Ias 8 Review
Ias 8 Review
Ias 8 Review
Question 1
Which of the following is a change in accounting policy as opposed to a change in estimation
technique?
i) An entity has previously charged interest incurred in connection with the construction of
tangible non-current assets to the statement of profit or loss. Following the revision of
IAS 23, and in accordance with the revised requirements of that standard, it now
capitalises this interest.
ii) An entity has previously depreciated vehicles using the reducing balance method at 40%
pa. It now uses the straight-line method over a period of five years.
iii) An entity has previously shown certain overheads within cost of sales. It now shows
those overheads within administrative expenses.
iv) An entity has previously measured inventory at weighted average cost. It now measures
inventory using the first in first out (FIFO) method.
Question 2
a) IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors lays down criteria
for the selection of accounting policies and prescribes circumstances in which an entity may
change an accounting policy. The standard also deals with accounting treatment of changes
in accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and correction of prior period errors.
Requirement:
i) Define an accounting policy according to IAS 8. Explain briefly the difference
between an accounting policy and an accounting estimate.
ii) Outline the accounting treatment required to record (1) a change in accounting policy,
(2) a change in accounting estimate and (3) the correction of an error.
b) The following are summaries of the draft financial statements of Sigma plc for financial year
ended 31 July 2015 together with the comparative figures for 2014. During August 2015,
prior to the signing off of the financial statements, it was discovered that a fraud had been
taking place in the company for the previous three years.
The chief financial officer had been misappropriating monies paid to the company by its
customers, the amounts instead appearing as receivables. The effect of the fraud was that
amounts shown in the financial statements as receivables need to be written off as they were
in fact paid. There is no prospect of recovering the money as the employee lost it gambling
and is now bankrupt. The amounts were as follows for each period ending on the following
dates:
1
31 July 2013: TZS 14,000
31 July 2014: TZS 16,000
31 July 2015: TZS 20,000.
Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income for year ended 31 July:
2015 2014
TZS ’000 TZS ’000
Revenue 300 275
Cost of Sales (225) (212)
Gross Profit 75 63
Expenses (30) (26)
Profit for year 45 37
Statements of Changes in Equity (Retained Earnings only) for year ended 31 July:
2015 2014
TZS ’000 TZS ’000
Balance 1 August 258 236
Profit for the year 45 37
Dividends declared (16) (15)
Balance 31 July 287 258