are positively rated by shareholders and this is
reflected in the share price. I think I would point this out to directors to illustrate the importance
of ethics.
102
Answer 80 Havanna
Marking guide
1 mark per point. Any point drawing from the scenario will score.
(a)
Revenue
There are two forms of revenue;
Sale of goods
This revenue is recognised at the point that risks and rewards transfer.
Sale of services
This revenue is recognised over the period of the service and so in accordance with completion
in each period.
Subjective
It is true that the standard on revenue (IAS18) is subjective. It can sometimes be hard to know
whether a revenue stream is goods or services. A classic example is film making. Some
companies say this is a big intangible good delivered at a point in time. Other companies say
that filming is a service and recognise the revenue over a period like a construction contract.
Sports organisation
The Havana revenue appears to have no ambiguity. It seems very clear that this is a service and
that the revenue should be recognised over the period.
Evidence
The evidence is clear. The scenario says services and over given periods and 9 and 18
months. This is very clear evidence in favour of recognition over the period.
Effect
The effect will be to throw revenue forward. Currently revenue is recognised at the start. So
moving to recognition over the period will throw revenue forward. This will be particularly
noticeable for revenue straddling a year end.
Restatement
It sounds like Havana have been doing their revenue incorrectly for a while. It seems likely that
restatement of comparatives is required.
103
(b)
Disposal group
The phrase disposal group is just another way of saying discontinued operation. So Havana
has disclosed the outgoing regional business division as a discontinued operation.
Discontinued operation
An operation is discontinued if it is closed or sold during the year or held for sale at the year
end. Held for sale requires the following criteria fulfilled:
S
sell: clear intent to sell
A
available: asset must be available for immediate sale
L
locate: actively locating a purchaser
E
expected: completion expected within 12 months
Conclusion
There is so much going on in this scenario that I will keep my assessment brief. I think it looks
like the criteria are all fulfilled. The only thing I will say in detail is that the payment in
November 2015 in two years is not a problem. It sounds like the completion will occur shortly
after the year end and then the cash will come in much later. The point being that the sale
completion is expected well within 12 months.
Effect
The effect of the discontinuance will be that the division revenue and costs will be netted down
to net profit and slotted on a single line at the bottom of the profit or loss and labelled
discontinued and the assets and liabilities will be netted down to a single line on the position
statement and labelled discontinued (roughly speaking).
Impairment
And the discontinuance will trigger an impairment as follows:
Carrying value
90
(50)
___
Recoverable value (given)
40
___
Of course, this means the Havana impairment of $30m is not enough.
Other issues
But the scenario goes on to talk about other issues. All of these other issues must be sorted out
first before the above impairment test. So in reality it appears likely that the final impairment
test will have figures different to those above.
(i) receivable
This receivable sitting in the division must be written off before we start thinking about
discontinuance.
(ii) discounting
I cannot tell for sure; but it sounds like Havana is confused about discounting and unwinding.
The $40m that Havana will receive in two years from the current year end needs discounting
down to the current year end fv. This will give a recoverable value which will be smaller than
$40m because of the discounting. Then next year and the year after the receivable from the
purchaser will unwind back up to the $40m.
(iii) transaction costs
Recoverable value used above means fv less costs to sell in this case. There is no value in use
because Havana will not use the division. Havana will sell the division. The transaction costs
are costs to sell. So the transaction costs will be recorded as costs to sell. This gives a
reduction to the recoverable value which will give rise to an increase in the impairment above.
104
(c)
Leases
There are two forms:
Finance lease
Risks and rewards transferred to user (lessee).
Operating lease
Risks and rewards not transferred.
10 years
Really to make an adequate conclusion about the operating lease assumption we require the
underlying life of the asset itself. But since most buildings last a lot longer than 10 years I am
going to assume that the classification as an operating lease is reasonable.
Sale and operating lease back
The risks and rewards leave Havana during the sale and stay with the third party during the
operating lease back. So the sale really is a sale and a profit on disposal must go into the p/l.
Different selling prices
Now this is where this gets messy. We are asked to consider what would be recorded
depending on four alternative selling prices.
Simple answer
The simple answer would simply assume that the amount received represents the sale proceeds
of the building and so the building would be derecognised and profits would be recorded as
follows:
Received
Carrying value
Profit
5
4.2
0.8
6
4.2
1.8
4.8
4.2
0.6
4
4.2
(0.2)
Assumption
This assumption is quite reasonable. If the property was sold for $6m for example then it would
be reasonable to assume that $6m was the fv given that a similar building has been sold for that
amount recently. But the question asks us to assume that the fv is $5m and therefore assume
that only transaction (i) is at fair value.
Transactions (i) and (iii)
Transaction (iii) is at $4.8m and that is so close to $5m that I suggest we use the simple answer
above for both (i) and (iii) based upon materiality.
Transactions (ii) and (iv)
If we assume the fv is $5m then both these two are $1m away from the fv. The standard
(IAS17) tells us that this is a compound transaction and requires that we recognise the sale
proceeds at the fv of the building giving the following messy double entry:
Transaction (ii)
Dr
bank
6
Cr
disposal sale proceeds [giving rise to a profit of 0.8]
5
Cr
liability (balance)
1
Transaction (vi)
Dr
bank
4
Dr
asset (balance)
1
Cr
disposal sale proceeds [giving rise to a profit of 0.8]
5
105
Release
Then the asset or liability would be released to the p/l over 10 years. The idea behind this can
be explained first by looking at transaction (ii). The idea is that it is assumed by the standard
that if the cash received on disposal is higher than it should be then the operating lease rental
paid would be higher too and the release of $100k credit from the position statement each year
should compensate. The opposite logic applies to transaction (iv).
Fair value
But all this fancy accounting is highly dubious because the assumption of a fair value of exactly
$5m to the $1 and nothing else in this volatile market is highly dubious.
There are three levels:
1
2
approximately equivalent transaction price
3
unobservable inputs into financial models
Building fair value measurement
The building fvm would use level 2 and I would say that applying level 2 to the four inputs
between $4m and $6m would give a fair value of $5m +/- $1m. This means a fv of $5m give or
take $1m and not a fair value of exactly $5m to the $1. I think messing with the $1m liability in
(ii) and the $1m asset in (iv) is highly questionable in this case.
106
Answer 81 Hexal
Marking guide
1 mark per point. This is an enormously technical question. But there are still very few marks
for dumping knowledge. As usual it is points drawn from the scenario that will score most
marks.
(a)
Bental and Hexal
Bental has a sub Hexal and Hexal has a messy share structure. Before we can decide what the
group should do with the Hexal shares, we must decide what Hexal should do with the Hexal
shares.
Equity
The problem with testing suspected equity is that financial reporting currently has no working
definition of equity. So we are forced to test the suspected equity against the definition of a
liability as a present obligation to a future economic outflow and look for a negative response.
A-shares
The scenario tells us nothing about the A-shares apart from the voting powers. So presumably
we are expected to assume that the A-shares are equity and that Bental has a majority giving
Bental control of Hexal.
B-shares
The scenario tells us lots about the B-shares and most of it is fairly complicated. But a feature
that jumps out of the scenario is the B-shareholders rights to make Hexal hand over money.
These rights to make Hexal hand over money are hidden in fancy words like put option and
exercise. But what these fancy words mean is that the B-shareholders have the right to make
Hexal hand over money.
Rights and obligations
So if the B-shareholders have the right to make Hexal hand over money then Hexal has the
obligation to hand over money. So the B-shares contain obligations and are debt liabilities.
Debt from Hexal perspective
So Hexal will record the B-share debt in liabilities.
Debt from Group perspective
The parent asset in the B-shares will then be set against the sub liability in the B-shares leaving
a group liability to outside B-shareholders in liabilities.
107
(b)
Hedging
There are two types of hedging strategy and therefore two types of hedge accounting. The
hedging strategies are subtle and undertaken by practiced derivative traders. The hedge
accounting is arcane and undertaken by specialist hedge accountants.
Cash flow hedge
Usually, in a cf hedge, an entity bets against a risk of a future asset purchase costing more than
expected by betting on the asset purchase costing more than expected. Then if the asset does
cost more than expected at least the entity wins the bet and so breaks even.
Fair value hedge
Usually, in a fv hedge, the entity has the asset already but fears the asset value dropping. So the
entity bets on the asset value dropping. Then if the asset value does drop at least the entity wins
the bet and so breaks even.
Swaps
It is not crystal clear what is going on with the swaps. But it sounds like Bental used some
swaps to set up a cash flow hedge and then changed its mind and paid off the derivative trader
early.
IAS39
It appears that whilst the hedge lived the hedge was hedging a risk. And it does sound like the
risk transaction is still expected to occur soon. A reasonable interpretation of the scenario and
the standard would suggest that the accumulated gain on the cash flow hedge derivative should
stay in other components of equity until the risk transaction occurs.
Associate
There is a foreign associate in this story and presumably there is a foreign currency derivative
set up so that the losses in the associate fv due to currency changes are matched by gains in the
derivative. It sounds ripe for fair value hedge accounting but I think this would be unacceptable
as the movements in the associate fv would have far more to do with the associate performance
than the currency value.
IAS39
The standard makes this decision easy for me by simply forbidding fair value hedging for
associates.
108
(c)
Step acquisition
The purchase of 45% to give influence and then 55% to give control is often referred to as a
step acquisition. The mechanics of the accounting involve the acquirer being deemed to have
sold the original 45% and then purchased 100% at the point of control.
Merger
The scenario describes the transaction as a merger. A merger is a business combination of
roughly equal entities where the shareholders come together via a share swap.
Acquisition
The concept of a merger may exist in management strategy but it does not exist in financial
reporting. The business combination must be viewed as an acquisition and one or other
merging entity must be viewed as the acquirer.
Lental
The scenario tells us at the end that Bental proposes to view Lental as the acquirer. The
evidence is contradictory and could be taken to indicate either as the acquirer.
Control
As you might imagine, the assessment of acquirer and acquired comes back to the central
concept of control. Control is the power to direct activities (with exposure to variable returns).
So we must look at who will direct the activities of the combined entity after the combination.
Evidence (1) Shareholding
Former Bental shareholders have 51% of the votes in the new combined entity and former
Lental shareholders have only 49%. This means that the former Bental shareholders are in a
position to out vote the former Lental shareholders. More significantly, former Bental
shareholders can pass a majority resolution to hire and fire directors in the new combined entity
or change strategy of the new combined entity. It is marginal but it looks like the former Bental
shareholders dominate the combined entity.
Evidence (2) Board
The board of the new group is six of which five come from Bental. This is evidence that it is
the Bental strategies that will survive the business combination and evidence that Bental is the
acquirer.
Evidence (3) COO
The former COO of Lental is now the current COO of the combined group. This is evidence
that it is the Lental way of doing business that will prevail. The current COO of the combined
group is now a 25% owner of the combined group. This is more evidence that it will be Lental
ideas that dominate the combined group.
Evidence (4) Values
The information about the values is just information about values and not information about
control. But it can be used as corroborative evidence. This is because the history of mergers
usually tells us that it is the bigger entity that dominates the combined entity. Lental was bigger
than Bental whichever way you look at it. This is weak evidence that Lental is the acquirer.
Conclusion
The evidence is contradictory and so the conclusion is necessarily marginal. However, I
suggest that Bental is the acquirer and Lental is the acquired. I suggest the evidence (1) and (2)
above outweigh (3) and (4) above.
109
Other ideas
Here are some other ideas that could be discussed:Calculation of goodwill in step acquisition
Accounting for the associate for the month
Related party disclosure for COO
And anything else relevant.
Further points
Here are further points to note that go beyond the 10 marks required:Numbers
You may also notice that the numbers look very odd upon analysis. When Bental pay off 45%
of the former Lental shareholders in cash then that leaves 55%. This 55% of former Lental
shareholders then take 49% of the combined entity. But 100% of the former Bental
shareholders take only 51% of the combined entity. Of course, this is partly because Bental was
smaller than Lental, but only slightly smaller. Weird.
Deeper
If you dig even deeper then the numbers look stranger. After the first cash transaction and
during the second share swap, Bental shareholders bring 100% of Bental and 45% of Lental to
the table. But Lental shareholders only bring 55% of Lental. Bental shareholders bring so
much and yet somehow Bental shareholders end up with only a 51% slice of the pie.
AOL Time Warner
But although the figures look bizarre, it is possible that something as crazy as this could happen
in real life. The merger of AOL and Time Warner in 2001 was a similar transaction with Time
Warner appearing to be the acquirer but AOL shareholders dominating the merged shareholding
and AOL executives dominating the new board. And yet AOL were bringing next to nothing to
the table. The former AOL shareholders did really well and got lucky but Time Warner current
chief Jeff Bewkes believes the 2001 AOL merger was 'the biggest mistake in corporate history'.
In fact, it is possible this scenario draws some inspiration from AOL Time Warner.
Reverse acquisition
By the way, it is possible to argue that Lental is the acquirer and that Bental is the acquired.
This style of transaction is sometimes called a reverse acquisition because the apparent
acquirer and acquired are the reverse of the actual acquirer and acquired.
Mechanics
If it is concluded that Lental is the acquirer then it is going to be very awkward accounting for
this at ground level because it is Bental that actually spent the cash. However, the standard
requires that the acquirer must calculate the goodwill on acquiring the acquired. So if Lental is
considered the acquirer then Lental must calculate the goodwill on acquiring Bental. Tricky.
110
Answer 82 Zack
(a)(i) Accounting policies as choices (policy choices)
The phrase accounting policy is very closely related to choice in IFRS. Some IFRS have
choices between two different ways of measuring the same thing. The choice that a company
makes on first encountering the problem then becomes their policy and must be applied
consistently thereafter.
Examples
The two classic examples are between full and partial goodwill and between cost and fair value
PPE. A company selecting full goodwill and cost PPE is said to have selected two accounting
policies.
Judgement
The company is required to choose the policy that works best for the company to produce a true
and fair view. This is where the judgement comes in.
Accounting policies as practical compromises (policy formulae)
But there is another meaning to the phrase accounting policy. This meaning relates to
practical compromises in big companies and is best shown by example.
Example
Say there is a big company with loads of similar machines. They all have lives of roughly 5
years. Some will last more and others will last less than 5 years but on average the life is
roughly 5 years. Of course the company should take every machine individually and apply the
individual life to get individual depreciation. Many big companies do this and a policy is not
required. But other big companies aggregate all the machines together and use an average life.
This then becomes their policy.
Materiality
This is where materiality comes in. The aggregation described above is strictly wrong. The
standard requires that each depreciating asset is depreciated individually. But if the error this
aggregation produces is immaterial then the use of a policy becomes acceptable.
Other ideas
Students can also discuss:First time adoption
Transition
Qualitative characteristics
Prescriptive IFRS
New IFRS
Choice in IAS40 for investment properties
Choice in IAS20 for grants
Stock fifo as another example of accounting policies as practical compromises
The shocking fact that a policy for goodwill is not absolutely required as full or partial can be
used on an acquisition by acquisition basis
Or anything else.
111
Further commentary
IAS8 is less than perfect and frankly rather dated. But essentially the term policy is used by
IAS8 exclusively in the context of choice. So only when a standard has choice would a
company have a policy choice. So I have referred to this meaning of policy as policy
choice above. Where there is no choice then company accounting policy must simply follow
the standard. So there are effectively only four policy choices:
IAS16 PPE cost or fv
IFRS3 full or partial
IAS40 IP fv or cost
IAS20 Grant gross or net.
IAS8 refers to this as selection between allowed alternatives. So only when there are allowed
alternatives would a policy choice exist.
The concept of the accounting policy as practical compromises does not exist in IFRS.
Nowhere in IFRS is there the suggestion that you can have a policy for depreciation. And yet
this is what immediately springs to mind when thinking of accounting policies. In fact, IAS16
is quite explicit that asset consumption is measured asset by asset and year by year. Further,
nowhere in IFRS is there the suggestion that you can have a policy for revenue or deferred tax
or provisions. In all cases you must simply follow the IFRS. And yet the term policy is
regularly used in these contexts. Only IAS2 talks about practical compromises. IAS2 discusses
practical compromises in the context of cost valuation for high volumes of stock. Of course,
you know IAS2 talks about fifo and weighted average. But it does not call the selection of the
measurement technique a policy. IAS2 calls the selection of the measurement technique a
cost formula. So I have referred to this meaning of policy as policy formulae above.
There is no such thing as a stock policy in IFRS and yet we often hear about a fifo stock
valuation policy.
It is no wonder that this word policies is so often misunderstood.
(a)(ii) Consistency
The most important requirement in policy application is consistency. So once a policy is
selected then a change in policy should be very rare.
Improvement
However, a change in accounting policy is required if the change would result in an
improvement in the fs. In particular, a change in policy should improve fs relevance.
Example
A good example is PPE. It is often argued that going from cost to fv is acceptable because the
fs become more relevant. It is often argued that going from fv to cost is unacceptable as the fs
become less relevant.
Application
Ideally the company should apply a change of accounting policy retrospectively. This means
getting the figures how they would have been had the new policy always been the policy. This
is a difficulty as it means digging around in ancient transactions.
Restatement
Also the comparatives need restatement. Calling this a difficulty is perhaps overstating the
issue. But it is certainly time consuming.
112
Other ideas
Students may also discuss:Change of policy from change in IFRS
Change of policies on first time adoption of IFRS
Change of policies on first time adoption of IFRS for SMEs
Disclosure
Restatement of current opening balances
Effect of PPA in socie
Comparability
The shocking fact that adopting IAS16 fv does not actually require restatement of comparatives!
Or anything else.
(a)(iii) Prior period errors
These are exactly what they sound like. They are errors made in the prior period.
Current treatment
The current treatment is to put these errors through reserves and restate the comparatives. This
process is often called prior period adjustment (PPA) or simply restatement.
Materiality
Like anything in financial reporting, a PPA is only accommodated if it is material.
immaterial prior period errors must go through the current years figures.
So
Example
Say a company incorporated to run an ocean liner forgot to depreciate the ocean liner last year.
This would obviously be material. So the company would be required to restate comparatives
to accommodate last years depreciation before charging this year's. Last years depreciation
would be charged against this years opening reserves.
Earnings management
It is obvious where the opportunity for earnings management arises. The ocean liner could
deliberately forget to charge depreciation in a year when profits are low and then pick up that
depreciation through reserves the following year.
Hindsight
When assessing prior period errors companies should avoid hindsight. An error was an error if
it was obviously wrong at the time. An entity that makes a reasonable estimate based on
information available at the time has not made an error even if hindsight shows the estimate to
be incorrect. This is simply a change in accounting estimate.
Other ideas
Students could also discuss:Auditors
Creative accounting
Ethics
Suggesting prior period error accounting forbidden
Or anything else.
113
(b)
Borrowing costs
The company has changed its policy from expensing borrowing costs to capitalising borrowing
costs. So restatement is required.
Prior period error
Actually it is probably better to describe this as a prior period error. The standard on borrowing
costs (IAS23) has no choice. Zack never had a policy choice to make. Borrowing costs must be
capitalised and they were not and this was wrong. Either way Zack still needs restatement.
Restatement
So the comparatives will be restated to pick up the $2m for the earlier asset and an adjustment
will go through reserves. The current $3m will simply be capitalised.
Depreciation
This story is more difficult to be sure about. We are talking about an accounting policy as a
practical compromise and we are talking about a change in our view of the consumption of asset
value. There are two ways to view the same story.
Alternative one
If the earlier basis of depreciation was reasonable based upon the information available at the
time then Zack have nothing to apologise for. So Zack would simply start reducing balance
depreciation in the current year. The technical name for this is prospective treatment of a
change in estimate.
Alternative two
But if it was always clear that reducing balance depreciation was right then straight line was
wrong. So this is a prior period error and restatement would result and Zack would pick up all
the figures in the scenario. The technical name for this is retrospective treatment of a prior
period error.
Accruals
The double counting in last years accruals sounds like a simple prior period error and
restatement is required.
Effect
The $2m would go through the reserves and the comparatives would show reduced liabilities
and costs.
114
Question 83 Marchant (Q1 June 2014)

The following draft financial statements relate to Marchant, a public limited company.
Marchant Group: Draft statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income for the year
ended 30 April 2014.
Profit or loss
Revenue
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Other income
Administrative costs
Other expenses
Operating profit
Finance costs
Finance income
Profit before tax
Income tax expense
Profit for the year
Other comprehensive income
Revaluation surplus
Total comprehensive income for year
Marchant
$m
400
(312)
88
21
(15)
(35)
59
(5)
6
60
(19)
41
10
51
Nathan
$m
115
(65)
50
7
(9)
(19)
29
(6)
5
28
(9)
19
19
Option
$m
70
(36)
34
2
(12)
(8)
16
(4)
8
20
(5)
15
15
The following information is relevant to the preparation of the group statement of profit or loss
and other comprehensive income:
(i) On 1 May 2012, Marchant acquired 60% of the equity interests of Nathan, a public limited
company. The purchase consideration comprised cash of $80 million and the fair value of the
identifiable net assets acquired was $110 million at that date. The fair value of the noncontrolling interest (NCI) in Nathan was $45 million on 1 May 2012. Marchant wishes to use
the full goodwill method for all acquisitions. The share capital and retained earnings of Nathan
were $25 million and $65 million respectively and other components of equity were $6 million
at the date of acquisition. The excess of the fair value of the identifiable net assets at acquisition
is due to non-depreciable land.
Goodwill has been impairment tested annually and as at 30 April 2013 had reduced in value by
20%. However at 30 April 2014, the impairment of goodwill had reversed and goodwill was
valued at $2 million above its original value. This upward change in value has already been
included in above draft financial statements of Marchant prior to the preparation of the group
accounts.
(ii) Marchant disposed of an 8% equity interest in Nathan on 30 April 2014 for a cash
consideration of $18 million and had accounted for the gain or loss in other income. The
carrying value of the net assets of Nathan at 30 April 2014 was $120 million before any
adjustments on consolidation. Marchant accounts for investments in subsidiaries using IFRS 9
Financial Instruments and has made an election to show gains and losses in other
comprehensive income. The carrying value of the investment in Nathan was $90 million at 30
April 2013 and $95 million at 30 April 2014 before the disposal of the equity interest.
115
(iii) Marchant acquired 60% of the equity interests of Option, a public limited company, on 30
April 2012. The purchase consideration was cash of $70 million. Options identifiable net assets
were fair valued at $86 million and the NCI had a fair value of $28 million at that date. On 1
November 2013, Marchant disposed of a 40% equity interest in Option for a consideration of
$50 million. Options identifiable net assets were $90 million and the value of the NCI was $34
million at the date of disposal. The remaining equity interest was fair valued at $40 million.
After the disposal, Marchant exerts significant influence. Any increase in net assets since
acquisition has been reported in profit or loss and the carrying value of the investment in Option
had not changed since acquisition. Goodwill had been impairment tested and no impairment
was required. No entries had been made in the financial statements of Marchant for this
transaction other than for cash received.
(iv) Marchant sold inventory to Nathan for $12 million at fair value. Marchant made a loss on
the transaction of $2 million and Nathan still holds $8 million in inventory at the year end.
(v) The following information relates to Marchants pension scheme:
$m
Plan assets at 1 May 2013
48
Defined benefit obligation at 1 May 2013
50
Service cost for year ended 30 April 2014
4
Discount rate at 1 May 2013
10%
Re-measurement loss in year ended 30 April 2014
2
Past service cost 1 May 2013
3
The pension costs have not been accounted for in total comprehensive income.
(vi) On 1 May 2012, Marchant purchased an item of property, plant and equipment for $12
million and this is being depreciated using the straight line basis over 10 years with a zero
residual value. At 30 April 2013, the asset was revalued to $13 million but at 30 April 2014, the
value of the asset had fallen to $7 million. Marchant uses the revaluation model to value its noncurrent assets. The effect of the revaluation at 30 April 2014 had not been taken into account in
total comprehensive income but depreciation for the year had been charged.
(vii) On 1 May 2012, Marchant made an award of 8,000 share options to each of its seven
directors. The condition attached to the award is that the directors must remain employed by
Marchant for three years. The fair value of each option at the grant date was $100 and the fair
value of each option at 30 April 2014 was $110. At 30 April 2013, it was estimated that three
directors would leave before the end of three years. Due to an economic downturn, the estimate
of directors who were going to leave was revised to one director at 30 April 2014. The expense
for the year as regards the share options had not been included in profit or loss for the current
year and no directors had left by 30 April 2014.
(viii) A loss on an effective cash flow hedge of Nathan of $3 million has been included in the
subsidiarys finance costs.
(ix) Ignore the taxation effects of the above adjustments unless specified. Any expense
adjustments should be amended in other expenses.
116
Required:
(a)(i) Prepare a consolidated statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income
for the year ended 30 April 2014 for the Marchant Group.
(30 marks)
(a)(ii) Explain, with suitable calculations, how the sale of the 8% interest in Nathan should
be dealt with in the group statement of financial position at 30 April 2014.
(5 marks)
(b) The directors of Marchant have strong views on the usefulness of the financial statements
after their move to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). They feel that IFRSs
implement a fair value model. Nevertheless, they are of the opinion that IFRSs are failing users
of financial statements as they do not reflect the financial value of an entity.
Required:
(b) Discuss the directors views above as regards the use of fair value in IFRSs and the fact
that IFRSs do not reflect the financial value of an entity.
(9 marks)
(c) Marchant plans to update its production process and the directors feel that technology-led
production is the only feasible way in which the company can remain competitive. Marchant
operates from a leased property and the leasing arrangement was established in order to
maximise taxation benefits. However, the financial statements have not shown a lease asset or
liability to date. A new financial controller joined Marchant just after the financial year end of
30 April 2014 and is presently reviewing the financial statements to prepare for the upcoming
audit and to begin making a loan application to finance the new technology. The financial
controller feels that the lease relating to both the land and buildings should be treated as a
finance lease but the finance director disagrees. The finance director does not wish to recognise
the lease in the statement of financial position and therefore wishes to continue to treat it as an
operating lease. The finance director feels that the lease does not meet the criteria for a finance
lease, and it was made clear by the finance director that showing the lease as a finance lease
could jeopardise the loan application.
Required:
(c) Discuss the ethical and professional issues which face the financial controller in the
above situation.
(6 marks)
(50 marks)
Question 84 Aspire (Q2 June 2014)
Aspire, a public limited company, operates many of its activities overseas. The directors have
asked for advice on the correct accounting treatment of several aspects of Aspires overseas
operations. Aspires functional currency is the dollar.
(a) Aspire has created a new subsidiary, which is incorporated in the same country as Aspire.
The subsidiary has issued 2 million dinars of equity capital to Aspire, which paid for these
shares in dinars. The subsidiary has also raised 100,000 dinars of equity capital from external
sources and has deposited the whole of the capital with bank in an overseas country whose
currency is the dinar. The capital is to be invested in dinar denominated bonds. The subsidiary
has a small number of staff and its operating expenses, which are low, are incurred in dollars.
The profits are under the control of Aspire. Any income from the investment is either passed on
to Aspire in the form of a dividend or reinvested under instruction from Aspire. The subsidiary
does not make any decisions as to where to place the investments.
Aspire would like advice on how to determine the functional currency of the subsidiary.
(7 marks)
117
(b) Aspire has a foreign branch which has the same functional currency as Aspire. The branchs
taxable profits are determined in dinars. On 1 May 2013, the branch acquired a property for 6
million dinars. The property had an expected useful life of 12 years with a zero residual value.
The asset is written off for tax purposes over eight years. The tax rate in Aspires jurisdiction is
30% and in the branchs jurisdiction is 20%. The foreign branch uses the cost model for valuing
its property and measures the tax base at the exchange rate at the reporting date.
Aspire would like an explanation (including a calculation) as to why a deferred tax charge
relating to the asset arises in the group financial statements for the year ended 30 April 2014 and
the impact on the financial statements if the tax base had been translated at the historical rate.
(6 marks)
(c) On 1 May 2013, Aspire purchased 70% of a multi-national group whose functional currency
was the dinar. The purchase consideration was $200 million. At acquisition, the net assets at
cost were 1,000 million dinars. The fair values of the net assets were 1,100 million dinars and
the fair value of the non-controlling interest was 250 million dinars. Aspire uses the full
goodwill method.
Aspire wishes to know how to deal with goodwill arising on the above acquisition in the group
financial statements for the year ended 30 April 2014.
(5 marks)
(d) Aspire took out a foreign currency loan of 5 million dinars at a fixed interest rate of 8% on 1
May 2013. The interest is paid at the end of each year. The loan will be repaid after two years
on 30 April 2015. The interest rate is the current market rate for similar two-year fixed interest
loans.
Aspire requires advice on how to account for the loan and interest in the financial statements for
the year ended30 April 2014.
(5 marks)
Aspire has a financial statement year end of 30 April 2014 and the average currency exchange
rate for the year is not materially different from the actual rate.
Exchange rates
$1 = dinars
1 May 2013
5
30 April 2014
6
Average exchange rate for year ended 30 April 2014
5.6
Required:
Advise the directors of Aspire on their various requests above, showing suitable
calculations where necessary.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
118
Question 85 Minco (Q3 June 2014)

(a) Minco is a major property developer which buys land for the construction of housing. One
aspect of its business is to provide low-cost homes through the establishment of a separate
entity, known as a housing association.
Minco purchases land and transfers ownership to the housing association before construction
starts. Minco sells rights to occupy the housing units to members of the public but the housing
association is the legal owner of the building. The housing association enters into loan
agreements with the bank to cover the costs of building the homes. However, Minco negotiates
and acts as guarantor for the loan, and bears the risk of increases in the loans interest rate above
a specified rate. Currently, the housing rights are normally all sold out on the completion of a
project.
Minco enters into discussions with a housing contractor regarding the construction of the
housing units but the agreement is between the housing association and the contractor. Minco is
responsible for any construction costs in excess of the amount stated in the contract and is
responsible for paying the maintenance costs for any units not sold. Minco sets up the board of
the housing association, which comprises one person representing Minco and two independent
board members.
Minco recognises income for the entire project when the land is transferred to the housing
association. The income recognised is the difference between the total sales price for the
finished housing units and the total estimated costs for construction of the units. Minco argues
that the transfer of land represents a sale of goods which fulfils the revenue recognition criteria
in IAS 18 Revenue.
(7 marks)
(b) Minco often sponsors professional tennis players in an attempt to improve its brand image.
At the moment, it has a three-year agreement with a tennis player who is currently ranked in the
worlds top ten players. The agreement is that the player receives a signing bonus of $20,000
and earns an annual amount of $50,000, paid at the end of each year for three years, provided
that the player has competed in all the specified tournaments for each year. If the player wins a
major tournament, she receives a bonus of 20% of the prize money won at the tournament. In
return, the player is required to wear advertising logos on tennis apparel, play a specified
number of tournaments and attend photo/film sessions for advertising purposes. The different
payments are not interrelated.
(5 marks)
(c) Minco leased its head office during the current accounting period and the agreement
terminates in six years time. There is a clause in the operating lease relating to the internal
condition of the property at the termination of the lease. The clause states that the internal
condition of the property should be identical to that at the outset of the lease. Minco has
improved the building by adding another floor to part of the building during the current
accounting period. There is also a clause which enables the landlord to recharge Minco for costs
relating to the general disrepair of the building at the end of the lease. In addition, the landlord
can recharge any costs of repairing the roof immediately. The landlord intends to replace part of
the roof of the building during the current period.
(5 marks)
119
(d) Minco acquired a property for $4 million and annual depreciation of $300,000 is charged on
the straight line basis. At the end of the previous financial year of 31 May 2013, when
accumulated depreciation was $1 million, a further amount relating to an impairment loss of
$350,000 was recognised, which resulted in the property being valued at its estimated value in
use. On 1 October 2013, as a consequence of a proposed move to new premises, the property
was classified as held for sale. At the time of classification as held for sale, the fair value less
costs to sell was $24 million. At the date of the published interim financial statements, 1
December 2013, the property market had improved and the fair value less costs to sell was
reassessed at $252 million and at the year end on 31 May 2014 it had improved even further, so
that the fair value less costs to sell was$295 million. The property was sold on 5 June 2014 for
$3 million.
(6 marks)
Required:
Discuss how the above items should be dealt with in the financial statements of Minco.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
Question 86 Avco (Q4 June 2014)
(a) The difference between debt and equity in an entitys statement of financial position is not
easily distinguishable for preparers of financial statements. Some financial instruments may
have both features, which can lead to inconsistency of reporting. The International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) has agreed that greater clarity may be required in its definitions of
assets and liabilities for debt instruments. It is thought that defining the nature of liabilities
would help the IASBs thinking on the difference between financial instruments classified as
equity and liabilities.
Required:
(i) Discuss the key classification differences between debt and equity under International
Financial Reporting Standards.
Note: Examples should be given to illustrate your answer.
(9 marks)
(ii) Explain why it is important for entities to understand the impact of the classification of
a financial instrument as debt or equity in the financial statements.
(5 marks)
(b) The directors of Avco, a public limited company, are reviewing the financial statements of
two entities which are acquisition targets, Cavor and Lidan. They have asked for clarification on
the treatment of the following financial instruments within the financial statements of the
entities.
Cavor has two classes of shares: A and B shares. A shares are Cavors ordinary shares and are
correctly classed as equity. B shares are not mandatorily redeemable shares but contain a call
option allowing Cavor to repurchase them. Dividends are payable on the B shares if, and only if,
dividends have been paid on the A ordinary shares. The terms of the B shares are such that
dividends are payable at a rate equal to that of the A ordinary shares.
Additionally, Cavor has also issued share options which give the counterparty rights to buy a
fixed number of its B shares for a fixed amount of $10 million. The contract can be settled only
by the issuance of shares for cash by Cavor.
120
Lidan has in issue two classes of shares: A shares and B shares. A shares are correctly classified
as equity.
Two million B shares of nominal value of $1 each are in issue. The B shares are redeemable in
two years time at the option of Lidan. Lidan has a choice as to the method of redemption of the
B shares. It may either redeem the B shares for cash at their nominal value or it may issue one
million A shares in settlement. A shares are currently valued at $10 per share. The lowest price
for Lidans A shares since its formation has been $5 per share.
Required:
Discuss whether the above arrangements regarding the B shares of each of Cavor and
Lidan should be treated as liabilities or equity in the financial statements of the respective
issuing companies.
(9 marks)
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
121
Answer 83 Marchant
(a)(i) Net assets
Acq Transfer Growth
Share capital
25}
Retained earnings
65}
120
OCE
6}
FVA(land)(balance) 14
14
___
___
___
110
134
24
___
___
___
Given
Acq Disposal Growth
86
___
90
___
4
___
(0marks!)
Goodwill
Fv of consideration
Fv of nci
Fv of na
Goodwill at acquisition
Last years impairment (15)(20%)
Goodwill opening & correct closing
Incorrect reversal (balance)
Incorrect closing goodwill (15+2)
N
80
45
(110)
___
15
(3)
___
12
5
___
17
___
O
70
28
(86)
___
12
___
(3 marks)
Transfer of ownership [(a)(ii) numbers]
Carrying value (12 gw + 134 na)
146
Percentage
8%
___
Transfer
11.7
___
Effect on controlling interest
Transfer out
(11.7)
Consideration in
18
___
Increase to OCE
6.3
___
(3 of 5 marks for (a)(ii))
Transfer of ownership [(a)(ii) narrative]
The 8% reduction in controlling interest ownership from 60% down to 52% results in a
retention of control. The controlling interest still has control and the non controlling interest
still have no influence. So reasonably enough the IASB argued this is not a partial sub disposal.
They argued this is just the transfer of ownership from ci to nci.
Effect on controlling interest
The effect of the transfer to nci of $11.7m of ownership is easy enough. The nci just goes up by
$11.7m. But the effect on the ci is counter intuitive. The ci also goes up. This is because the ci
goes down by $11.7m as the transfer goes out but ci goes up by $18m as the consideration
comes in. The net effect is the increase of $6.3m seen above.
(2 of 5 marks for (a)(ii))
122
Disposal [back to (a)(i)]

Actual sale proceeds
Deemed sale proceeds (fv of associate retained)
Nci
Na
Gw
Profit
50
40
34
(90)
(12)
___
22
___
(3 marks)
123
Statement of profit or loss
Revenue
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Other income
N
12/12
400
(312)
21
(5.3)(i)
Administration
(15)
Operating expenses
(35)
(5)(i)
(7)(v)
(2.6)(vi)
(2.1)(vii)
Operating profit
Associate (6/12)(15)(20%)
Sub disposal
Finance costs
1.5
22
(5)
(0.2)(v)
O
12/12
115
(65)
adj
group marks
6/12 (2 marks for time apportion)
35
(18)
(12)(iv)
12(iv)
538 (1 mark)
(383) (1 mark)
___
155
23.7 (1 mark)
(9)
(6)
(30)
(19)
(4)
(74.7)
(1 mark)
(2 marks)
(2 marks)
(3 marks)
(6)
(2)
___
74
1.5 (2 marks)
22
(10.2)
(1 mark)
3(viii)
Finance income
Profit before tax
Tax
Profit after tax
Non
(19)
___
42.3
(9)
___
22
*40%
8.8
(2.5)
___
7.5
*40%
3
Profit attributable
To parent members
___
___
___
Statement of other comprehensive income
Revaluation surplus
10
(5)(i)
Reversal of previous revaluation
(1.96)(vi)
Actuarial remeasurement
(2)
Cash flow hedge loss
(3)(vii)
___
___
___
Other comprehensive
1
(3)
0
Income
*40%
*40%
Non
(1.2)
0
Other comprehensive
Interest attributable to parent members
Statement of comprehensive income
Comprehensive income attributable to parent members (60-0.8)
Non controlling interest (11.8-1.2)
Comprehensive income (71.8-2)
15
___
102.3
(30.5)
___
71.8
(11.8) (1 mark)
___
60
___
5
(2)
(2)
(3)
___
(2)
(1 mark)
(1 mark)
(1 mark)
(1 mark)
1.2 (1 mark)
___
(0.8)
___
59.2
10.6
___
69.8
___
124
Working (i) parent fvoci

The fv gain of $5m (95-90) must be pulled out of revaluation surplus to prevent double counting
the sub. The parent gain of $5.3m on the disposal of shares [18-{(8%/60%)95}] from the parent
point of view must be pulled out of other income to prevent double counting the sale of 8% that
gives rise to the transfer recorded in (a)(ii).
(2 marks given already on face of p/l)
Working (iv) intercompany sales
$12m removed from both sales and cost of sales.
Working (v) pension
The movement is as follows:Opening net liability (48-50)
2
Net pension finance (2)(10%)
0.2
to p/l (finance)
Service cost (current 4 + past 3)
7
to p/l (operating)
Actuarial remeasurement
2
to oci
__
Closing net liability
11.2
__
(4 marks given already on face of p/l & oci)
Working (vi) ppe
The movement is as follows:Cost
12
Last years depreciation (12/10years)
(1.2)
__
Last years closing before revaluation
10.8
Last years revaluation (balance)
2.2
__
Current opening (given)
13
Current depreciation (13/9years)
(1.44)
__
Current closing before reversal
11.56
Reversal of revaluation (balance)
(1.96)
to oci
__
Historical net book value (12-1.2-1.2)
9.6
(2.6)
to p/l (operating)
__
Closing (given)
7
__
(3 marks given already on face of p/l & oci)
Note (vi) ppe
Note that the reversal of the revaluation of $1.96m can also be derived as the remainder on the
revaluation reserve at the current year end after the annual transfer from the revaluation reserve
to the retained earnings [$1.96m = $2.2m(8/9)].
125
Further note that the examiner assumed that the annual transfer had not occurred resulting in
figures as follows:Cost
12
Last years depreciation (12/10years)
(1.2)
__
Last years closing before revaluation
10.8
Last years revaluation (balance)
2.2
__
Current opening (given)
13
Current depreciation (13/9years)
(1.44)
__
Current closing before reversal
11.56
Reversal of revaluation (unchanged revaluation reserve)
(2.2)
to oci
__
Historical net book value (12-1.2-1.2)
9.36
(2.36)
to p/l (operating)
__
Closing (given)
7
__
Both alternatives were awarded full marks.
Working (vii) options
The movement is as follows:Opening (4x8k)($100)(1/3)
Operating cost (balance)
Closing (6x8k)($100)(2/3)
1.067
2.133
__
3.2
__
Working (viii) hedge loss

This should simply come out of p/l and go into oci.
(1 mark given already on face of p/l)
126
(b) Marking guide

The usual 1 mark for each point eloquently delivered applies.
Fair value
This is defined as the transaction price between market participants at the measurement date.
To help users measure fair value for unquoted assets the IFRS have the following hierarchy
(IFRS13). The idea is that you should use the level with the lowest number:
Level 1: an exact equivalent active market price
Level 2: an approximately equivalent transaction price
Level 3: a figure derived from using unobservable inputs into financial models.
Use of fair value
It is true that fv is used widely throughout fs. Many financial instruments are carried at fv. And
similar ideas to fv apply in pensions accounting and impaired ppe.
Use of historical cost
But cost is also widely used in fs. There is ppe and stock. But even financial liabilities are
usually carried at amortised cost meaning discounting and unwinding and this is certainly not
fv.
Mixed model
The technical name for what we do now with some things at fv and others at cost is called
mixed accounting. This mixed model comes to us from a long history of cost focus with a
more recent move towards fv.
Relevance and reliability
The IASB have been moving fs towards fv for a number of years. The IASB accept that fv can
sometimes have lower reliability than the equivalent historical cost. But the IASB continue to
believe in fv because of its undoubted relevance.
Financial value of an entity
It is possible to invent an accounting system that does reflect the financial value of an entity.
Here are some numbers to give a flavour of this radical idea. Say an entity has 100m shares on
the stock exchange at $5 each at the year end and say the fv of the na was $150m at that point
then a position statement could be produced like this:
Goodwill {balance}
Net assets
Equity ($5)(100m shares)
350
150
___
500
___
500
___
Acceptance
There is absolutely no chance a model like the above would be accepted by the markets for so
many reasons. Here are two. Firstly the markets are deeply conservative and any change is
resisted. Secondly the above model is deeply based upon position focus but the markets are
deeply based upon profit focus.
127
Result
The result is that fs certainly do not reflect the financial value of the whole entity. Many items
are not at fv and the extra value that the shareholders put on the equity over and above the na is
ignored altogether.
Market capitalisation
But the fair value of the whole entity is not difficult to obtain. It is derived by looking at the
share price at any point and multiplying by the number of shares. It is called the market
capitalisation and is so widely available that it is dubious whether it is necessary to include in
fs. Also it changes every minute and so its relevance in fs could be questioned.
(c) Marking guide
The usual 1 mark for each relevant point.
Ethics
A useful model for the analysis of ethics is the ACCA ethical principles:
P
professionalism
I
integrity
C
confidentiality
C
competence
O
objectivity
Leases
Lease accounting is a tricky subject because it is based on a subjective judgement of risks and
rewards. A finance lease is one where the risks and rewards are transferred to the user and an
operating lease is not.
Land
The principle reward from an asset is use. Generally, land lasts forever on human timescales, so
no matter how long the lease; the lease life will be an infinitesimal proportion of that. So land is
almost always an operating lease.
Competence
Frankly, this is fairly basic financial reporting. Anyone that knows anything about leases knows
that land contracts are rarely finance leases. The financial controller appears not to know this
and so the competence of the fc can be questioned.
Buildings
Analysing the buildings contract would be much harder than analysing the land contract in real
life as it requires a judgement as to the building life and then another judgement as to whether
the contract life is substantially all the building life. The analysis is impossible for us as the
building life is not given.
Objectivity
As mentioned the judgement of the fc is questionable because of the lack of competence. But
the judgement of the fd is also questionable because of a lack of objectivity. The fd is more
concerned with a loan application than he is with the true and fair view of the fs.
Gearing
The issue is likely to be gearing. Gearing goes up if you class a lease as a finance lease from
previous operating lease accounting. It is likely the potential lenders have a maximum gearing
that they will lend into and it seems that Marchant is already close to this threshold even before
the lease is considered.
128
Answer 84 Aspire
Marking guide
The usual 1 mark for a clear relevant point.
(a) Functional currency
This is simply the currency in which an entity functions. It is the currency of the primary
economic environment and is important because an entity initially prepares its fs in its
functional currency.
Presentational currency
Then sometimes an entity presents its fs to shareholders in a different currency based on
demand from the shareholders. This is common for foreign subs. For example, Starbucks (UK)
initially prepares fs in UK and then translates to US$ to present to its USA parent.
Factors
The factors determining the functional currency are the currencies of the functions. So we look
at the currency used for selling, buying, finance, employee payroll and so on. But there is a
strong leaning towards the currency of selling.
Two examples
This is easy for Starbucks (UK). This entity does everything but perhaps buy coffee beans in
UK. So obviously the functional currency is UK. The determination of the functional
currency is less obvious for Marks & Spencer (Singapore) as finance and purchasing and
expertise is all bought in UK. But because the sales are all in S$ the functional currency is
determined as the S$.
Aspire sub
But the determination of the functional currency of the Aspire sub is much harder again. This is
because the sub does not really do anything. The sub does not have sales or purchases.
Evidence for dinar
All the sub appears to do is receive cash from the owners and put that cash into investments.
However, it is clear that both these two functions are in dinar. The use of the $ is purely for
operating expenses which are low. So it seems the sub functions in the dinar.
Evidence for $
But the sub is described as under the control of Aspire. Of course, all subs are under the
control of their parent, but it appears in this case to mean that Aspire manages the day to day
investment strategy and the sub has no autonomy at all. So you could argue that the sub is just
an investment vehicle and that a $ functional currency is appropriate.
Conclusion
I really think that this could be argued both ways. However, I lean towards the dinar as the
functional currency as being the currency of the two main functions which are receiving cash
from the owners and investing the cash on the dinar stock exchange.
(b) Deferred tax
Deferred tax is derived from two equations:Deferred tax
= temporary difference x tax rate
Temporary difference
= carrying value tax base
129
Carrying value
The scenario tells us that foreign branch functions in $. So the foreign branch will have figures
like this:
$k
Cost (D6000k/5)
1200
Depreciation (1200/12)
(100)
____
Closing carrying value
1100
____
Tax base
But of course, the tax accountant in the foreign branch will be thinking in dinar:
Dk
Cost
6000
Capital allowance (6000/8)
(750)
____
Closing tax base
5250
____
Currency
Our next problem is that these two are in different currencies. And it does not help that deferred
tax is a fake liability and makes no sense. But deferred tax is required and so is a decision. As
we are talking about a potential future obligation to a future economic outflow to a dinar land
taxman then perhaps dinars are the way forward.
CT rate
The final problem is the corporation tax rate. Since the real corporation tax incurred by the
foreign branch is at 20% then it follows this is the rate to apply to the dt.
Deferred tax
So the dt is:
property (1100*6)
Dt (liability in dinar)
Closing rate
Dt (liability in $)
cv
6600
tb
-5250
td
=1350
*20%
___
D270k
/6
___
$45k
___
Deferred tax (alternative calculation)

But equally, as deferred tax is purely a financial accounting adjustment and all the financial
accounting is in $ then you could argue for going straight into $.
So the dt is:
cv
tb
td
property (5250/6)
1100
-875
=225
*20%
___
Dt (liability)
45
___
130
(c) Currency conflict

The goodwill is of course down in dinar land but the shareholders of the Aspire group are up in
$ land. The usual solution to this problem is to measure the goodwill in its original currency
and then translate that goodwill at the year end using the closing rate. This is just as you would
do for any other asset like stock or ppe.
Goodwill
So the goodwill in dinar is as follows:FV of consideration ($200m*5)
FV of nci
FV of na
Goodwill
Position statement
This then hits the group position statement as follows:Goodwill (D150m/6)
Dm
1000
250
(1100)
____
150
____
$25m
Retranslation
However, there is a tricky detail here; the goodwill originally hit the balance sheet at the year
start and is now being remeasured at the year end and so a forex loss is generated as follows:Dm
rate
$m
Year end
150
6
25
Acquisition
150
5
(30)
__
Loss
(5)
__
Hidden
This loss of $5m is actually a component part of the loss on the retranslation of the cost of
investment that is more familiar (see groups question Traveller from an earlier exam and other
questions with foreign subs):Dm
rate
$m
Year end
1000
6
167
Acquisition
1000
5
(200)
__
Loss
(33)
__
This goes through OCI and into OCE (other comprehensive income and other components of
equity).
(d) Foreign loan
This is a simple foreign loan of the parent itself and so the parent must use the parental currency
to report the liability. This requires translation and retranslation to accommodate the change in
the value measured in $. The fancy name for this is retranslation of a foreign monetary item at
the entity level.
Financial liability
This is just a simple financial liability and so is carried at amortised cost, meaning discounting
and unwinding. However, the cash flow interest rate paid and the discount rate taken from the
current market rate at the start are the same. This means the initial fv of the loan is D5m. The
present value of an 8% D5m loan discounted at 8% is D5m.
131
Forex table
Here are the numbers:Year start
Year end
Gain
Dm
5
5
rate
5
6
$m
1
(0.833)
__
(0.167)
__
Opening journal
Perhaps some journals might show the flow. The initial recognition would be:Dr
bank (D5m/5)
Cr
loan
$1m
Closing journal
The retranslation would be:Dr
Cr
loan |(decrease in loan from above table)

forex gain (financing in p/l)
$1m
$0.167m
$0.167m
Interest journal
This could be done like this for simplicity given the immateriality:Dr
interest cost
$0.067
Cr
bank (D5m*8%/6)
$0.067
Alternative
But really the interest strictly should be calculated at the average rate for the p/l over the year:Dr
interest cost (D5m*8%/5) $0.08
Cr
bank (D5m*8%/6)
$0.067
Cr
forex gain (financing in p/l) (calculated as the balance)
$0.013
132
Answer 85 Minco
Marking Guide
The usual 1 mark per valid point.
(a) Housing Association
The housing association is described as a separate entity. It is not clear who owns this entity
but it does appear that we are being asked to assume housing association is outside the Minco
group.
Revenue
So we use the revenue models to analyse the transfer of land:
Sale of goods (the at model)
Revenue is recognised when risks and rewards are transferred.
Sale of services (the over model)
Revenue is recognised over the period and therefore in line with completion.
Land
Minco are using the at model. Minco are using the sale of goods model for the land transfer.
This does seem to be the right model for the land alone but it appears the model has been
applied wrongly.
Risks and rewards
As stated above revenue is recognised when the risks and rewards are transferred. But it
appears that risks and rewards have not been transferred. It appears the risks and rewards of the
building project remain with Minco throughout and the land is a part of the building project.
Evidence
Minco sells the units. So it appears Minco gets the benefits of high sales volume and bears the
risk of low sales volume via the maintenance responsibility. Also Minco bears the risk of loan
interest rate rises. Further Minco faces the risk of loan default via the guarantee.
Conclusion
Minco should continue to recognise the land and Minco should recognise the project as a
construction contract within Minco group fs.
Control
There is another way of looking at this which does not appear to be intended by the examiner as
there is very little information about who owns the housing association and how it works.
However, it does appear that Minco has the power to direct the activities of the housing
association via the Minco director and the rights to negotiate with the buyers and the housing
contractor.
Alternative solution
So maybe another way to get the project into the group fs is to allow the housing association to
record the construction contract and then consolidate the housing association with Minco group
fs.
(b) Intangible
An intangible is a present right to a future economic inflow that cannot be touched. Intangibles
are recognised when measurable and are measurable when purchased.
133
$20k
The $20k appears to fit the criteria. The asset is clearly measurable at its purchase price of $20k
and provides Minco with the right to require the tennis player to display the Minco logo for the
next three years.
$50k
This is measurable but appears to be a payment for the player having worn the logo. The past
tense here tells you that there is no future economic inflow.
20%
The 20% is the same. It is a bonus paid to the player after having won the tournament. There is
no future benefit to Minco.
Conclusion
So it appears that the $20k should be capitalised as an intangible and depreciated over three
years and it appears that the other payments should be written off as incurred. This means the
annual $50k is recognised as a liability and expense at the end of each year and the 20% is
recognised as a liability and expense at the end of each tournament the player wins.
(c) Lease accounting
Lease accounting has two forms of lease. A finance lease involves the transfer of risks and
rewards from the owner to the user and an operating lease does not.
Six years
To really be sure of the nature of the lease we need the life of the building as a whole. But we
do not. But we do know that the contract is for six years and that most buildings last a lot
longer than that. So it seems the risks and rewards of the building remain with the new owner
and that this is an operating lease.
Improvement
The improvement results in some tricky accounting. The costs of the improvement are simply
capitalised and depreciated over the six years. But the cost of removing the floor at the end of
the lease must be discounted down to present value the point of improvement at the start of the
lease.
Asset & liability
The discounted pv of the removal cost is then capitalised on top of the improvement costs at the
top of the b/s and recognised as a liability at the bottom of the b/s. The asset is then depreciated
over the six years and the liability is unwound over the period up to the cost of removal.
Disrepair
Minco should also recognise a liability for any damage. There is no mention of any damage and
so this liability may be zero.
Roof
The examiner seems to have mixed up his words. His sentence says the landlord intends to
replace during the current period but it should say either the landlord has replaced during the
current period just gone or the landlord intends to replace in the new year just started. It is
also not clear if the roof replacement is because the landlord feels like it or because the roof is
damaged. I am going to guess that the examiner means the roof has been damaged and the
repair will occur in the new year. So a liability will be recognised at the current year end and an
expense will go the current p/l.
134
(d) Issues
There are a number of issues here. There is depreciation. There is held for sale. There is
reversal of impairment. There is an event after the reporting period.
Depreciation
Depreciation reflects the cost of use and as most assets are used evenly over their lives
depreciation is usually based on dividing the remaining carrying value over the remaining life.
Strictly we should work out the asset life from the figures as 13.3years ($4m/$0.3m) and look
carefully at remaining lives after impairment. But it appears the examiner wants us to ignore
this point and stick with $300k per annum and $100k for the four months of June July August
and September.
Held for sale (HFS)
There are criteria that must be fulfilled for a property to be classed as held for sale. But no
information is given regarding the criteria and so it appears the examiner wants us to assume the
property is held for sale without further thought. However, the rather odd Ifrs requirement that
depreciation stops after classification as held for sale is relevant.
Reversal of impairment
At the end of last year the property went down in value. This was recognised as an impairment
last year through p/l. This year the property went up in value. This is classed as a reversal of
the impairment and the gain also goes through p/l.
HNBV
But the reversal is limited to the carrying value that would apply if there had been no down or
up in value only depreciation. This is sometimes called historical net book value (HNBV).
This is $2.9m from the point of HFS four months into the current year (4-1-0.1) and does not
change over the following eight months because HFS do not depreciate. So we can ignore the
HNBV at the first reversal because $2.52m is way below $2.9m but we accommodate the
HNBV at the second reversal because $2.95m is above $2.9m.
Events after the reporting period (EARP)
The sale of the property for $3m shortly after the year end is excellent evidence that the fair
value less cost to sell were roughly $2.95m at the year end. Further it may be worth disclosing
that the asset held for sale at the year end was successfully sold shortly after.
135
Movement
The very complex movement in the property is as follows over the current year:
$k
Cost (three and one third years before the current year start) (given)
4000
Accumulated depreciation (given)
(1000)
____
Last years closing balance before impairment
3000
Last years impairment (given)
(350) to last years p/l
____
Current opening
2650
Four months depreciation from June to September (see above)
(100)
____
Before further impairment
2550
Current impairment
(150)
to current p/l
____
Recoverable value at HFS (given)
2400
Two months depreciation for October and November because HFS
(0)
____
Before first reversal
2400
120
to current p/l
____
After first reversal (fvlcts given)
2520
Six months depreciation from December to May because HFS
(0)
____
Before second reversal
2520
380
to current p/l
____
HNBV (see above)
2900
Revaluation (see below)
0
____
Closing
2900
to current b/s
____
Revaluation
The revaluation recognised when the FVLCTS of $2.95m rises above the HNBV of $2.9m is
zero. This can be identified in a couple of ways. First the scenario says nothing about
revaluation. The default policy for ppe is cost. So the examiners silence means Minco have a
cost policy for ppe making revaluation not permissible. Secondly, after a property is classified
HFS it is now considered HFS and not property and HFS is always carried at the lower of its hfs
entry value and the fvlcts.
136
Answer 86 Avco
Marking guide
The usual 1 mark for each point clearly expressed.
(a)(i) Problem
Distinguishing between debt and equity in a going concern can be a problem for preparers of fs
because debt is clearly defined but equity is not.
Debt
The word debt is not actually used much in IFRS. The word that is used is liability and
liabilities are clearly defined in the framework for financial reporting as present obligations to
future economic outflows. However, the culture is to call the debt/equity problem the
debt/equity problem and not the liability/equity problem
. It is just the way that this problem is expressed.
Equity
Equity is defined. It is just that the definition is not very useful in a going concern. Equity is
defined as the residual when all the assets are liquidated and the liabilities are all paid off. The
guys that get this residual are called equity. The trouble is that this definition only applies in
liquidation and financial reporting applies only to going concerns and not to insolvent entities.
Solution
The IFRS solve this problem using a backhanded technique (IAS32). The technique requires
that preparers test suspected equity for the properties of a liability and if they find none of those
properties then the preparer classes the financial instrument as equity. The liability property
that prepares should particularly look for is a present obligation to pay out cash in the future.
Example debt
A company has issued preference shares that require a 8% fixed dividend and repayment of the
capital of $100m in five years. The obligations are obvious. This is debt. The liability is
carried at amortised cost meaning discounting and unwinding.
Example equity
A company issues B shares that have no votes but the rights to dividends in equal proportion to
the voting A shares and the right to the residual also in proportion to the voting A shares.
However, the dividends are only paid if the directors deem a dividend appropriate. There are no
present obligations to cash outflows. This is equity.
Example both
A company issues convertible bonds. The net inflow is $99m. There is an obligation to pay
$6m per annum for three years and $100m in principal at the end of the third year. The
discounted present value of the cash outflows is $91.5m. This is $91.5m of debt and $7.5m of
equity. There is an obligation to repay the $91.5m via the cash outflows described. There is no
obligation to repay the $7.5m. {These are the numbers from q Aron (b)(i)}
Politics
These complex financial intruments are rare these days. Preference shares, voteless equity and
convertible bonds are messy and unattractive to buyers and so any entity foolish enough to offer
these assets to the markets find that they cannot get buyers interested. So usually entities
dealing with these fi are looking at ancient contracts from a world when exotic fi were the
fashion.
137
IASB
The IASB have looked at this debt/equity issue in their current framework project and have
come up with some clever suggestions for properly defining equity. But currently it is looking
like the IASB will reaffirm the existing definition which is essentially a cash inflow for an fi
that is not a liability.
(a)(ii) Gearing
Cutting straight to the chase, the issue is gearing. There are other issues. But the key issue is
gearing. Misclassification of debt as equity or equity as debt effects the gearing.
Ratio
The classic definition of gearing is:
Gearing
debt/(debt+equity)
It is obvious that misclassification of debt as equity results in a reported gearing lower than
actual gearing.
Creative accounting
The debt/equity issue is messy and difficult and so it is possible for entities to make
classification errors that are genuine mistakes. But an error that is deliberate and directed at
reducing a high gearing is described as creative accounting and is not only in breach of IFRS
but is also in breach of ethics.
Dilution
On the other hand, misclassification of debt as equity might annoy the existing equity as they
might feel their ownership has been diluted and therefore take action to remove directors.
Covenants
Another issue is that misclassification of equity as debt might result in debt levels exceeding
covenant maximums in agreements with other debt investors.
(b) Cavor B shares option
The call option is a right of Cavor. Cavor has the right to repurchase the B shares. The B
shareholders have no right to make Cavor repurchase the shares. That right is called a put
option and gives rise to an obligation against the issuer but this does not apply here.
Cavor B shares dividends
Cavor has no obligation to pay dividends to either the A or the B shareholders. There is no
dividend obligation.
Cavor B shares conclusion
There is no present obligation to a future outflow. The Cavor B shares should be classed as
equity by Cavor.
Cavor issued options cash inflows
Cavour will have received some cash from the option holder at issue. The amount may not be
much but Cavour will have received something. This is the amount we must decide is debt or
equity. The amount received up front is called the premium and is a quite separate inflow to
the $10m exercise price that may or may not flow in depending on how the option holder feels
at the end of the option life.
138
Cavour issued option obligation

Cavour do have an obligation. They have the obligation to hand over a fixed number of equity
shares to the option holder if the option holder hands over $10m. But the equity shares are of
course equity shares and have no obligations to cash outflow.
Cavour issued option conclusion
So Cavor have the obligation to hand over paper with no obligations to cash outflows. So the
option paper itself has no obligation to cash outflows. So the current options are equity.
Lidan choice
The Lidan choice is no choice at all. Lidan can pay $1 in cash for each B share or half an A
share for each B share. The half comes from the ratio of one million A shares for two million B
shares. But a half A share is currently worth $5 and has never been below $2.50. So obviously
Lidan will pay the $1 cash.
Lidan option
The Lidan option is to choose between paying off the B shares using cash or using equity.
There is no option to simply let the B shares continue in existence. So effectively Lidan must
pay $1 cash for each B share in two years.
Lidan conclusion
The obligation is clear. The B shares must be classed as a liability by Lidan.
139
Question 87 Joey (Q1 December 2014)

Joey, a public limited company, operates in the media sector. Joey has investments in two
companies. The draft statements of financial position at 30 November 2014 are as follows:
Joey
Margy
Hulty
$m
$m
$m
3,295
2,000
1,200
Assets:
Non-current assets
Investments in subsidiaries and other
investments
Margy
1,675
Hulty
700
Current assets
985
861
150
6,655
2,861
1,350
850
1,020
600
3,340
980
350
250
80
40
Total equity
4,440
2,080
990
1,895
675
200
320
106
160
Total liabilities
2,215
781
360
6,655
2,861
1,350
Total assets
Equity and liabilities:
Share capital
Retained earnings
Current liabilities
The following information is relevant to the preparation of the group financial

statements:
(1) On 1 December 2011, Joey acquired 30% of the ordinary shares of Margy for a
cash consideration of $600 million when the fair value of Margy's identifiable net
assets was $1,840 million. Joey treated Margy as an associate and has equity
accounted for Margy up to 1 December 2013. Joey's share of Margy's undistributed
profit amounted to $90 million and its share of a revaluation gain amounted to $10
million. On 1 December 2013, Joey acquired a further 40% of the ordinary shares
of Margy for a cash consideration of $975 million and gained control of the
company. The cash consideration has been added to the equity accounted balance
for Margy at 1 December 2013 to give the carrying amount at 30 November 2014.
At 1 December 2013, the fair value of Margy's identifiable net assets was $2,250
million. At 1 December 2013, the fair value of the equity interest in Margy held by
Joey before the business combination was $705 million and the fair value of the
non-controlling interest of 30% was assessed as $620 million. The retained earnings
and other components of equity of Margy at 1 December 2013 were $900 million
and $70 million respectively. It is group policy to measure the non-controlling
interest at fair value.
140
(2) At the time of the business combination with Margy, Joey has included in the fair
value of Margy's identifiable net assets, an unrecognised contingent liability of $6
million in respect of a warranty claim in progress against Margy. In March 2014,
there was a revision of the estimate of the liability to $5 million. The amount has
met the criteria to be recognised as a provision in current liabilities in the financial
statements of Margy and the revision of the estimate is deemed to be a
measurement period adjustment.
(3) Additionally, buildings with a carrying amount of $200 million had been included
in the fair valuation of Margy at 1 December 2013. The buildings have a remaining
useful life of 20 years at 1 December 2013. However, Joey had commissioned an
independent valuation of the buildings of Margy which was not complete at 1
December 2013 and therefore not considered in the fair value of the identifiable net
assets at the acquisition date. The valuations were received on 1 April 2014 and
resulted in a decrease of $40 million in the fair value of property, plant and
equipment at the date of acquisition. This decrease does not affect the fair value of
the non-controlling interest at acquisition and has not been entered into the financial
statements of Margy. Buildings are depreciated on the straight-line basis and it is
group policy to leave revaluation gains on disposal in equity. The excess of the fair
value of the net assets over their carrying value, at 1 December 2013, is due to an
increase in the value of non-depreciable land and the contingent liability.
(4) On 1 December 2013, Joey acquired 80% of the equity interests of Hulty, a private
entity, in exchange for cash of $700 million. Because the former owners of Hulty
needed to dispose of the investment quickly, they did not have sufficient time to
market the investment to many potential buyers. The fair value of the identifiable
net assets was $960 million. Joey determined that the fair value of the 20% noncontrolling interest in Hulty at that date was $250 million. Joey reviewed the
procedures used to identify and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed
and to measure the fair value of both the non-controlling interest and the
consideration transferred. After that review, Hulty determined that the procedures
and resulting measures were appropriate. The retained earnings and other
components of equity of Hulty at 1 December 2013 were $300 million and $40
million respectively. The excess in fair value is due to an unrecognised franchise
right, which Joey had granted to Hulty on 1 December 2012 for five years. At the
time of the acquisition, the franchise right could be sold for its market price. It is
group policy to measure the non-controlling interest at fair value.
All goodwill arising on acquisitions has been impairment tested with no impairment
being required.
(5) Joey is looking to expand into publishing and entered into an arrangement with
Content Publishing (CP), a public limited company, on 1 December 2013. CP will
provide content for a range of books and online publications.
CP is entitled to a royalty calculated as 10% of sales and 30% of gross profit of the
publications. Joey has sole responsibility for all printing, binding, and platform
maintenance of the online website. The agreement states that key strategic sales and
marketing decisions must be agreed jointly. Joey selects the content to be covered
in the publications but CP has the right of veto over this content. However on 1
June 2014, Joey and CP decided to set up a legal entity, JCP, with equal shares and
voting rights. CP continues to contribute content into JCP but does not receive
royalties. Joey continues the printing, binding and platform maintenance. The sales
and cost of sales in the period were $5 million and $2 million respectively. The
whole of the sale proceeds and the costs of sales were recorded in Joey's financial
statements with no accounting entries being made for JCP or amounts due to CP.
141
Joey currently funds the operations. Assume that the sales and costs accrue evenly
throughout the year and that all of the transactions relating to JCP have been in
cash.
(6) At 30 November 2013, Joey carried a property in its statement of financial position
at its revalued amount of $14 million in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant
and Equipment. Depreciation is charged at $300,000 per year on the straight line
basis. In March 2014, the management decided to sell the property and it was
advertised for sale. By 31 March 2014, the sale was considered to be highly
probable and the criteria for IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and
Discontinued Operations were met at this date. At that date, the asset's fair value
was $154 million and its value in use was $158 million. Costs to sell the asset
were estimated at $300,000. On 30 November 2014, the property was sold for
$156 million. The transactions regarding the property are deemed to be material
and no entries have been made in the financial statements regarding this property
since 30 November 2013 as the cash receipts from the sale were not received until
December 2014.
Required:
(a) Prepare the group consolidated statement of financial position of Joey as at 30
November 2014.
(35 marks)
The Joey Group wishes to expand its operations. As part of this expansion, it has
granted options to the employees of Margy and Hulty over its own shares as at 7
December 2014. The awards vest immediately. Joey is not proposing to make a
charge to the subsidiaries for these options.
Joey does not know how to account for this transaction in its own, the subsidiaries,
and the group financial statements.
Required:
(b) Explain to Joey how the above transaction should be dealt with in its own, the
subsidiaries, and the group financial statements.
(8 marks)
Joey's directors feel that they need a significant injection of capital in order to
modernise plant and equipment as the company has been promised new orders if it
can produce goods to an international quality. The bank's current lending policies
require borrowers to demonstrate good projected cash flow, as well as a level of
profitability which would indicate that repayments would be made. However, the
current projected cash flow statement would not satisfy the bank's criteria for
lending. The directors have told the bank that the company is in an excellent
financial position, that the financial results and cash flow projections will meet the
criteria and that the chief accountant will forward a report to this effect shortly. The
chief accountant has only recently joined Joey and has openly stated that he cannot
afford to lose his job because of his financial commitments.
Required:
(c) Discuss the potential ethical conflicts which may arise in the above scenario
and the ethical principles which would guide how a professional accountant
should respond in this situation.
(7 marks)
(50 marks)
142
Question 88 Coatmin (Q2 December 2014)

(a) Coatmin is a government-controlled bank. Coatmin was taken over by the
government during the recent financial crisis. Coatmin does not directly trade with
other government-controlled banks but has underwritten the development of the
nationally owned railway and postal service. The directors of Coatmin are
concerned about the volume and cost of disclosing its related party interests because
they extend theoretically to all other government-controlled enterprises and banks.
They wish general advice on the nature and importance of the disclosure of related
party relationships and specific advice on the disclosure of the above relationships
in the financial statements.
(5 marks)
(b) At the start of the financial year to 30 November 2013, Coatmin gave a financial
guarantee contract on behalf of one of its subsidiaries, a charitable organisation,
committing it to repay the principal amount of $60 million if the subsidiary
defaulted on any payments due under a loan. The loan related to the financing of the
construction of new office premises and has a term of three years. It is being repaid
by equal annual instalments of principal with the first payment having been paid.
Coatmin has not secured any compensation in return for giving the guarantee, but
assessed that it had a fair value of $12 million. The guarantee is measured at fair
value through profit or loss. The guarantee was given on the basis that it was
probable that it would not be called upon. At 30 November 2014, Coatmin became
aware of the fact that the subsidiary was having financial difficulties with the result
that it has not paid the second instalment of principal. It is assessed that it is
probable that the guarantee will now be called. However, just before the signing of
the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2014, the subsidiary
secured a donation which enabled it to make the second repayment before the
guarantee was called upon. It is now anticipated that the subsidiary will be able to
meet the final payment. Discounting is immaterial and the fair value of the
guarantee is higher than the value determined under IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent
Liabilities and Contingent Assets. Coatmin wishes to know the principles behind
accounting for the above guarantee under IFRS and how the transaction would be
accounted for in the financial records.
(7 marks)
(c) Coatmin's creditworthiness has been worsening but it has entered into an interest
rate swap agreement which acts as a hedge against a $2 million 2% bond issue
which matures on 31 May 2016. The notional amount of the swap is $2 million with
settlement every 12 months. The start date of the swap was 1 December 2013 and it
matures on 31 May 2016. The swap is enacted for nil consideration. Coatmin
receives interest at 175% a year and pays on the basis of the 12-month LIBOR rate.
At inception, Coatmin designates the swap as a hedge in the variability in the fair
value of the bond issue.
Fixed interest bond

Interest rate swap
Fair value
1 December 2013
$000
2,000
Fair value
30 November 2014
$000
1,910
Nil
203
Coatmin wishes to know the circumstances in which it can use hedge accounting
and needs advice on the use of hedge accounting for the above transactions.
(7 marks)
143
(d) Coatmin provides loans to customers and funds the loans by selling bonds in the
market. The liability is designated as at fair value through profit or loss. The bonds
have a fair value decrease of $50 million in the year to 30 November 2014 of which
$5 million relates to the reduction in Coatmin's creditworthiness. The directors of
Coatmin would like advice on how to account for this movement.
(4 marks)
Required:
Discuss, with suitable calculations where necessary, the accounting treatment
of the above transactions in the financial statements of Coatmin.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the questions above.
Professional marks will be awarded in question 2 for clarity and quality of
presentation.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
Question 89 Kayte (Q3 December 2014)
(a) Kayte operates in the shipping industry and owns vessels for transportation. In June
2014, Kayte acquired Ceemone whose assets were entirely investments in small
companies. The small companies each owned and operated one or two shipping
vessels. There were no employees in Ceemone or the small companies. At the
acquisition date, there were only limited activities related to managing the small
companies as most activities were outsourced. All the personnel in Ceemone were
employed by a separate management company. The companies owning the vessels
had an agreement with the management company concerning assistance with
chartering, purchase and sale of vessels and any technical management. The
management company used a shipbroker to assist with some of these tasks. The
agreement with the management company can be terminated with a months notice.
Kayte accounted for the investment in Ceemone as an asset acquisition. The
consideration paid and related transaction costs were recognised as the acquisition
price of the vessels. Kayte argued that the vessels were only passive investments
and that Ceemone did not own a business consisting of processes, since all activities
regarding commercial and technical management were outsourced to the
management company. As a result, the acquisition was accounted for as if the
vessels were acquired on a stand-alone basis.
Additionally, Kayte had borrowed heavily to purchase some vessels and was
struggling to meet its debt obligations. Kayte had sold some of these vessels but in
some cases, the bank did not wish Kayte to sell the vessel. In these cases, the vessel
was transferred to a new entity, in which the bank retained a variable interest based
upon the level of the indebtedness. Kayte's directors felt that the entity was a
subsidiary of the bank and are uncertain as to whether they have complied with the
requirements of IFRS 3 Business Combinations and IFRS 10 Consolidated
Financial Statements as regards the above transactions.
(12 marks)
144
(b) Kayte's vessels constitute a material part of its total assets. The economic life of the
vessels is estimated to be 30 years, but the useful life of some of the vessels is only
10 years because Kayte's policy is to sell these vessels when they are 10 years old.
Kayte estimated the residual value of these vessels at sale to be half of acquisition
cost and this value was assumed to be constant during their useful life. Kayte
argued that the estimates of residual value used were conservative in view of an
immature market with a high degree of uncertainty and presented documentation
which indicated some vessels were being sold for a price considerably above
carrying value. Broker valuations of the residual value were considerably higher
than those used by Kayte. Kayte argued against broker valuations on the grounds
that it would result in greater volatility in reporting.
Kayte keeps some of the vessels for the whole 30 years and these vessels are
required to undergo an engine overhaul in dry dock every 10 years to restore their
service potential, hence the reason why some of the vessels are sold. The residual
value of the vessels kept for 30 years is based upon the steel value of the vessel at
the end of its economic life. At the time of purchase, the service potential which
will be required to be restored by the engine overhaul is measured based on the cost
as if it had been performed at the time of the purchase of the vessel. In the current
period, one of the vessels had to have its engine totally replaced after only eight
years. Normally, engines last for the 30-year economic life if overhauled every 10
years. Additionally, one type of vessel was having its funnels replaced after 15
years but the funnels had not been depreciated separately.
(11 marks)
Required:
Discuss the accounting treatment of the above transactions in the financial
statements of Kayte.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the elements above.
presentation.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
145
Question 90 Estoil (Q4 December 2014)

(a) An assessment of accounting practices for asset impairments is especially important in
the context of financial reporting quality in that it requires the exercise of considerable
management judgment and reporting discretion. The importance of this issue is
heightened during periods of ongoing economic uncertainty as a result of the need for
companies to reflect the loss of economic value in a timely fashion through the
mechanism of asset write-downs. There are many factors which can affect the quality of
impairment accounting and disclosures. These factors include changes in circumstance
in the reporting period, the market capitalisation of the entity, the allocation of goodwill
to cash generating units, valuation issues and the nature of the disclosures.
Required:
Discuss the importance and significance of the above factors when conducting an
impairment test under IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.
(13 marks)
(b)(i)
Estoil is an international company providing parts for the automotive industry. It

operates in many different jurisdictions with different currencies. During 2014,
Estoil experienced financial difficulties marked by a decline in revenue, a
reorganisation and restructuring of the business and it reported a loss for the year.
An impairment test of goodwill was performed but no impairment was
recognised. Estoil applied one discount rate for all cash flows for all cash
generating units (CGUs), irrespective of the currency in which the cash flows
would be generated. The discount rate used was the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC) and Estoil used the 10-year government bond rate for its
jurisdiction as the risk free rate in this calculation. Additionally, Estoil built its
model using a forecast denominated in the functional currency of the parent
company. Estoil felt that any other approach would require a level of detail which
was unrealistic and impracticable. Estoil argued that the different CGUs
represented different risk profiles in the short term, but over a longer business
cycle, there was no basis for claiming that their risk profiles were different.
(b)(ii) Fariole specialises in the communications sector with three main CGUs.
Goodwill was a significant component of total assets. Fariole performed an
impairment test of the CGUs. The cash flow projections were based on the most
recent financial budgets approved by management. The realised cash flows for
the CGUs were negative in 2014 and far below budgeted cash flows for that
period. The directors had significantly raised cash flow forecasts for 2015 with
little justification. The projected cash flows were calculated by adding back
depreciation charges to the budgeted result for the period with expected changes
in working capital and capital expenditure not taken into account.
Required:
Discuss the acceptability of the above accounting practices under IAS 36
Impairment of Assets.
(10 marks)
presentation.
(2 marks)
(25 marks)
146
Q87 Joey
(a) Note
The following is the answer. Note the answer is very brief and contains no explanation. This is
because there are no marks for explanation in this question. But detailed explanation is
provided after this answer. And so this answer should be read together with that explanation.
Net assets
Acq
SC
RE
OCE
FVA (liability) para2
FVA (PPE) para3
FVA (land) para3
FVA (intangible) para4
1020
900
70
(5)
(40)
266
Ye
1020
980
80
(5)
(38)
266
Growth
82
10
Acq
Ye
600
300
40
600
350
40
Growth
45
0
20
15
_____________________
___________________
{2250+1para2-40para3}
2211
2303
92
960
1005
45
_____________________
___________________
(6 marks: 1 mark each for each fva and 1 mark each for each growth)
(Note 6 marks for na is very unusual as there is usually only 2 marks)
(Note that these marks could be given elsewhere as they were in the examiners answer)
Goodwill
Fv of consideration
40%
975
80%
700
30%
705
Fv of nci
30%
620
20%
250
Fv of na
(2211)
(960)
_____
____
Goodwill
89
(10)
_____
____
(6 marks: 4 marks and 2 marks)
(Note that there is a mark in reserves for realising that the negative goodwill is a bargain and a
gain)
Group position statement
Goodwill
Property plant & equipment [6495-38fva+266fva-14para6]
Intangible [15fva]
Joint venture [0.75 para5]
Current assets [1996 +15.3 para6]
89
6709
15
1
2011
_____
8825
_____
Share capital
850
Retained earnings
3447
258
Non controlling interest
907
Non current liabilities
2770
Current liabilities [586 +5fva +0.7 para5 +1.5 para5]
593
_____
8825
_____
(5 further marks on top of those given below for transferring and consolidation)
147
Nci
acquisition
acquisition
sub growth (92)(30%)
sub growth (45)(20%)
620
250
27.6
9
___
906.6
___
(4 marks)
(Note that 4 marks is really unusual for nci but that what the examiner gave)
Reserves
RE
OCE
Parent
3340
250
Para1 associate disposal gain [705 {600+90+10}]
5
Para4 bargain
10
Sub growth M {RE}
(82)(70%)
57.4
Sub growth M {OCE}
(10)(70%)
7
Sub growth H {RE}
(45)(80%)
36
Sub growth H {OCE}
(0)(80%)
0
Para6 depreciation
(0.1)
Para6 revaluation gain
1.5
Para6 impairment
(0.3)
Para6 disposal profit
0.2
Para5 jo adjustment
(0.7)
Para5 jv adjustment
(0.75)
____
____
3446.75
258.5
____
____
(8 marks)
(Actually the examiner gave 10 marks here but we have 2 of those marks in our na working)
Working 6
Movement in disposed ppe:Opening
14
Four months depreciation (4/12)(300k given)
(0.1)
to p/l
__
Before revaluation
13.9
Revaluation gain
1.5
to oci
__
Fair value (given)
15.4
Impairment upon reclassification to hfs
(0.3)
to p/l
__
Fvlcts (15.4above -0.3 given)
15.1
Disposal profit
0.2
to p/l
__
Net receivable (15.6-0.3 given)
15.3
__
(4 marks)
148
Working 5
JO period journal
Dr
p/l
Cr
liability to CP
0.7
0.7
Liability to CP = (10%)(6/12)($5m) + (30%)(6/12)($5m-$2m)

(1 mark)
JV period journal
Dr
Joint venture
Dr
p/l
Cr
liability to JCP
0.75
0.75
1.5
(1 mark)
(Total 35 marks)
Explanatory notes
There are no marks for the following. The notes are here only to help you get your head around
the tricky bits.
Net assets
Early on in the question we are told that the fv of na of M is $2250m at acquisition. But then
we realise that this was just a guess on the day of acquisition and needs adjusting for the two
discoveries; one in para2 and the other in para3.
The para2 adjustment is twisted but not so bad when you see it. The original guess for the
unrecorded liability was $6m but it turns out that was wrong and the liability is and always was
just $5m. So the difference is $1m. But it is what you do with the $1m that is tricky. If the
liabilities at acquisition were actually smaller then the na were bigger. Hence 2250+1.
The para3 adjustment is similar. The original guess on ppe was out by an overstatement of
$40m. So that means that the true fv of na is $40m smaller. Hence 2250+1-40. The fva of
$38m at the year end is simply after deducting negative depreciation of $2m using a 20 year
life.
The para4 fva has a similar twist. The intangible fva is $20m calculated as a balance ( for
balancing figure). The life of the asset from the asset life start was 5 years. But one of those
years happened before Joey bought Hulty. So there are only four years left from the current
year start giving depreciation of $5m and a remainder of $15m.
The RE growth of $82m in M is the difference between the growth of $92m and the OCE
growth of $10m. The RE growth is most certainly not the growth in RE (even though it looks
like that in H because H is so simple).
Goodwill
Negative goodwill is called a bargain to clarify that it is good news for the buyer. Joey is
getting Hulty cheap, as paragraph 4 highlights. So Joey records a gain to p/l.
Working 6 PPE
Paragraph 6 describes ppe in use for four months and then reclassified as held for sale (hfs) and
then sold. The ppe must be revalued before it goes into hfs. This gives the revaluation gain.
The reference to revaluation accounting across the group is annoyingly in paragraph 3 and not
paragraph 6 where we really need it. Then once in hfs, then ppe hfs must be immediately
impairment tested. There is no viu for hfs. Hfs is held for sale not use. So we find there is an
immediate impairment equal to the costs to sale. This rather freaky result is the feature that
interests the examiner. Then the exit carrying value is compared to the net sale proceeds to give
a profit on disposal.
149
Working 5 Joint Arrangement

Paragraph 5 is outrageously complex. Given there are only 2 marks (!!!!) and therefore 3
minutes for this paragraph, it was probably best to ignore this paragraph altogether in the exam.
Joint control
Joint control is the power to direct activities divided between two or more investors with
unanimous vote. Joint control is visible in the scenario in the phrases decisions must be agreed
jointly and CP has the right of veto. So the new publishing business is a joint arrangement
(JA).
JO then JV
But there are two form of JA identified by incorporation. A joint venture (JV) is incorporated.
A joint operation (JO) is not. So the publishing business is a JO for six months and then a JV
for six months. The problem is that Joey has completely ignored this and treated all the sales
and all the costs and all the cash as if they were all Joeys.
JO accounting
This simply aims to reflect the JO arrangement. Often proportional consolidation applies. But
this JO is not even vaguely proportional. This JO is heavily weighted towards Joey with CP
having only the right to the rather fiddly royalty based on percentages of sales and gp.
JO period journal
Hence, all Joey needs to do is recognise the royalty that Joey has ignored:Dr
Cr
p/l
liability to CP
0.7
0.7
Liability to CP = (10%)(6/12)($5m) + (30%)(6/12)($5m-$2m)

JV accounting
JV accounting is equity accounting. This means that JVs are essentially associates and
associates are outsiders. The JV called JCP has a life of its own outside the Joey group but
Joey has taken all the cash as if that cash belonged to Joey. It does not. The cash belongs to
JCP. That gives the credit entry below. And this starts the double entry with a liability to JCP.
But as mentioned the JV requires equity accounting. This means a share of profit going through
the p/l and arriving at the b/s to land on top of the cost. But there are no set up costs. So
$0.75m should be in both p/l and b/s. The $0.75m is Joeys 50% of the $1.5m profit for the
second six months. So to repeat, $0.75m should be in both p/l and b/s. And if Joey had done
nothing then this would be easy. But Joey has taken the whole of the $1.5m profit to its p/l
instead of the 50% share that it has by rights. So a debit to the p/l is required to reduce the Joey
profit recognition.
JV period journal
The result is this journal:Dr
Dr
Cr
Joint venture {b/s} ($5m-$2m)(6/12)(50%)

p/l
liability to JCP
0.75
0.75
1.5
150
True JV period journal

Actually in real life this jv journal would be even more complicated as Joey has put $2.5m JCP
sales into Joey sales and $1m JCP costs into Joey costs. Neither of these should be in Joey fs
and both of which must be replaced by $0.75m for share of JV profit.
Dr
Dr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Joint venture {b/s}($5m-$2m)(6/12)(50%)

Sales {p/l}
liability to JCP
Joint venture {p/l}
Costs {p/l}
0.75
2.5
1.5
0.75
1.0
(b) Marking guide

As ever there is 1 mark for each relevant point clearly expressed.
Share based payment
Share based payment (sbp) costs are measured by calculating a sbp obligation at each year end:Sbp obligation = number of rights expected to vest x fair value x timing ratio
Number of rights expected to vest
This tricky estimate is based upon counting the number of employees still in the contract at each
year end but then further deducting a guess for how many more employees are expected to leave
before they get to the end of their sbp vesting period.
Fair value
The fair value depends upon the nature of the sbp:Options
Share appreciation rights
settled in equity
settled in cash
grant fv
current fv
These are options and so we use grant fv.

Timing ratio
This is a simple ratio of the period to date over the vesting period. So if the employees are
locked in for three years from 7 December 2014 just after our current year end then at next years
end the ratio will be 1/3. But these options vest immediately. So the above equation collapses
down as discussed below.
Vest immediately
Because the grant and vest day are the same day, the Joey group sbp obligation is as follows:Sbp obligation = number of rights vesting x fair value at grant/vest date
Group accounting
The group accounting will be fairly simple. The group fs will have an sbp option reserve in
other components of equity (OCE) with a fv balance on 7 December 2014 and the cost will go
into the p/l as an operating cost:Dr
Cr
operating costs
sbp option reserve [OCE]
{p/l}
{b/s}
fv
fv
151
Sub employees
But a problem arises because these are sub employees being motivated by potential parent
shares. You can understand why this might occur. The employees do not want sub shares as
they would be near impossible to sell. The employees would much rather have parent shares as
Joey is a plc and presumably quoted. And the parent does not want to give away sub shares as
this then starts to mess with the nci.
Parent fs
So the parent must record a sbp obligation in OCE as discussed but also record a receivable
from the sub. This receivable could be recognised on top of the investment in sub.
Sub fs
And the sub must record a payable to the parent with a corresponding operating cost. On
consolidation the receivable and payable will contra down to zero.
Related party transactions
As a side point, both sub and parent would have to record a related party transaction because
they are transacting with each other. Indeed if any of the employees are influential directors,
which seems likely, then even the group would need rpd.
Corporate governance
But there is a corporate governance issue here. The options are simply given to the employees
and vest immediately. This means employees can leave the day after they get their options on 7
December 2014. The idea is to motivate the employees to push for expansion. This might work
with some of the employees. But others will leave before the expansion starts but will benefit
from the expansion without being a part of the expansion. This is why sbp is not usually done
like this. Usually sbp does have a vesting period.
(c) Marking guide
1 mark per point.
Ethics
A good model to analyse ethics for a professional accountant is the ACCA principles in the
ACCA ethical guidelines:Professionalism
Integrity
Competence
Confidentiality
Objectivity
Directors
The directors are lying to the bank; to cut a long story short. It seems likely that the directors
know perfectly well that the cash flow forecast (cff) will not satisfy the bank without
manipulation.
Integrity
This is a breach of integrity. Integrity requires that we are honest in our dealings with others.
The directors statement to the bank is dishonest.
Competence
Either that or this is a breach of competence. If the directors do not know what their cff says
then they are incompetent.
152
Professional accountant
But the question asks us to discuss how a professional accountant should respond.
Presumably the relevant professional accountant is the new chief accountant and he is in a very
difficult position.
Objectivity
The chief accountant has stated that he cannot afford to lose his job. So in a conflict of
interest between ethical interests and financial interests the chief accountant would side with the
financial interests. This is already a breach of objectivity even before the chief accountant does
anything.
Practicalities
But being a little more practical and reasonable about this, of course the chief accountant needs
his job or else he would be sunning on the beach. Saying to an accountant that you cannot put
yourself in a position in which you cannot afford to lose your job is like saying to an accountant
that you cannot have children.
Openly stated
For me the daft mistake that the chief accountant has made is openly stating that he needs his
job. He should have kept his big mouth shut. Now he is playing into the hands of his directors.
Action
So now I must discuss what action the chief accountant should take when the directors come to
him and ask him to manipulate the cff. First he should do his best to persuade his directors that
honesty is the best course of action.
Alternative finance
Then the chief should help the directors look for alternative finance. Maybe the current bank is
not the best deal. Maybe issuing debt or equity is the way.
Email
In conclusion the chief accountant should try his best to retain his ethics throughout. But as a
word of advice on evidence, the chief accountant should make sure he confirms every word said
aloud in email as directors like this can be very slippery when the trouble hits the fan.
153
Q88 Coatmin
Marking guide
There is 1 mark per relevant point throughout.
(a) Related party disclosure
Transactions between parties related by control or influence must be disclosed. Related parties
include subs and parents and directors and pension schemes. But any entity connected to
Coatmin by an unbroken chain of control or influence would qualify.
Common control
Coatmin is not in a group with the other banks, by the way. A group has a parent at the top and
a government is not a parent. The rather lovely expression used to describe the situation is
common control. The same also applies to entities with a billionaire at the top like Richard
Branson sitting on top of the Virgin common control portfolio.
Related parties
But the other banks are related parties. The government controls Coatmin and the government
controls the other banks. But Coatmin should stop worrying as there are no transactions to
disclose with these other entities under common control.
Underwritten loans
But the underwritten loans are quite a different thing. Of course Coatmin should disclose this
relationship with the railway and the post. It is a related party transaction. But also it is a
possible contingent liability. And disclosure may even be required under law as it is in the UK.
China
Actually IAS24 was recently watered down to exclude rpt through the government. This
change was requested by China. In China many entities are related via the government. The
USA often cite this change as proof that the IASB is swayed by national governments. The
USA has a point. But they also have a damned cheek given that they have spent years and years
manipulating the IASB themselves. It seems the USA government do not like it when the IASB
listens to other governments.
Financial guarantee
Actually the underwriting obligation is in a class called financial guarantees and these are
carried fvpl as discussed below. But even though the examiner examined two financial
guarantees right next to each other in (a) and (b) the examiner appears to have missed this point
in his answer. This shows just how hard and specialist this question is. Maybe the examiner
was focussing purely on disclosure.
(b) Group fs
The scenario describes a loan guarantee between a parent and a sub. For the purposes of the
group fs it makes no difference whether the $60m loan is viewed as being the liability of the sub
or the parent. Either way the group owes $60m to the lender.
Coatmin
However, the question asks us to discuss this in the fs of Coatmin. This phrase could mean
the group. But it could also mean the parent as a single entity. From this second perspective the
sub is just an outsider. From this second perspective Coatmin has guaranteed the repayment of
a loan from an outsider to a lender.
Related party transaction
So the first thing to say is that the guarantee is an rpt and requires disclosure in the Coatmin fs.
154
Contingent liabilities
The second thing to note is that the guarantee is a contingent liability of $60m. It is a liability of
$60m that will only flow out if the sub cannot pay. Contingent liabilities are recorded roughly
as follows (IAS37):Probable
provide
Possible
disclose
Remote
ignore
Possible contingent liability
At last years end the chances of an outflow would probably be best described as possible. So
this is further evidence that the guarantee must be disclosed.
Financial guarantee
And if this were simply a product guarantee then that would be the end of the story. But this
is a financial guarantee and these are carried fvpl (IFRS9) and not as simple contingent
liabilities. Frankly unless you work in a bank in the financial guarantees department there is no
way you could know this specialist knowledge. Except one. The examiner tells you in the
question.
Financial liability
IFRS9 looks at financial guarantees like this. The guarantee is a financial liability as soon as it
is signed. The guarantee confers obligations onto Coatmin even if the guarantee is not expected
to be called. The point is that the guarantee may be called even if it is not thought likely. The
obligation is effectively in a class called derivatives and should be carried fvpl as described in
the scenario. In fact the more specific name for this class is credit derivatives.
Derivatives
Derivatives derive their value from an underlying something. In this case the underlying
something is the health of the sub. If the health of the sub goes down then the chances of breach
go up and the fv of the guarantee goes up too. The opposite is true if the health of the sub goes
up.
Movement
So the movement in the guarantee liability measured at fv would be approximately as follows:-
Opening at the start of last year

To p/l
Opening at start of this year
To p/l
Closing at end of this year
$m
1.2
(0.4)
__
0.8
(0.4)
__
0.4
__
given
balance
below
balance
below
Subsequent fair value

The $0.8m above at the current year start is a guess. The scenario tells us that the loan is being
paid in three equal instalments (of $20m each) and that the first has been paid (at last years end).
So it makes sense that the fv of the guarantee liability has dropped by a third given that the
principal owed by the sub has dropped by a third. The $0.4m at the current year end is another
guess using the same logic.
155
Difficulties
Now we must decide how to deal with the difficulties. This is very tricky because at the year
end the sub looks like it is in real trouble and it looks like the remaining $40m owed by the sub
will be paid by Coatmin. Then a few days later a donor comes to the rescue and the sub is back
on the tracks.
Decision
What we must decide is whether the donor rescue after the year end was hovering in the
background at the year end or alternatively that the donor was unaware of the subs troubles at
the year end and the sub was on its own at that time.
Events after the reporting period
The ifrs on EARP (IAS10) is not much help. All that says is that an adjusting event is an event
that reveals after the year end a condition that was already in existence at the year end. The
problem is that we have no idea if the donor was hovering over the sub like a guardian angel at
the year end.
Conclusion
My guess is that the donor is unlikely to have made the donation without being ready to step in
earlier. So the guarantee that looked likely to be called at the year end never was likely to be
called because the donor was in the background ready to pick up the pieces. So the closing
liability of $0.4m above would be recognised as such on the Coatmin b/s.
Adjusting EARP
The technical name of the above logic is adjusting EARP. In the draft fs the accountants
would have pushed the guarantee liability up to $40m at the year end based on what they knew
then. But later the accountants would have adjusted the guarantee liability back down to $0.4m
when they realised that the donor would step in.
(c) Issue
The word issue tells us that the debt is the financial liability of Coatmin. And financial
liabilities default into amortised cost. So the debt liability is carried at amortised cost.
Hedging
This is the process of betting against yourself. When an entity faces a risk that it cannot easily
avoid then the entity can cancel out this risk by setting up an equal and opposite risk. This is
called hedging and it uses derivatives.
Example
For example if an entity must buy coffee but fears that the price of coffee will rise before the
coffee ripens then the entity can bet on the price of coffee rising. If the price does go up as
feared then the entity will lose on the coffee purchase but win on the derivative bet and so end
up net neutral.
Risk
And that is a basic rule of hedging. There must be a risk or there cannot be a hedge against that
risk. The risk might be the fear of coffee prices rising or the fear that a foreign debt liability
will grow in size when translated into the home currency or the fear that variable interest will
rise with a rise in base rate. There has to be a risk.
156
Fixed rate bond

But there is no risk in the fixed rate bond. Coatmin has contracted to pay $40k next year (2% of
$2m) and another $40k plus the $2m principal the following year. There is no chance that
Coatmin might pay more in interest because it is fixed and there is no chance that Coatmin will
pay more in principal because it is fixed. This is not a variable rate loan. This is not a foreign
loan. There is no risk.
Conclusion
So that is the end of that. Coatmin cannot do hedge accounting because there is no hedging
because there is no risk.
Effect
But the swap still exists and must be accounted for. The swap is simply recognised as a regular
speculative derivative using fvpl:$k
Opening liability
0
To p/l
203
___
Closing liability
203
___
Prospective and retrospective
The technical name for looking at a hedge to see if it makes sense is prospective and
retrospective testing. All this means is that you have to check that there is a hedging
relationship between the risk item and the derivative at the start and then test again at each year
end looking backwards to see that the hedging worked out roughly as expected.
IAS39
By the way, under old IAS39 there was a test of hedge effectiveness that required the ratio of
loss/gain to be within a range of 80% to 125%. This test no longer applies under IFRS9.
Comment
Hedging is an odd subject. Not only is it conceptually challenging, it is also common that two
people looking at the same problem will view the issues differently. Even though one person
may see no risk and feel no need for hedging; another person might see a risk and feel the need
to hedge. In real life real companies do hedge fixed cash outflow obligations. And then they
apply hedge accounting. And then the auditors accept that. Even in those real companies some
of the treasury guys will think their own hedging is odd and disagree with the treasury guy
doing the hedges. So it is possible to do hedging in the strangest situations and in the oddest
ways. So all that you can do in an exam is look at the problem in your own way and say what
you think and avoid being dogmatic.
Further comment
Hedging is also very complex. To illustrate the point, it can be noted that it appears the
examiner has an internal conflict within his question. The question says that Coatmins credit
worthiness has been worsening. The question also says that the movement in the fv of the bond
is less than the movement in the swap. But this is the wrong way around. If Coatmins credit
worthiness is worsening then the bond fv movement should be greater than the swap fv
movement. That would certainly be more normal anyhow. If this is baffling then use it as
further proof that hedging is very complex. You may not even know what a swap is and may
never have heard of LIBOR. So the best solution is to learn what little you can and apply it as
best as you can if hedging comes up in your exam.
157
(d) Financial liabilities

Fl are generally carried at amortised cost. It is very rare for fl to be carried at fv. But we are
told that this is the case in this case and so there can be no debate.
FVO
The classic circumstance under which a bond liability can end up fv is in an fvo (fair value
option). When there is a fa at fv and a related fl at amortised cost then this mismatch can be
annoying. So IFRS9 allows both to be carried at fv. Some banks use the fvo occasionally.
Maybe this bond liability is in an fvo.
Own credit problem
When an fl is at fv and the issuer gets into trouble a freaky thing happens. Imagine you issue
debt to the market and then find yourself in financial difficulties then obviously the market will
down grade your borrowing and the fa on the market will fall in value. But their fa is your fl.
So the fv of your fl also falls. But this is good news. It is good to have a smaller fl. It
generates a gain. So you end up with a gain for getting into trouble. This counterintuitive freak
is called the own credit problem.
OCI
The IASB went around and around thinking of all sorts of exotic solutions to the own credit
problem. In the end the IASB just kept it simple. Gains on fl from own credit deterioration go
to oci and the rest goes to p/l as usual. So for Coatmin $5m goes to oci and $45m goes to p/l.
158
Q89 Kayte
Marking guide
1 mark per point. But only 12 good points are requires for 12 marks.
(a) Control
Control is the power to direct activities and gives rise to a sub that is consolidated with the
parent.
Acquisition
It is not crystal clear, but it appears that Kayte buys all the equity of Ceemone that in turn owns
all the equity of the little companies that own the ships. So Kayte now control the ships and
Kayte can do what Kayte likes with the ships. This is control and the transaction is an
acquisition.
Management company
The existence of the management company seems at first to challenge Kayte control. But Kayte
can sack the management company anytime with only a months notice. So Kayte has the
power to direct activities even though it delegates the actual activities to the management
company.
Asset acquisition
Now we look at whether this is a sub acquisition or an asset acquisition. The phrase asset
acquisition means Kayte is accounting for the purchase of the entire equity of Ceemone with
all its little subs as the purchase of a whole load of ships. Nothing more. Just ships. Kayte is
ignoring that Ceemone is a business and recording the following simple double entry:Dr
Cr
ships (ppe)
bank
x
x
Business combinations
What we have to do is work out if that is right. We need to assess whether there has been a
business combination. The ifrs dealing with acquisitions and subsidiaries and goodwill is called
business combinations (IFRS3) and the title is intended to be meaningful. The idea is that a
sub acquisition occurs when two businesses come together.
Business
A business is defined as an entity that does something. It must have inputs and processes and
outputs.
Ceemone
Ceemone has the following:Inputs
there are ships and shipbrokers and management and customers goods.
Processes
the ships ride across oceans.
Output
the product is the movement of customers goods.
Conclusion
Ceemone is a business and the purchase of Ceemone must be recorded as the acquisition of a
sub resulting in goodwill. That is the main difference between an acquisition and an asset
purchase. The first has goodwill and the second does not.
159
Goodwill
And that leads to another way of analysing the scenario. Acquisitions have goodwill measured
as follows:Fv of consideration
x
Fv of nci
x
Fv of na
(x)
__
Goodwill
xx
__
People
The ifrs on goodwill (IFRS3) does not say what goodwill actually is. But the ifrs does make it
clear that goodwill is the things that are in the sub that are not na. Subs have people and people
are not in na. So goodwill is often expressed as being the fv of the people relationships with the
sub at acquisition. This means suppliers and bankers and employees but most particularly
goodwill means the customers and their loyalty.
Application
It is because Ceemone has moved it employees into a management company that Kayte has
assumed Ceemone is not a business. Kayte thinks Ceemone has no people relationships. But
this is not true. Ceemone still has a supplier of employees in the form of the separate
management company. And Ceemone has other suppliers supplying ship broking and fuel and
insurance, no doubt. But also even though the scenario does not say it, Ceemone is sure to have
customers too, and their loyalty could be quite valuable. Ceemone has people relationships.
Conclusion
The conclusion is the same. Ceemone has people relationships summed up the phrase
goodwill and Kayte has bought these relationships and needs to recognise this goodwill
through a sub acquisition also known as a business combination.
Employees
I think that Kayte has got mixed up because Kayte thinks its own employees are inside Kayte.
Kayte sees a difference because Ceemone employees are outside Ceemone. Kayte thinks
Ceemone has no people relationships. But Kayte has it wrong. All people are outsiders. Even
employees working directly for a company are outsiders. They are suppliers of labour just like
the suppliers of stock and the suppliers of finance. All these guys are outsiders. That is why
their costs appear on the group p/l and their liabilities appear on the group b/s. It is the peoples
loyalty that is inside the entity. It is the peoples relationship that is inside Ceemone. And that
gives rise to goodwill.
Differences
There may not be much difference in the numbers generated by sub acquisition accounting
when compared to asset purchase accounting. Either way the fv of the ships themselves will
dominate the story. Goodwill is a difference, of course. And transaction costs are written off
on sub acquisition but capitalised on asset purchase. But these two may be small compared to
the huge fv of a portfolio of ships.
Control again
To help us with the additional element we will need to look again at control. Control is the
power to direct activities and gives rise to a sub. It is also the concept we must use to identify a
disposal.
160
New entity
The scenario tells us that Kayte has transferred some vessels to a new entity in which the bank
retained a variable interest based upon the level of indebtedness. It is hard to know what this
phrase means. But it appears to be talking about bank ownership rather than bank power to
direct activities.
Analysis
Given that the scenario says nothing about the bank's ability to direct activities, I will assume
that the bank does not have this power. This makes sense I think because I doubt a bank would
know how to direct the activities of a shipping company.
Conclusion
So it sounds like Kayte has retained control over the ships in the new entity and has control over
the entity itself. So there is no disposal and the new entity and the ships should be consolidated
in Kayte group fs.
NCI
But it does sound like the transaction has given some ownership to the bank. I get this idea
from the phrase variable interest based upon the level of indebtedness. This does sound like
the introduction of nci where previously there was none. In fact it sounds like nci changes from
day to day based upon the level of indebtedness on that day. This would be horrible to try to
recognise.
Bank loan
Of course it is quite possible that I am reading too much into the phrase variable interest based
upon the level of indebtedness. This may not mean nci. This could simply imply a secured
bank loan.
(b) Depreciation
Depreciation is defined as the consumption of ppe value over useful life. More particularly
depreciation each year is the remaining depreciable value divided by the remaining useful life.
Depreciable value is defined as carrying value less residual value (IAS16).
Residual value
Residual value is the value of the ppe at the end of its useful life. For many assets this is
literally zero as the asset is thrown away at the end of its life. For many other assets residual
value is immaterial as the asset is scrapped for very little. But for some assets like ships the
residual value is high. Scrap ships are valuable because of the metal they contain.
Ship residual value
Residual value is particularly easy to picture for a ship. It is the value of the ship at the point it
is towed away to the scrap yard to be broken down having done its last trip at sea.
Broker valuations
Also it makes sense to use the broker valuations of scrap value as it will be brokers that broker
the deal to scrap the ship at its life end. The valuations will be volatile unfortunately. That is
because metal is a commodity in which the price goes up and down. This means the
depreciation will be slightly different each year. But this is no big deal. Lots of things are
different each year.
161

FVM and the hierarchy could be useful to the debate about the residual value measurement:Level 1
Level 2
approximately equivalent transaction price
Level 3
unobservable inputs into financial models
Application
It sounds like the brokers are using level 2 inputs for their estimate of residual value (fvm based
on similar ship sales). Whereas it sounds like the directors are using level 3 (making up their
fvm based on conservative models but it is hard to tell where directors are getting their figures
from). This is more evidence that the brokers estimates of residual value are likely to be more
appropriate.
Useful life
But Kayte has the right idea about life. The life used in depreciation is the life of the asset in
Kayte possession. This idea is called useful life in order to distinguish it from economic
life which is the whole asset life to scrap. And the residual value is the value that Kayte
expects to get when Kayte sells.
10 year vessels
It sounds like Kayte has the management strategy of selling certain specific classes of ship after
10 years. If this is the case then these 10 year vessels should be separated from the general fleet
and depreciated down to a 10 year old ship residual value over 10 years.
Alternative interpretation
But the scenario could be telling me that all ships are purchased for use for 30 years but that
sometimes some of these ships come in for their 10 year maintenance looking so awful that
Kayte decides to sell rather than bother with the maintenance. If this is the case then 30 years
would be used across the whole fleet.
Effect
So Kayte must recalculate the depreciation using the appropriate useful asset life and the
brokers estimate as residual value.
Disaggregation
Moving to the second paragraph now, when one asset has got components with different lives,
strictly the asset should be separated into those components and depreciated using those
component lives. In many assets this does not apply or is pointless because of materiality. But
ships cost millions. So disaggregation is required.
Funnels
Perhaps the easiest to start with is the funnels. The vessels with funnel lives of 15 years must be
disaggregated. The funnel should be depreciated over 15 years and the body over 30 years.
Engines
But it does sound like the engines generally do last the full 30 years. The fact that only one
engine failed altogether this year probably supports this; especially if there are hundreds of
ships in the fleet.
Maintenance
So it seems reasonable to depreciate the vessels over 30 years including the engines and charge
the 10 year service to the p/l as maintenance.
162
Alternative
However, if the 10 year maintenance cost is so big that it is almost equivalent to buying a new
engine then an alternative is suggested by the ifrs (IAS16). The engine is depreciated over ten
years and then the 10 year service cost is depreciated over years 11 to 20 and the 20 year service
is depreciated over years 21 to 30.
Q90 Estoil
(a) Marking guide
The usual 1 mark per relevant point applies.
Impairment
An impairment occurs when the carrying value of an asset is above the recoverable value
defined as the higher of viu and fvlcts (value in use and fair value less costs to sell).
Goodwill impairment testing
An impairment test is required annually on goodwill. Annual goodwill testing is required
because goodwill is carried without depreciation. Most groups test all their goodwill at the year
end. But because goodwill testing is onerous some groups stagger their testing over the year
doing a few each month end.
Other asset impairment testing
Other asset impairment tests are required when there is an indication of impairment. This can
be anything that could indicate the asset is in trouble. But obvious indicators include the
following:Damage
Frequent maintenance
Idle time
Fall in market value
Fall in related product demand
Cash generating unit
Ideally all assets should be tested individually. So a rental car damaged by a customer should
be assessed in isolation. But some assets have no individual viu. A machine in the middle of a
factory line has no individual viu. Indeed the machine is useless without the machine before
and after in the factory line. These machines are tested collectively in a collective called the
cash generating unit (cgu).
Judgement
I will now look at the words in the introduction. The involvement of judgement in
impairment testing is almost endless. Management must decide on whether assets can be tested
individually or within a cgu. Then management must judge the operating cash flow forecast
figures and discount rate to produce viu. Then management must judge fair value and
separately judge costs to sell to give fvlcts.
Discretion
Then directors must use their discretion for disclosure. The directors must decide whether the
impairments are considered exceptional and how the impairment policy should be disclosed.
ESMA
Indeed the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted research in this
area and found that the worst component of EU impairment testing is the disclosure. Many
groups have disclosure that is so bad that it is impossible to tell whether the impairment testing
is in accordance with the IAS.
163
Economic uncertainty
I guess the term economic uncertainty means recession. We are in a recession now that has
been dragging on since 2009 and clearly that effects impairment testing. In a recession
impairment testing needs to be particularly rigorous because many assets will be working at
lower than optimal production volume because of the decrease in demand. This means most
assets should be tested and means honesty about viu is required.
Timely
The reference to the word timely in the introduction is a reference to the timing of impairment
testing. Impairment tests are required at any time there is an indication of impairment.
Management may be tempted to conduct impairment tests only at the year end. But this could
be insufficient if there are indications of impairment in the middle of the year.
Example
If a sub is supplying a single customer and that single customer gets into trouble in the middle
of the year then it is obvious that the receivable must be tested for impairment immediately.
There is no excuse for waiting until the year end. But what is less obvious is that the whole cgu
should be tested at the same time. It is likely that the goodwill and maybe the machines are
impaired too.
Changes in circumstance (1) law
The phrase change in circumstance is such a broad phrase that it could be taken to mean
almost anything. One change in circumstance that would certainly cause trouble would be
legislation in a regulated industry. For example a sub manufacturing medicine would certainly
require cgu impairment testing if the government legislated against that medicine.
Change in circumstance (2) commodity prices
Another change in circumstance that would cause trouble would be a change in commodity
prices. For example a sub that drilled for oil would certainly need a cgu impairment test if the
price in oil halved overnight. This would be especially true if the oilfield was only marginally
economic in the first place.
Market capitalisation (1) meaning
This term means entity share price multiplied by the number of shares. It is the market value of
the group based on the trading at any point in time. It does not represent what most
shareholders think the group is worth. Obviously the shareholders who are not trading think the
group is worth more and that is why they are holding their shares. But market capitalisation
does give a flavour of value.
Market capitalisation (2) impairment testing
This is relevant to impairment testing in this way. If the carrying value of the whole group is
greater than the market capitalisation of the whole group then it is possible the whole group is
impaired and this would trigger wide ranging impairment testing across the whole group, cgu by
cgu.
Conclusion
The above discussion shows that impairment testing requires judgement in application and
discretion in disclosure. The above discussion also indicates why commentators like ESMA
suspect that the actual impairment testing on the ground by EU groups is insufficient in todays
struggling world economy.
(b) Marking guide
1 mark per point.
164
(i) Goodwill
Goodwill is the classic example of an asset that cannot be impairment tested in isolation.
Goodwill is the classic example of an asset that must be tested as part of a cgu impairment test.
The cgu tested would be the sub related to each goodwill.
Recoverable value
Recoverable value is the higher of fvlcts and viu. Discounting applies only to viu. So the
reference to discounting in the scenario is a reference to discounting the sub cash flow forecast
figures down to viu. But of course each sub is different and so a sub by sub discount rate should
be used.
WACC
And that is the problem. Instead of doing a sub by sub viu using a discount rate appropriate to
each sub, Estoil have used group WACC uniformly throughout. This ignores that each sub will
face differing risks dependent upon the economy in each country.
Currency
Also the currency of the impairment test is incorrect. The goodwill down in each sub is just
another asset down in each sub and should be tested in the sub first. The testing of foreign
goodwill is no different than the testing of foreign machines in that respect.
Impracticable
Estoil argues that an impairment test down in each sub using a sub appropriate discount rate in a
sub appropriate currency is impracticable. Presumably Estoil means that this is a lot of hard
work. Of course this is no excuse for doing a half-hearted impairment test. Many big groups
with lots of foreign subs solve this problem by delegating the impairment testing down to the
subs themselves and making them do the hard work.
(ii) VIU
This scenario again relates to inappropriate calculation of viu. This time the viu calculations are
hopelessly inadequate and far worse than those in Estoil above.
Budgets
Viu is based upon budgets. In order to calculate viu an entity should produce cash flow
forecasts (cff) for each cgu and then discount down to present value using an appropriate risk
adjusted discount rate that recognises the risks inherent in those cash flows.
Guidance
The ifrs does not stipulate in detail exactly how to produce cff. But the ifrs does require that the
budgets should be reasonable and supported by a history of actual cash flows. The Fariole cff
fulfil neither requirement. Indeed the cff sound like hopeless fantasy.
Adding back depreciation
The scenario tells us that the budget cff are just budget profit with depreciation added back.
This is no way to do a cff. A cff should be projected cash inflows less projected cash outflows
and there should be sufficient detail to see where the cash is coming from and where the cash is
going.
Realised cash flows
The scenario also tells us that the actual recent cash flows were way below the budget. This is
more evidence that the calculation of viu is hopeless fantasy. The impairment tests need
reperforming.
165

ACCA P2 Revsion Pack June 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACCA P2 Revsion Pack June 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACCA Paper P2

The Accountancy College Ltd

Must should could

Four Day Revision Sequence

Two Day Revision Sequence

Four evening online sequence

the revision questions

the class questions

the supplementary questions.

RECENT EXAM CONTENT

Please feel free to make of that what you will!

SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTITIES

Partial method recognition is required (see Basic Groups Chapter).

Amortisation is required (over 10 years) to avoid the annual impairment test.

Only the cost model is allowed.

Investment Property Model

Only the fair value model is allowed.

The capitalisation of finance cost on PPE is not allowed.

Development is written off like research.

ACOUNTING & BUSINESS

Here is a selection of potentially relevant

Information will only be included in the report where it is material to the

A company should consider how to describe the disclosures without causing a

Investments in associates or joint ventures are classified as non-current assets

REALIGNING THE FRAMEWORK

Under the discussion paper, constructive obligations would qualify as liabilities.

Financial performance is not defined in the Conceptual Framework, but could be

IFRS FOR SMES

The introduction of a new accounting standard or a change in an accounting

Additionally, IAS 1, Presentation of financial statements, requires a third statement

TRANSPARENT AND CONSISTENT

TOPICS RELATED TO FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Potential exam question: Godzilla

Discuss how changes in IFRS can effect entities.

IVORY TOWER IFRS COLUMN

Winter 2012 Financial instruments and recycling

Cash flow characteristics test

Spring 2013 Property and performance

Summer 2013 Contingent liability inconsistency

Autumn 2013 Revenue

Winter 2013 Integrated Reporting

Spring 2014 Policies

Summer 2014 Sploci

hedging cash flow hedge gains

exchange on subs forex gains on the retranslation of foreign subs

actuarial remeasurement gains in pensions

ppe revaluations gains on occupied properties

strategic equity gains on financial assets classified FVOCI

Profit or loss provides the primary source of information about the

To support profit or loss, OCI should only be used if it makes profit or

Autumn 2014 Equity accounting

Spring 2015 Recycling

hedging cash flow hedge gains

exchange on subs forex gains on the retranslation of foreign subs

actuarial remeasurement gains in pensions

ppe revaluations gains on occupied properties

strategic equity gains on financial assets classified FVOCI

ACCA PAPER P2 (INT & UK)

Question 75 Trailer (Q1 June 2013)

Equity and liabilities:

Total equity and liabilities

Answer 75: Trailer

Of course, this is a vertical group and so the ownership in Caller (sub-sub) is

Indirect (60% of 70%)