Doupnik ch04
Doupnik ch04
Doupnik ch04
bch_tt
bopob_tt bopob_tx
bopob_lb
INTRODUCTION
As noted in Chapter 3, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) have been adopted as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for listed companies in a number of countries around the world and are accepted for crosslisting purposes by most major stock exchanges.1 Increasingly, accountants are being called on to prepare and audit, and users are finding it necessary to read and analyze, IFRS-based financial statements. This chapter describes and demonstrates the requirements of selected IASB standards, particularly those relating to the recognition and measurement of assets, through numerical examples. IFRSs that deal exclusively with disclosure issues also are briefly summarized. The appendix to this chapter includes IFRSs related to the measurement and recognition of liabilities, revenues, financial instruments, and other issues. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) issued a total of 41 International Accounting Standards (IASs) during the period 19732001. Ten of these standards have been superseded or withdrawn. Most of the 31 remaining standards have been revised one or more times.2 Since 2001, the IASB has issued
1 The term International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) describes the body of authoritative pronouncements issued or adopted by the IASB. IFRSs consist of International Accounting Standards issued by the IASC (and adopted by the IASB), International Financial Reporting Standards issued by the IASB, and interpretations developed by IFRIC or the former SIC. 2 In December 2003, 13 IASs were revised as part of the IASBs Improvements to International Accounting Standards (London: IASB, 2003); and IAS 36, Impairment of Assets, and IAS 38, Intangible Assets, were revised in March 2004 in conjunction with the issuance of IFRS 3, Business Combinations.
117
six International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). Exhibit 3.2 in Chapter 3 provides a list of IASs and IFRSs issued by the IASB as of March 2005. In September 2002, the IASB and the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agreed to work together to reduce differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP. The goal of this so-called Norwalk Agreement is to make the two sets of existing standards compatible as soon as possible and to coordinate future projects to ensure that, once achieved, compatibility is maintained. In this chapter, in describing the guidance provided by IFRSs, we make comparisons with U.S. GAAP to indicate the differences and similarities between the two sets of standards.3 In this way we can begin to appreciate the impact a choice between the two sets of standards has on financial statements.
Historical cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Replacement cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated selling price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated costs to complete and sell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net realizable value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal profit margin15% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net realizable value less normal profit margin . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IFRSs Net realizable value is $830, which is lower than historical cost. Inventory must be written down by $170 ($1,000 $830). The journal entry at December 31, Year 1, is:
Inventory loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record the write-down on inventory due to decline in net realizable value. $170 $170
U.S. GAAP Market is replacement cost of $800 (falls between $705.50 and $830), which is lower than historical cost. Inventory must be written down by $200 ($1,000 $800). The journal entry at December 31, Year 1, is:
Inventory loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record the write-down on inventory due to decline in market value. $200 $200
Assume that at the end of the first quarter in Year 2, replacement cost has increased to $900, the estimated selling price has increased to $980, and the estimated cost to complete and sell remains at $50. The item now has a net realizable value of $930. IFRSs The net realizable value is $930, which is $100 greater than carrying value (and $70 less than historical cost. $100 of the write-down that was made at December 31, Year 1, is reversed through the following journal entry:
Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recovery of inventory loss (increase in income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record a recovery of inventory loss taken in the previous period. $100 $100
U.S. GAAP The new cost for the item is $800, which is less than the current replacement cost of $900. No adjustments are necessary. In effect, under IFRSs, the historical cost of $1,000 is used in applying the lower of cost or net realizable value rule over the entire period the inventory is held. In contrast, under U.S. GAAP, the inventory write-down at the end of Year 1 establishes a new cost used in subsequent periods in applying the lower of cost or market rule. Over the period of time that inventory is held by a firm, the two sets of standards result in the same amount of expenses (cost of goods sold plus any inventory loss). However, the amount of expense recognized in any given accounting period can differ between the two rules as can the amount at which inventory is measured on the balance sheet.
Impairment of assets, including property, plant, and equipment, is covered by IAS 36, Impairment of Assets. Accounting for impairments is discussed later in this chapter.
Recognition
Relying on the definition of an asset provided in the IASBs Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Standards, both initial costs and subsequent costs related to property, plant, and equipment should be recognized as an asset when (1) it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the enterprise and (2) the cost can be measured reliably. Replacement of part of an asset should be capitalized if (1) and (2) are met, and the carrying amount of the replaced part should be derecognized (removed from the accounts).
as an expense. The revaluation surplus may be transferred to retained earnings on disposal of the asset. Revalued assets may be presented either (1) at a gross amount less a separately reported accumulated depreciation (both revalued) or (2) at a net amount. Allowing firms the option to revalue fixed assets is one of the most substantial differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP. Guidelines for applying this option are presented in more detail in the following paragraphs. Determination of Fair Value The basis of revaluation is the fair value of the asset at the date of revaluation. The definition in IAS 16 indicates that fair value is the amount at which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms-length transaction. The fair value of land and buildings is usually determined through appraisals conducted by professionally qualified valuers. The fair value of plant and equipment is also usually determined through appraisal. In the case of a specialized asset that is not normally sold, fair value may need to be estimated using, for example, a depreciated replacement cost approach. Frequency of Revaluation IAS 16 requires that revalued amounts should not differ materially from fair values at the balance sheet date. The effect of this rule is that, once an enterprise has opted for the fair value model, it has an obligation to keep the valuations up to date. Although the IASB avoids mandating annual revaluations, these will be necessary in some circumstances in order to comply with the standard. In other cases, annual changes in fair value will be insignificant and revaluation may be necessary only every several years. Selection of Assets to Be Revalued IAS 16 requires that all assets of the same class be revalued at the same time. Selectivity within a class is not permitted, but selection of a class is. Following are examples of classes of assets described in the standard: Land Land and buildings Machinery Ships Aircraft Motor vehicles Furniture and fixtures Office equipment
Detailed disclosures are required for each class of property, plant, and equipment (whether revalued or not). Thus, if a company divides its assets into many classes to minimize the effect of the rule about revaluing a whole class of assets, it will incur the burden of being required to make additional disclosures for each of those classes. Accumulated Depreciation Two alternative treatments are described in IAS 16 for the treatment of accumulated depreciation when an item of property, plant, and equipment is revalued: 1. Restate the accumulated depreciation proportionately with the change in the gross carrying amount of the asset, so that the carrying amount of the asset after revaluation equals its revalued amount. The Standard comments that this method is often used where an asset is revalued by means of an index and is the appropriate method for those companies using current cost accounting.
2. Eliminate the accumulated depreciation against the gross carrying amount of the asset and restate the net amount to the revalued amount of the asset.
Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accumulated depreciationbuildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To revalue buildings and related accumulated depreciation
Original Cost Gross carrying amount Accumulated depreciation Net carrying amount $1,000,000 600,000 $ 400,000 + + +
% 100% 60 40%
Under treatment 2, accumulated depreciation of $600,000 is first eliminated against the buildings account and then the buildings account is increased by $350,000 to result in a net carrying amount of $750,000. The necessary journal entries are as follows:
Accumulated depreciationbuildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To eliminate accumulated depreciation on buildings to be revalued. Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To revalue buildings.
As a result of making these two entries, the buildings account has a net carrying amount of $750,000 ($1,000,000 600,000 + 350,000). Under both treatments, both assets and equity are increased by a net amount of $350,000. Treatment of Revaluation Surpluses and Deficits On the first revaluation after initial recording, the treatment of increases and decreases in carrying amount as a result of revaluation is very straightforward: Increases are credited directly to a revaluation surplus in equity. Decreases are charged to the income statement as an expense.
At subsequent revaluations, the following rules apply: To the extent that there is a previous revaluation surplus with respect to an asset, a decrease first should be charged against it and any excess of deficit over that previous surplus should be expensed. To the extent that a previous revaluation resulted in a charge to expense, a subsequent upward revaluation first should be recognized as income to the extent of the previous expense and any excess should be credited to equity.
Land Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair value at 12/31/Y1 . . . . . . . . . . . Fair value at 12/31/Y2 . . . . . . . . . . . $100,000 120,000 150,000
The following journal entries are made at December 31, Year 1, to adjust the carrying amount of the three classes of property, plant, and equipment to fair value:
Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplusland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss on revaluationbuildings (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplusmachinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplusland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recovery of loss on revaluationbuildings (income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revaluation surplusmachinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss on revaluationmachinery (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IAS 16 indicates that the revaluation surplus in equity may be transferred to retained earnings when the surplus is realized. The surplus may be considered
to be realized either through use of the asset or upon its sale or disposal. Accordingly, The revaluation surplus in equity may be transferred to retained earnings as a lump sum at the time the asset is sold or scrapped, or Each period, an amount equal to the difference between depreciation on the revalued amount and depreciation on the historical cost of the asset may be transferred to retained earnings. A third possibility apparently allowed by IAS 16 would be to do nothing with the revaluation surplus. However, this would result in revaluation surpluses being reported in equity related to assets no longer owned by the firm. With shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, China Eastern Airlines Corporation (CEA) is required to reconcile IFRS-based income and shareholders equity to a U.S. GAAP basis. Exhibit 4.1 presents CEAs reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, along with the note describing significant differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP with respect to revaluation of property, plant, and equipment. In 2003, CEAs reversal of the depreciation taken on revalued property, plant, and equipment caused U.S. GAAP income to be $7.72 million larger than IFRS income. This amount represents 6.7 percent of IFRS income.
Purchased Intangibles
Purchased intangibles are initially measured at cost, and their useful life is assessed as finite or indefinite. The cost of intangible assets with a finite useful life is amortized on a systematic basis over the useful life. The residual value is assumed to be zero unless (1) a third party has agreed to purchase the asset at the end of its useful life or (2) there is an active market for the asset from which a residual value can be estimated.
EXHIBIT 4.1
CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CORPORATION LIMITED
Form 20-F 2003 Revaluation of Property, Plant, and Equipment Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Excerpt from Note 40. Significant Differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP Differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP which have significant effects on the consolidated profits/(loss) attributable to shareholders and consolidated owners equity of the Group are summarized as follows: Consolidated profit/(loss) attributable to shareholders (Amounts in thousands except per share data) Year Ended December 31 2001 RMB 541,713 2002 RMB 83,369 2003 RMB (949,816) 2003 US$ (note 2a) (114,758)
Note As stated under IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. GAAP adjustments: Reversal of difference in depreciation charges arising from revaluation of fixed assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reversal of revaluation deficit of fixed assets . . . . . . . . . Gain/(loss) on disposal of aircraft and related assets . . . . Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred tax effect on U.S. GAAP adjustments . . . . . . . As stated under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic and fully diluted earnings/(loss) per share under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic and fully diluted earnings/(loss) per American Depository Share (ADS) under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated owners equity (Amounts in thousands)
December 31 2002 RMB 7,379,103 (a) (a),(b) (c) (d) (908,873) 637,423 29,111 20,844 7,157,608 2003 RMB 6,382,151 (908,873) 691,235 35,971 9,225 6,209,709 2003 US$ (note 2a) 771,099 (109,811) 83,516 4,346 1,115 750,264
Note As stated under IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. GAAP adjustments: Reversal of net revaluation surplus of fixed assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reversal of difference in depreciation charges and accumulated depreciation and loss on disposals arising from the revaluation of fixed assets . . . . . . . . . . . Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred tax effect on U.S. GAAP adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As stated under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes:
(a) Revaluation of fixed assets Under IFRS, fixed assets of the Group are initially recorded at cost and are subsequently restated at revalued amounts less accumulated depreciation. Fixed assets of the Group were revalued as of June 30, 1996, as part of the restructuring of the Group for the purpose of listing. In addition, as of December 31, 2002, a revaluation of the Groups aircraft and engines was carried out and difference between the valuation and carrying amount was recognized. Under U.S. GAAP, the revaluation surplus or deficit and the related difference in depreciation are reversed since fixed assets are required to be stated at cost.
An intangible asset is deemed to have an indefinite life when there is no foreseeable limit to the period over which it is expected to generate cash flows for the entity. If the useful life of an intangible asset is indefinite, no amortization should be taken until the life is determined to be definite. The distinction made in IAS 38 between intangibles with a finite life and those with an indefinite life and corresponding accounting treatment is consistent with U.S. GAAP. A departure from U.S. GAAP is that IAS 38 allows intangible assets to be carried on the balance sheet at cost less accumulated amortization (benchmark) or fair value (allowed alternative). However, the fair value method is applicable only for intangibles with an active secondary marketwhich is rare.
Items that might qualify as assets under IAS 38 include the following: Computer software costs Patents, copyrights Motion picture films Mortgage servicing rights Fishing licenses Franchises Customer or supplier relationships Customer loyalty Market share Marketing rights Import quotas
IAS 38 specifically excludes the following from being recognized as internally generated intangible assets: Brands Mastheads Publishing titles Customer lists Advertising costs Training costs Business relocation costs
The recognition of development costs in general as an asset is a major difference from U.S. GAAP, which allows such recognition only with respect to computer software development costs. Internally generated goodwill may not be capitalized under IFRSs or U.S. GAAP. Considerable management judgment is required in determining whether development costs should be capitalized. Managers must determine the point at which research ends and development begins. IAS 38 provides the following examples of activities generally included in research: Activities aimed at obtaining new knowledge. The search for application of research findings or other knowledge. The search for alternatives for materials, devices, products, processes, systems, or services. The formulation, design, evaluation, and selection of possible alternatives for new or improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems, or services. Development activities typically include the following: The design, construction, and testing of preproduction prototypes and models. The design of tools, jigs, molds, and dies involving new technology. The design, construction, and operation of a pilot plant that is not of a scale economically feasible for commercial production. The design, construction, and testing of a chosen alternative for new or improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems, or services.
IAS 38 also provides a list of activities that are neither research nor development, including the following: Engineering follow-through in an early phase of commercial production. Quality control during commercial production, including routine testing of products. Troubleshooting in connection with breakdowns during commercial production. Routine efforts to refine, enrich, or otherwise improve upon the qualities of an existing product. Adaptation of an existing capability to a particular requirement or customers need as part of a continuing commercial activity. Seasonal or other periodic design changes to existing products. Routine design of tools, jigs, molds, and dies. Activities, including design and construction engineering, related to the construction, relocation, rearrangement, or start-up of facilities or equipment other than facilities or equipment used solely for a particular research and development project. Once the research and development phases of a project have been determined, management must assess whether all six criteria (listed earlier) for development cost capitalization have been met. Judgments of future circumstances often will be necessary and may be highly subjective. The ultimate decision can depend on the degree of optimism or pessimism of the persons making the judgment. Development costs consist of (1) all costs directly attributable to development activities and (2) those costs that can be reasonably allocated to such activities, including: Personnel costs. Materials and services costs. Depreciation of plant, property, and equipment. Amortization of patents and licenses. Overhead costs, other than general administrative costs.
In other words, development costs are similar to costs incurred in producing inventory. Because the costs of some, but not all, development projects will be deferred as assets, it is necessary to accumulate costs for each development project as if it were a separate work in progress. Borrowing costs could be included in research and development costs if the allowed alternative treatment (capitalization) in IAS 23, Borrowing Costs, is adopted. Under that treatment, borrowing costs should be included as part of the cost of development activities to the extent that the costs of those activities constitute a qualifying asset. IAS 23 is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Deferred (capitalized) development costs are accounted for using the same rules as any other intangible. They must be amortized over a period not to exceed 20 years, using a method that best reflects the pattern in which the assets economic benefits are consumed. Declining-balance, units-of-production, and straight-line methods are among the acceptable methods. Amortization begins when the intangible asset is available for sale or use.
Development expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred development costs (intangible asset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash, payables, etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record development expense and deferred development costs.
Deferred development costs (asset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash, payables, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record deferred development costs.
$300,000 $300,000
Amortization of deferred development costs begins on January 2, Year 3, when the product becomes available for sale. Szabo Company determines that the units-ofproduction method best reflects the pattern in which the assets economic benefits are consumed. Amortization expense for Year 3 is calculated as follows:
Carrying amount of deferred development cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Units produced in Year 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total number of units to be produced over economic life . . . . . . . . . . % of total units produced in Year 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amortization expense in Year 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The journal entry to record amortization of deferred development costs at December 31, Year 3, is as follows:
Amortization expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred development costs (asset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record annual amortization expense.
$140,000 $140,000
If Szabo Company were unable to estimate with reasonable certainty the number of units to be produced, it would be appropriate to amortize the deferred development costs on a straight-line basis over the four-year expected life. In that case, the journal entry to record amortization in Year 3 is as follows:
Amortization expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred development costs (asset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To record annual amortization expense.
$87,500 $87,500
Definition of Impairment
Under IAS 36, an asset is impaired when its carrying amount (book value) exceeds its recoverable amount. Recoverable amount is the greater of net selling price and value in use. Net selling price is the price of an asset in an active market less disposal costs. Value in use is determined as the present value of future net cash flows expected to arise from continued use of the asset over its remaining useful life and upon disposal. In calculating value in use, projections of future cash flows should be based on approved budgets and should cover a maximum of five years (unless a longer period can be justified). The discount rate used to determine present value should reflect current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the asset under review.
EXHIBIT 4.2
NOKIA
Form 20-F 2004 Development Costs Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Excerpt from Note 37. Differences between International Financial Reporting Standards and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles The Groups consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, which differ in certain respects from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP). The principal differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP are presented below together with explanations of certain adjustments that affect consolidated net income and total shareholders equity as of and for the years ended December 31: 2004 EURm Reconciliation of net income: Net income reported under IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S GAAP adjustments: Pension expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provision for social security cost on stock options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stock compensation expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash flow hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net investment in foreign companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amortization of identifiable intangible assets acquired . . . . Impairment of identifiable intangible assets acquired . . . . . Amortization of goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impairment of goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferred tax effect of U.S. GAAP adjustments . . . . . . . . . . Net income under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,207 42 (8) (21) 89 (11) (47) 106 (14) 3,343 2003 EURm 3,592 (12) 322 (21) (9) 9 (22) 162 151 (75) 4,097 2002 EURm 3,381 (5) (66) (90) (35) 6 48 (22) 206 104 76 3,603
Development costs Development costs have been capitalized under IFRS after the product involved has reached a certain degree of technical feasibility. Capitalization ceases and depreciation begins when the product becomes available to customers. The depreciation period of these capitalized assets is between two and five years. Under U.S. GAAP, software development costs would similarly be capitalized after the product has reached a certain degree of technical feasibility. However, certain non-software related development costs capitalized under IFRS would not be capitalizable under U.S. GAAP and therefore would have been expensed under U.S. GAAP.
Under U.S. GAAP, impairment exists when an assets carrying amount exceeds the future cash flows (undiscounted) expected to arise from its continued use and disposal. Net selling price is not involved in the test, and future cash flows are not discounted to their present value. When value in use is the recoverable amount under IAS 36, an impairment is more likely to arise under IFRSs (discounted cash flows) than under U.S. GAAP (undiscounted cash flows).
income. In the case of property, plant, and equipment carried at a revalued amount, the impairment loss is first taken against revaluation surplus and then to income. The comparison of carrying value and undiscounted future cash flows under U.S. GAAP is done to determine whether an asset is impaired. The impairment loss is then measured as the amount by which carrying value exceeds fair value. Fair value may be determined by reference to quoted market prices in active markets, estimates based on the values of similar assets, or estimates based on the results of valuation techniques. It is unlikely that fair value (U.S. GAAP) and recoverable amount (IFRSs) for an asset will be the same, resulting in differences in the amount of impairment loss recognized between the two sets of standards.
IFRSs In applying IAS 36, the assets recoverable amount would be determined as follows:
Net selling price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recoverable amount (greater of the two) $40,000 1,000 = $39,000 $46,000 $46,000
The following journal entry would be made to reflect the impairment of this asset:
$4,000 $4,000
U.S. GAAP Under U.S. GAAP, an impairment test would be carried out as follows:
Carrying value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected future cash flows (undiscounted) . . . . . . . . $50,000 55,000
Because expected future cash flows exceed the assets carrying value, no impairment is deemed to exist. The asset would be reported on the December 31, Year 1, balance sheet at $50,000.
Impairment of Goodwill
The recoverable amount of goodwill must be determined annually regardless of whether impairment indicators are present. The recoverable amount is determined for the cash-generating unit (e.g., an acquired business) to which the goodwill belongs by first applying a bottom-up test. In this test, goodwill is allocated to the individual cash-generating unit under review, if possible, and impairment of that cash-generating unit is then determined by comparing (1) the carrying amount plus allocated goodwill and (2) the recoverable amount. If goodwill cannot be allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis to the cashgenerating unit under review, then both a bottom-up test and a top-down test should be applied. Under the top-down test, goodwill is allocated to the smallest group of cash-generating units to which it can be allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis, and impairment of the group of cash-generating units is then determined by comparing (1) the carrying amount of the group plus allocated goodwill and (2) the recoverable amount. U.S. GAAP requires only a bottom-up test and only for that goodwill associated with those assets that are being reviewed for impairment.
EXHIBIT 4.3
v) Impairment: Under IAS 36, the impairment test for determining the recoverable amount of noncurrent assets is the higher of net selling price and value in use. At 31 December 1999 and again at 31 December 2000, the Company determined that an impairment charge was necessary as the discounted cash flows were less than the carrying value of the asset. Under US GAAP, the mine property assets were evaluated for impairment on an undiscounted basis and, because the sum of expected (undiscounted) future cash flows exceeded the assets carrying amount, no impairment loss was recognised in 1999. During 2000 the undiscounted value of expected future cash flows were less than the assets carrying values, which resulted in an impairment provision calculated on the same basis as for IFRS. In 2003, having revised critical assumptions, including life of mine, remaining reserves, a long term gold price assumption of $US340 (2002: $US305) and a pre-tax real discount rate of 7% (2002: 7%), the directors resolved to partially reverse previously recognised impairments, to the value of $US31.1 million (2002: $US37.9 million). US GAAP does not allow the reversal of impairment provisions previously recognised.
Bottom-Up Test A bottom-up test is applied to each restaurant by estimating the recoverable amount of the assets of each restaurant and comparing with the carrying value of those assets. An impairment loss is recognized for the amount by which a restaurants carrying value exceeds its recoverable amount. The loss is allocated to the impaired restaurants assets on a pro rata basis according to the relative carrying value of the assets. The bottom-up test checks for impairment of the assets of the individual restaurants but provides no information about the impairment of
the goodwill that was purchased in the acquisition of the chain of restaurants. Assume the following carrying values and recoverable amounts for the three restaurants acquired:
Cash-Generating Unit (restaurant location) Anaheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buena Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cerritos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carrying Value $1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Recoverable Amount $ 970,000 1,050,000 1,020,000 Impairment Loss $30,000 0 0
An impairment loss of $30,000 is recognized, and the assets of the Anaheim restaurant are written down by the same amount. The carrying value of Anaheims net assets is now $970,000. Top-Down Test Lebron determines that the smallest cash-generating unit to which goodwill can be allocated is the entire chain of restaurants. Therefore, Lebron estimates the recoverable amount of the chain of restaurants and compares this with the carrying value of the assets of all the restaurants plus goodwill. Goodwill is considered to be impaired to the extent that the carrying value of the assets plus goodwill exceeds the restaurant chains recoverable amount.
Cash-Generating Unit (restaurant location) Anaheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buena Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cerritos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carrying Value $ 970,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,970,000 300,000 $3,270,000
Lebron estimates the recoverable amount of the chain of restaurants to be $3,000,000. Lebron compares this amount with the total carrying value of $3,270,000 to determine that goodwill is impaired. A loss on the impairment of goodwill of $270,000 must be recognized.
accordance with IAS 23 specifically include foreign exchange gains and losses on foreign currency borrowings to the extent they are regarded as an adjustment to interest costs. An asset that qualifies for borrowing cost capitalization is one that necessarily takes a substantial period to get ready for its intended use or sale. Both IAS 23 and U.S. GAAP exclude inventories that are routinely manufactured or produced in large quantities on a repetitive basis over a short period. However, IAS 23 specifically includes inventories that require a substantial period to bring them to a marketable condition. The amount to be capitalized is the amount of interest cost that could have been avoided if the expenditure on the qualifying asset had not been made. This is determined by multiplying the weighted-average accumulated expenditures by an appropriate interest rate. The appropriate interest rate is determined similarly under both IAS 23 and U.S. GAAP, being a weighted-average interest rate on borrowings outstanding. If a specific new borrowing can be associated with a qualifying asset, the actual interest rate is used to the extent the weighted-average accumulated expenditures are less than the amount of the specific borrowing. The capitalization of borrowing costs begins when expenditures for the asset are incurred and ceases when substantially all the activities necessary to prepare the asset for sale or use are completed. Similar rules exist under U.S. GAAP.
Lease Classification
As a case in point, IAS 17 indicates that a lease should be classified and accounted for as a finance lease when it transfers substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership to the lessee. The standard then provides five situations that would normally lead to a lease being capitalized: 1. The lease transfers ownership of the asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term. 2. The lessee has the option to purchase the asset at a price less than fair market value. 3. The lease term is for the major part of the leased assets economic life. 4. The present value of minimum lease payments at the inception of the lease is equal to substantially all the fair value of the leased asset. 5. The leased asset is of a specialized nature such that only the lessee can use it. In contrast, U.S. GAAP stipulates that if any one of four very specific criteria is met, a lease must be capitalized. These criteria are similar to 14 above; in fact, the first two are exactly the same as (1) and (2). In the U.S. GAAP version of criterion (3), major part is specifically defined as 75 percent, and in criterion (4), substantially all is defined as 90 percent. Depending on the manner in which a financial statement preparer defines these terms, application of IAS 17 and U.S. GAAP might or might not lead to similar classification of leases.
Finance Leases
IAS 17 requires leases classified as finance leases to be recognized by the lessee as assets and liabilities at an amount equal to the fair value of the leased property or, if lower, at the present value of the future minimum lease payments. Lease payments are apportioned between interest expense and a reduction in the lease obligation using an effective interest method to amortize the lease obligation, and the leased asset is depreciated in a manner consistent with assets owned by the lessee. The lessor should treat the same lease as a finance sale. The leased asset is replaced by the net investment in the lease, which is equal to the present value of future minimum lease payments (including any unguaranteed residual value). Any profit on the sale is recognized at the inception of the lease, and interest is recognized over the life of the lease using an effective interest method. Under U.S. GAAP, the net investment in the lease is determined simply as the lessors cost or carrying amount for the leased asset.
Operating Leases
Any lease not classified as a finance lease is an operating lease. With an operating lease, lease payments are recognized by the lessee as an expense and by the lessor as income. The asset remains on the books of the lessor and is accounted for similarly to any other asset owned by the lessor.
Sale-Leaseback Transaction
A sale-leaseback transaction involves the sale of an asset by the initial owner of the asset and the leasing of the same asset back to the initial owner. If the lease is classified as a finance lease, IAS 17 requires the initial owner to defer any gain on the sale and amortize it to income over the lease term. U.S. GAAP rules are generally similar. If the fair value of property at time of sale-leaseback is less than undepreciated cost, IAS 17 allows recognition of a loss only if the loss is due to an impairment in the value of the asset sold. U.S. GAAP requires immediate recognition of the loss regardless of its source. If the lease in a sale-leaseback transaction is classified as an operating lease, U.S. GAAP again requires the seller to amortize any gain over the lease term. IAS 17, in contrast, requires immediate recognition of the gain in income. The difference in accounting treatment for gains on sale-leaseback transactions between IAS 17 and U.S. GAAP is described by Swisscom AG in Exhibit 4.4. In its reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, Swisscom made an adjustment for this accounting difference that resulted in an increase in income, as stated under U.S. GAAP, of 24 million Swiss francs.
Other Differences
Other differences between IAS 17 and U.S. GAAP with respect to finance leases include the following: The lessees discount rate for determining present value of the future payments and interest expense. The implicit rate in the lease is generally used under IAS 17; the lessees incremental borrowing rate is generally used under U.S. GAAP. Initial direct costs of the lessee in connection with negotiating the lease. These costs are capitalized as part of the cost of the asset under IAS 17; U.S. GAAP is silent with respect to this issue, but common practice is to defer and amortize the costs over the lease term.
EXHIBIT 4.4
SWISSCOM AG
Form 20-F 2003 Sale and Leaseback Transactions Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Excerpt from Note 42. Differences between International Financial Reporting Standards and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles The consolidated financial statements of Swisscom have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which differ in certain respects from generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (U.S. GAAP). Application of U.S. GAAP would have affected the balance sheet as of December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and net income for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 to the extent described below. A description of the material differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP as they relate to Swisscom are discussed in further detail below Reconciliation of net income from IFRS to U.S. GAAP The following schedule illustrates the significant adjustments to reconcile net income in accordance with IFRS to the amounts determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP for each of the three years ended December 31. CHF in millions Net income according to IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. GAAP adjustments: a) Capitalization of interest cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Retirement benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Stock based compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Termination benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Write-down of long-lived assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) Capitalization of software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g) Impairment of investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h) Cross-border tax leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i) Debitel purchase accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j) Application of SAB 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k) Site restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l) Telephone poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m) Goodwill amortization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m) Goodwill impairment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n) Dilution gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o) Derivative accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p) Sale and leaseback transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q) Income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change according to U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k) l) m) Cumulative effect of accounting change, net of tax . . . . . . . . . . Net income (loss) according to U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 4,964 (31) 32 (8) 50 (30) (124) 24 14 (142) 18 18 10 1,130 (72) 21 (286) 114 5,702 5,702 2002 824 (1) (17) 9 (20) 00 (13) (82) 9 14 4 304 (283) (21) 30 29 786 (1,649) (863) 2003 1,569 (1) (12) 6 11 00 15 (86) 31 (13) 213 280 24 21 2,058 38 2,096
In March 2001 Swisscom entered into two master agreements for the sale of real estate. The first relates to the sale of 30 commercial and office properties for CHF 1,272 million to a consortium led by Credit Suisse Asset Management. The second concerns the sale of 166 commercial and office properties for CHF 1,313 million to PSP Real Estate AG and WTF Holding (Switzerland) Ltd. At the same time Swisscom entered into agreements to lease back part of the sold property space. The gain on the sale of the properties after transaction costs of CHF 105 million and including the reversal of environmental provisions (see Note 28), was CHF 807 million under IFRS. Continued
Material prior-period errors should be corrected retrospectively through the restatement of comparative amounts for the prior period(s) in which the error(s) occurred. A change in accounting policy is allowed only if required by an IASB standard or interpretation, or if the change results in reliable and more relevant information being provided in the financial statements. A change in accounting policy required by an IASB standard or interpretation should be accounted for in accordance with the transitional provisions in that standard or interpretation, if provided. Otherwise, changes in accounting policies should be handled retrospectively, by adjusting comparative amounts as if the new accounting policy had always been applied. The amount of a correction of a prior-period error and the cumulative effect of a change in accounting policy may not be included in income; comparative information for prior periods is presented as if the error had never occurred and the new accounting method had always been applied. IAS 10, Events After the Balance Sheet Date Financial statements should be adjusted for certain events (adjusting events) that occur after the balance sheet date. Adjusting events are those that provide evidence of conditions that existed, but were unknown, at the balance sheet date. U.S. GAAP requirements are very similar. IAS 14, Segment Reporting Disclosures are required for both business segments and geographical segments, one of which is identified as the primary reporting format and the other as secondary. Disclosures required for the primary segments include segment revenues, profit, assets, liabilities, capital expenditures, depreciation expense, and noncash expenses. Segment revenues, assets, and capital expenditures should be disclosed for the secondary type of segment. U.S. GAAP requires operating segments to be determined using a management approach that might result in a different segmentation from what is required by IAS 14. Whereas IAS 14 allows geographical segments to be an individual country or groups of countries, U.S. GAAP requires disclosures to be made by individual countries.7 IAS 24, Related Party Disclosures Transactions between related parties must be disclosed in the notes to financial statements. Parties are related if one party has the ability to control or exert significant influence over the other party. Related parties can include parent companies, subsidiaries, equity method associates, individual owners, and key management personnel. Similar rules exist in U.S. GAAP. IAS 33, Earnings per Share Basic and diluted earnings per share must be reported on the face of the income statement. IAS 33 provides guidance for calculating earnings per share. U.S. GAAP provides more detailed guidance with respect to the calculation of diluted earnings per share. Application of this guidance would appear to be consistent with IAS 33.
7 In January 2005, as part of its short-term convergence project with the FASB, the IASB announced its decision to adopt the management approach of FASB Statement 131, Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. A revision of IAS 14 had not been completed at the time this book went to press.
IAS 34, Interim Financial Reporting IAS 34 does not mandate which companies should prepare interim statements, how frequently, or how soon after the end of an interim period. The standard defines the minimum content to be included in interim statements and identifies the accounting principles that should be applied. With certain exceptions, IAS 34 requires interim periods to be treated as discrete reporting periods. This differs from the position in U.S. GAAP, which treats interim periods as an integral part of the full year. IFRS 5, Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations Noncurrent assets held for sale must be reported separately on the balance sheet at the lower of (1) carrying value or (2) fair value less costs to sell. Assets held for sale are not depreciated. Similar rules exist in U.S. GAAP. A discontinued operation is a component of an entity that represents a major line of business or geographical area of operations, or is a subsidiary acquired exclusively with a view to resell, that either has been disposed of or has been classified as held for sale. The after-tax profit or loss and after-tax gain or loss on disposal (or from measurement to fair value less costs to sell) must be reported as a single amount on the face of the income statement. Detail of the revenues, expenses, gain or loss on disposal, and income taxes comprising this single amount must be disclosed in the notes or on the face of the income statement. If presented on the face of the income statement, it must be presented in a section identified as discontinued operations. The definition of the type of operation that can be classified as discontinued is somewhat narrower than under U.S. GAAP. In addition, U.S. GAAP requires both pretax and after-tax profit or loss to be reported on the income statement. Otherwise the two sets of standards are substantially similar.
Summary
1. Differences exist between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP with respect to recognition, measurement, presentation, disclosure, and choice among alternatives. In 2002, the IASB and FASB agreed to work together to converge their two sets of standards as soon as possible. 2. In many cases, IFRSs are more flexible than U.S. GAAP. Several IFRSs allow firms to choose between a benchmark treatment and an allowed alternative in accounting for a particular item. Also, IFRSs generally have less bright-line guidance than U.S. GAAP; therefore, more judgment is required in applying individual IFRSs. However, in some cases, IFRSs are more detailed than U.S. GAAP. 3. A small number of foreign firms required to file Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission use IFRSs as their primary set of accounting principles. The reconciliation of IFRS income and shareholders equity to a U.S. GAAP basis included in Form 20-F provides considerable insight into the differences that exist in practice between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP. 4. Some of the more important recognition and measurement differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP relate to the following issues: inventory valuation; revaluation of property, plant, and equipment; capitalization of development costs; measurement of impairment losses; and expensing of all borrowing costs. 5. IAS 2 requires inventory to be reported on the balance sheet at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Write-downs to realizable value must be reversed
when the selling price increases. IAS 2 no longer allows the use of last in, first out (LIFO) in determining the cost of inventory. 6. IAS 16 allows property, plant, and equipment to be carried at cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses or at a revalued amount less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and impairment losses. Specific guidance is provided for those firms that choose the revaluation option. 7. IAS 38 requires development costs to be capitalized as an intangible asset when six specific criteria are met. Development costs can include personnel costs; materials and services; depreciation of property, plant, and equipment; amortization of patents and licenses; and overhead costs, other than general administrative costs. Deferred development costs are amortized over their useful life, not to exceed 20 years. 8. IAS 36 requires impairment testing of property, plant, and equipment; intangibles, including goodwill; and long-term investments. An asset is impaired when its carrying value exceeds its recoverable amount, which is the greater of net selling price and value in use. An impairment loss is the amount by which carrying value exceeds recoverable amount. If subsequent to recognizing an impairment loss, the recoverable amount of an asset exceeds its new carrying value, the impairment loss must be reversed. 9. IAS 23 provides two methods of accounting for borrowing costs: (1) Expense all borrowing costs in the period incurred, or (2) capitalize borrowing costs to the extent they are attributable to the acquisition of a qualifying asset, while expensing other borrowing costs immediately.
Contingent liabilities are defined as Possible obligations that arise from past events and whose existence will be confirmed by the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event, or A present obligation that is not recognized because (1) it is not probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation or (2) the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability. Contingent liabilities are disclosed unless the possibility of an outflow of resources embodying the economic future benefits is remote. The rules for recognition of a provision and disclosure of a contingent liability are generally similar to the U.S. GAAP rules related to contingent liabilities. Under U.S. GAAP, a contingent liability is neither recognized nor disclosed if the likelihood of an outflow of resources is remote; it is disclosed if such an outflow is possible but not probable; and it is recognized on the balance sheet when an outflow of resources is probable. The main difference is that U.S. GAAP requires accrual when it is probable that a loss has occurred, with no guidance as to how the word probable should be interpreted. In defining a provision, IAS 37 specifically defines probable as more likely than not. IAS 37 requires the recognition of a provision for the present obligation related to an onerous contract, that is, a contract in which the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligation of the contract exceed the economic benefits expected to be received from it. However, recognition of a provision for expected future operating losses is not allowed. IAS 37 provides guidance for measuring a provision as the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date. The best estimate is the expected value when a range of estimates exist; the midpoint within a range if all estimates are equally likely. Provisions must be discounted to present value. Subsequent reduction of provisions can be made only for the expenditures for which the provision was established, and provisions should be reversed to the extent they are no longer required for particular expenditures. Under U.S. GAAP, contingent liabilities should be recognized as the low end of the range of possible amounts when a range of estimates exist; in some cases, the amount is not discounted to present value. With respect to disclosure of contingent liabilities, IAS 37 allows an enterprise in extremely rare cases to omit disclosures that can be expected to prejudice seriously the position of the enterprise in a dispute with other parties. No such exemption exists under U.S. GAAP. Contingent Assets A contingent asset is a probable asset that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event. Contingent assets should not be recognized, but should be disclosed when the inflow of economic benefits is probable. If the realization of income from a contingency is determined to be virtually certain, then the related benefit is considered to meet the definition of an asset and recognition is appropriate. IAS 37 allows earlier recognition of a contingent asset (and related gain) than does U.S. GAAP, which generally requires the asset to be realized before it can be recognized.
Summary of IAS 37, Recognition and Disclosure Guidelines Contingent Element Contingent liability Likelihood of Realization Probable (more likely than not) Reliably measurable Not reliably measurable Not probable Remote Virtually certain Probable Not probable Accounting Treatment Recognize provision Disclosure Disclosure No disclosure Recognize asset Disclosure No disclosure
Contingent asset
Appendix C to IAS 37 provides many illustrations of the application of the standards recognition principles. Example 6 illustrates just how restrictive the concept of present obligation is intended to be in determining whether a provision should be recognized. In the example, there is a legislative requirement to install smoke filters by a particular date. The firm does not comply by the deadline. At the balance sheet date subsequent to the missed deadline, there is no present obligation related to the cost of installing smoke filters because no obligating event (i.e., installation) has occurred. Therefore, no provision would be recognized. However, if it is more likely than not (probable) that a penalty will be paid for missing the deadline, the best estimate of that penalty should be recognized as a provision because an obligating event (i.e., noncompliance) has occurred. Restructuring A difference exists between IAS 37 and U.S. GAAP with respect to when a provision should be recognized related to a restructuring plan. IAS 37 indicates that the provision should be recognized only when (1) a detailed formal plan exists, and (2) the plans main features have been announced to those affected by it or implementation of the plan has begun. U.S. GAAP does not allow recognition of a restructuring provision until a liability has been incurred. The existence of a restructuring plan and its announcement does not necessarily create a liability. Thus, the recognition of a restructuring provision may occur at a later date under U.S. GAAP.
classification of pension plans, IAS 19 and U.S. GAAP differ on a number of issues with respect to the accounting for defined benefit plans. Each of these issues is discussed in the following paragraphs. Past Service Cost Past service cost arises when an employer improves the benefits to be paid employees in conjunction with a defined benefit plan. IAS 19 provides the following rules related to past service cost: Past service cost related to retirees and vested active employees is expensed immediately. Past service cost related to nonvested employees is recognized on a straight-line basis over the remaining vesting period. In comparison, U.S. GAAP requires that the past service cost related to retirees be amortized over their remaining expected life, and the past service cost to active employees be amortized over their remaining service period. Example: Recognition of Past Service Cost Assume that on January 1, Year 7, Eagle Company Inc. amends its defined benefit pension plan to increase the amount of benefits to be paid. The benefits vest after five years of service. At the date of the plan amendment, the increase in the present value of the defined benefit obligation attributable to vested and nonvested employees is as follows:
Employees with more than five years of service at 1/1/Y7 . . . . . . Employees with less than five years of service at 1/1/Y7 . . . . . . . . Total present value of additional benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000 8,000 $18,000
On average, the nonvested employees have two years of service at 1/1/Y7. IFRSs Eagle Company recognizes the past service cost attributable to vested employees in Year 7 and the past service cost attributable to nonvested employees is amortized on a straight-line basis over Years 7, 8 and 9 (average three years until vesting). The total amount of past service cost recognized as a component of pension expense in Year 7 is computed as follows:
Past service cost (vested employees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past service cost (nonvested employees) $8,000/3 years . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The unrecognized past service cost of $5,333 is subtracted from the present value of the defined benefit obligation in determining the amount of asset or liability to be recognized on the balance sheet. U.S. GAAP Under U.S. GAAP, because all of the employees affected by the plan amendment are active employees, the past service cost of $18,000 would be amortized to expense over the remaining service life of those employees. Assuming an average remaining service life of 12 years, $1,500 of past service cost would be recognized as a component of pension expense in Year 7.
Minimum Liability U.S. GAAP requires recognition of at least the unfunded accumulated pension benefit obligation as a minimum liability on the balance sheet. There is no minimum liability recognition requirement in IAS 19. Anticipation of Changes in Future Benefits IAS 19 permits anticipation of future changes in the law in measuring the employers pension benefit obligation. This is especially relevant in those situations where the level of pension benefits provided by the employer is linked to the level of retirement benefit that will be provided by national and local governments. U.S. GAAP does not permit anticipation of future changes in the law. Amortization of Actuarial Gains and Losses Both IAS 19 and U.S. GAAP allow a similar corridor approach to smooth the impact that actuarial gains and losses have on net income. IAS 19 also permits any systematic method of amortization that results in faster recognition of gains and losses (including immediate recognition) provided the same basis is applied to gains and losses and is applied consistently period to period. If a company chooses to recognize actuarial gains and losses in the period in which they occur, it may do so by including them either in net income or in a separate component of shareholders equity. Bypassing income to accumulate actuarial gains and losses in equity is not acceptable under U.S. GAAP. Curtailments and Settlements A pension plan curtailment arises when there is a material reduction in the number of employees covered by a plan (such as when a plant is closed as part of a restructuring) or when the future service by current employees will no longer qualify for pension benefits or will qualify only for reduced benefits. A pension plan settlement involves lump-sum cash payments to employees in exchange for their rights to received defined pension benefits. Gains and losses usually arise in conjunction with plan curtailments and settlements. IAS 19 treats these gains and losses similarly; both are recognized in income in the period in which the entity is demonstrably committed and a curtailment or settlement has been announced. U.S. GAAP treats gains and losses on plan curtailments and settlements differently, with losses generally recognized earlier than gains. A curtailment gain cannot be recognized until the related employees terminate or the plan has been adopted. Balance Sheet Recognition and Limitation The amount recognized on the balance sheet related to a defined benefit plan can be either an asset or a liability and is equal to the present value of the defined benefit obligation plus (minus) unrecognized actuarial gains (losses) minus any unrecognized past service cost (related to nonvested benefits) minus the fair value of plan assets. However, if the resulting amount is negative (net pension asset), the amount of asset to be reported on the balance sheet is limited to the sum of any unrecognized actuarial losses and past service cost, and the present values of any refunds available from the plan and any available reduction in future employer contributions to the plan. Under U.S. GAAP, there is no limitation of the amount of pension asset to be recognized.
Example: Application of the Limitation on the Recognition of the Net Asset Assume that the defined benefit plan of Fortsen Company Inc. has the following characteristics at December 31, Year 9:
Present value of defined benefit obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair value of plan assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unrecognized actuarial losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unrecognized past service cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negative amount (possible asset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present value of available future refunds and reduction in future contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000 (10,800) (800) (50) (30) $ (880) $ 525
The limit as to the amount of asset that may be recognized is computed as follows:
Unrecognized actuarial losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unrecognized past service cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present value of available future refunds and reduction in future contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50 30 525 $605
Fortsen Company recognizes a prepaid pension cost (pension asset) of $605 on its 12/31/Y9 balance sheet and must disclose the fact that the limit reduced the carrying amount of the asset by $275. Under U.S. GAAP, Fortsen Company would recognize a pension asset in the amount of $880. Exhibit A4.1 presents the note in Bayer AGs reconciliation from IFRSs to U.S. GAAP related to the accounting for pension plans. Differences between IAS 19 and U.S. GAAP resulted in adjustments related to the asset limitation included in IAS 19, the additional minimum liability of U.S. GAAP, the amortization of a transition obligation, and the accounting for curtailment in certain plans. Medical Benefits IAS 19 does not provide separate guidance for other postemployment benefits such as medical benefits. The procedures described above for pension plans is equally applicable for other forms of postemployment benefits provided to employees, such as medical benefits and life insurance contracts. U.S. GAAP provides considerably more guidance than IAS 19 with regard to the assumptions to be used and the measurement of the employers obligation for postemployment medical benefits. As allowed by the IASBs Framework, companies using IFRSs could refer to the guidance provided in U.S. GAAP (or other national standards) to identify an appropriate method for determining the amount of expense to recognize related to postemployment benefits other than pensions. Termination Benefits IAS 19 requires termination benefits to be recognized when an enterprise is demonstrably committed to either (1) terminating the employment of an employee or group of employees, or (2) providing termination benefits as a result of an offer made by the enterprise to encourage voluntary termination. A demonstrable commitment arises when a detailed formal plan exists from which the enterprise cannot withdraw.
EXHIBIT A4.1
BAYER AG
Form 20-F 2004 Pension Expense Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Bayer Group Excerpt from Note [44] U.S. GAAP Information c. Pension Provisions Under IFRS, pension costs and similar obligations are accounted for in accordance with IAS 19, Employee Benefits. For purposes of U.S. GAAP, pension costs for defined benefit plans are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 87 Employers Accounting for Pensions. Using an accommodation of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for foreign private issuers, the Group adopted SFAS No. 87 on January 1, 1994, for its non-U.S. plans, which was also the date of adoption for IAS 19 for those plans. It was not feasible to apply SFAS No. 87 on the effective date specified in the standard. IAS 19 as applied by the Group from 1994 was substantially similar to the methodology required under SFAS No. 87. The adjustment between IFRS and U.S. GAAP comprises required SFAS 87 amortization of the unrecognized transition obligation over the remaining average service lives of employees from 1994 of 238 million, the recognition of an asset limitation under IAS 19, which is not allowed under SFAS No. 87, and the recognition of an additional minimum liability under SFAS No. 87, which is not required under IAS 19. As of December 31, 2003 the unrecognized transition obligation from 1994 was fully amortized. Following is a reconciliation of the balance sheet and income statement amounts recognized for IFRS and U.S. GAAP for both pension and post-retirement benefit plans: 2002 2003 ( million) Pension benefits: Liability recognized for IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asset limitation under IAS 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional minimum liability under SFAS No. 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference in unrecognized transition obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference in pension curtailment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liability recognized for U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net periodic benefit cost recognized for IFRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amortization of transition obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference pension curtailment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net periodic benefit recognized for U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . (3,741) 1,187 (480) 23 (3,011) 521 24 545 (3,812) 1,193 (637) (3,256) 747 23 770 (3,827) 1,196 (1,024) (44) (3,699) 581 48 629 2004
U.S. GAAP distinguishes between three different types of termination benefits and provides different timing recognition criteria for each: 1. Special termination benefits should be recognized when an employee accepts the offer. 2. Contractual termination benefits should be recognized when it is probable that employees will be entitled to benefits. 3. Termination benefits offered in conjunction with a restructuring should be recognized when the plan is approved by management. Adifference also exists with respect to the amount of termination benefit to recognize. IAS 19 indicates that measurement should be based on the number of employees expected to accept the offer, discounted to present value if benefits fall due more
than 12 months after the balance sheet date. Under U.S. GAAP, measurement is based on the number of employees that actually accept the offer and discounting is not required.
enacted tax laws and rates. IAS 12 provides no guidance on which tax rate to use in jurisdictions where different tax rates exist for distributed and undistributed income, such as Germany and Greece, or how to deal with alternative tax systems, such as the alternative minimum tax in the United States. Each of these issues is covered by U.S. GAAP. Recognition of Deferred Tax Asset IAS 12 requires recognition of a deferred tax asset if future realization of a tax benefit is probable, where probable is undefined. Under U.S. GAAP, a deferred tax asset must be recognized if its realization is more likely than not. If the word probable can be considered to imply a probability of occurrence that is greater than the phrase more likely than not, then IAS 12 provides a more stringent threshold for the recognition of a deferred tax asset.1 Exceptions in Recognizing Deferred Taxes Both IAS 12 and U.S. GAAP contain exceptions to the general rule that deferred taxes are recognized for temporary differences. In some cases, IAS 12 requires recognition of a difference that U.S. GAAP prohibits; in other cases, U.S. GAAP requires recognition of a difference not allowed by IAS 12. Application of IFRSs Application of IFRSs can create temporary differences unknown under U.S. GAAP. For example, the revaluation of property, plant, and equipment for financial statement purposes (in accordance with IAS 16s allowed alternative treatment) with no equivalent adjustment for tax purposes will result in a temporary difference that cannot exist under U.S. GAAP. Other differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP can create different amounts of temporary differences. For example, because of different definitions of impairment, differences in the amount of an impairment loss can exist under the two sets of standards. With no equivalent tax adjustment, the amount of temporary difference related to the impairment loss will be different in a set of IFRS-based financial statements form the amount recognized under U.S. GAAP.
Research shows that, on average, accountants associate a probability of about 7580 percent with the term probable. See, for example, J. L. Reimers, Additional Evidence on the Need for Disclosure Reform, Accounting Horizons, March 1992, pp. 3641.
agreement to provide maintenance (postcontract support) for a period of time, the proceeds received by the seller should be allocated between the amount applicable to the software (recognized at the time of sale) and the amount identifiable with the postcontract support (recognized over the period of support). Conversely, there may be situations where it is necessary to treat two or more separate transactions as one economic transaction to properly reflect their true economic substance. Sale of Goods Five criteria must be met in order for revenue from the sale of goods to be recognized: The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the goods has been transferred to the buyer. Neither continuing managerial involvement normally associated with ownership nor effective control of the goods sold is retained. The amount of revenue can be measured reliably. It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the sale will flow to the seller. The costs incurred or to be incurred with respect to the sale of goods can be measured reliably. Evaluating whether significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer can sometimes be difficult and require the exercise of judgment. IAS 18 provides a list of examples in which significant risks and rewards might be retained by the seller. These include the following: The seller assumes an obligation for unsatisfactory performance not covered by normal warranty provisions. Receipt of revenue by the seller is contingent on the buyers generating revenue through its sale of the goods. Goods sold are subject to installation, installation is a significant part of the contract, and installation has not yet been completed. The sales contract gives the buyer the right to rescind the purchase, and the probability of return is uncertain. Similarly, in determining whether the seller has relinquished managerial involvement or control over the goods sold, a careful evaluation is required for some types of sales. Rendering of Services When the outcome of a service transaction can be estimated reliably and it is probable that economic benefits of the transaction will flow to the enterprise, revenue should be recognized in proportion to some measure of the extent of services rendered (that is, on a percentage-of-completion basis). The outcome of a transaction can be estimated reliably when (1) the amount of revenue, (2) the costs incurred and the costs to be incurred, (3) and the stage of completion can all be measured reliably. Guidelines provided in IAS 11, Construction Contracts, related to the application of the percentage-of-completion method are generally applicable to the recognition of revenue for service transactions. When the outcome of a transaction cannot be estimated reliably, revenue should be recognized only to the extent that expenses incurred are probable of recovery. If
such underlying expenses are not probable of recovery, the expense should be recognized, but not the revenue. Interest, Royalties, and Dividends If it is probable that the economic benefits of interest, royalties, and dividends will flow to the enterprise and the amounts can be measured reliably, revenue should be recognized on the following bases: Interest income is recognized on an effective yield basis. Royalties are recognized on an accrual basis in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreement. Dividends are recognized when the shareholders right to receive payment is established. Exchanges of Goods or Services If the exchanged goods are similar in nature and in value, no gain or loss is recognized. If the exchanged goods or services are dissimilar in nature, revenue is recognized at the fair value of the goods or services received, adjusted for the amount of any cash paid or received. When the fair value of the goods or services received cannot be measured reliably, revenue should be measured as the fair value of the goods or services given up, adjusted for the amount of any cash paid or received. Appendix The appendix to IAS 18 provides examples illustrating the application of the standard to most major types of revenues. Most of the examples are self-explanatory and the relationships of the examples to the underlying provisions of the standard are straightforward.
Ernst & Young, The Evolution of IAS 39 in Europe, Eye on IFRS Newsletter, November 2004, pp. 14.
Questions
1. What are two issues related to the recognition and measurement of assets for which IFRSs provide both a benchmark treatment and an allowed alternative treatment? 2. How does application of the lower of cost or market rule for inventories differ between IAS 2 and U.S. GAAP? 3. What is the alternative treatment allowed by IAS 16 for measuring property, plant, and equipment at dates subsequent to original acquisition? 4. How is an impairment loss on property, plant, and equipment determined and measured under IAS 36? How does this differ from U.S. GAAP? 5. What is the IAS 23 benchmark treatment with respect to borrowing costs? How does this treatment differ from U.S. GAAP? 6. How do the criteria for determining whether a lease qualifies as a finance (capitalized) lease differ between IAS 17 and U.S. GAAP? 7. How do the criteria for the recognition of contingencies differ between IAS 37 and U.S. GAAP? 8. What are the rules under IAS 19 for dealing with the past service cost that arises when an employer improves the benefits to be paid employees in conjunction with a defined benefit plan? How do these rules differ from U.S. GAAP? 1. To determine the amount at which inventory should be reported on the December 31, Year 1, balance sheet, Monroe Company compiles the following information for its inventory of Product Z on hand at that date:
Historical cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Replacement cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated selling price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated costs to complete and sell . . . . . . . . . . Normal profit margin as % of selling price . . . . . . $20,000 $14,000 $17,000 $2,000 20%
The entire inventory of Product Z that was on hand at December 31, Year 1, was completed in Year 2 at a cost of $1,800 and sold at a price of $17,150. Required: a. Use the information provided in this chapter related to the accounting for inventories to determine the impact on Year 1 and Year 2 income related to Product Z (1) under IFRSs and (2) under U.S. GAAP. b. Summarize the difference in income, total assets, and total stockholders equity using the two different sets of accounting rules over the two-year period. 2. In Year 1, in a project to develop Product X, Lincoln Company incurred research and development costs totaling $10 million. Lincoln is able to clearly distinguish the research phase from the development phase of the project. Researchphase costs are $6 million, and development-phase costs are $4 million. All of the IAS 38 criteria have been met for recognition of the development costs as an asset. Product X was brought to market in Year 2 and is expected to be marketable for five years. Total sales of Product X are estimated at over $100 million. Required: a. Use the information provided in this chapter related to the accounting for internally generated intangible assets to determine the impact on Year 1 and
Year 2 income related to research and development costs (1) under IFRSs and (2) under U.S. GAAP. b. Summarize the difference in income, total assets, and total stockholders equity related to Product X over its five-year life under the two different sets of accounting rules. 3. Jefferson Company acquired equipment on January 2, Year 1, at a cost of $10 million. The asset has a five-year life, no residual value, and is depreciated on a straight-line basis. On January 2, Year 3, Jefferson Company determines the fair value of the asset (net of any accumulated depreciation) to be $12 million. Required: a. Determine the impact the equipment has on Jefferson Companys income in Years 15 (1) using IFRSs, assuming that IAS 16s allowed alternative treatment for measurement subsequent to initial recognition is followed, and (2) using U.S. GAAP. b. Summarize the difference in income, total assets, and total stockholders equity using the two different sets of accounting rules over the period Year 1 Year 5. 4. Madison Company acquired a depreciable asset at the beginning of Year 1 at a cost of $12 million. At December 31, Year 1, Madison gathered the following information related to this asset:
Carrying amount (net of accumulated depreciation) . . . . . . . . Fair value of the asset (net selling price) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sum of future cash flows from use of the asset . . . . . . . . . . . . Present value of future cash flows from use of the asset . . . . . Remaining useful life of the asset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 million $7.5 million $10 million $8 million 5 years
Required: a. Use the information provided in this chapter related to the impairment of assets to determine the impact on Year 2 and Year 3 income from the depreciation and possible impairment of this equipment (1) under IFRSs and (2) under U.S. GAAP. b. Summarize the difference in income, total assets, and total stockholders equity for the period Year 1Year 6 under the two different sets of accounting rules. Note: If the asset is determined to be impaired, there would be no adjustment to Year 1 depreciation expense of $2 million. 5. Garfield Company begins construction of a building for its own use on January 2, Year 1. Construction is complete and Garfield moves in to the building on December 30, Year 1. The total cost of construction, which is incurred evenly throughout Year 1, is $10 million. (Weighted-average accumulated expenditures during Year 1 were $5 million.) Garfield obtains a loan of $8 million at an interest rate of 10 percent on January 2, Year 1. Garfield Company has no other borrowings. The building is estimated to have a useful life of 20 years and a residual value of $2 million. Required: a. Use the information provided in this chapter related to borrowing costs to determine the impact on Year 1 and Year 2 income (1) under IFRSs, assuming IAS 23s benchmark treatment is followed, and (2) under U.S. GAAP.
b. Summarize the difference in income, total assets, and total stockholders equity over the 20-year life of the building under the two different sets of accounting rules. 6. Iptat International Ltd. provided the following reconciliation from IFRSs to U.S. GAAP in its most recent annual report (amounts in thousands of CHF):
Net Income As stated under IFRSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. GAAP adjustments (a) Reversal of additional depreciation charges arising from revaluation of fixed assets . . . . . . . . (b) Reversal of revaluation surplus of fixed assets . . . As stated under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541,713
85,720 627,433
Required: a. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (a) results in an addition to net income. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (a) results in an addition to shareholders equity that is greater than the addition to net income. What is the shareholders equity account affected by adjustment (a)? b. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (b) results in a subtraction from shareholders equity but does not affect net income. What is the shareholders equity account affected by adjustment (b)? 7. Xanxi Petrochemical Company provided the following reconciliation from IFRSs to U.S. GAAP in its most recent annual report (amounts in thousands of RMB):
Net Income As stated under IFRSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. GAAP adjustments (a) Reversal of amortization charge on goodwill . . . . (b) Gain on sale and leaseback of building As stated under U.S. GAAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938,655 5,655 (40,733) 903,577
Required: a. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (a) results in an addition to net income. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (a) results in an addition to shareholders equity that is greater than the addition to net income. What is the shareholders equity account affected by adjustment (a)? b. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (b) reduces net income. Explain why U.S. GAAP adjustment (b) reduces shareholders equity by a larger amount than it reduces net income. What is the shareholders equity account affected by adjustment (b)?
8. On October 1, Year 1, Clinton Company purchased all of the outstanding shares of Gore Company by paying $250,000 in cash. Gore has several assets with market values that differ from their book values. In addition, Gore has internally generated intangibles that remain unrecorded on its books. In deriving a purchase price, Clinton made assessments of the fair value of Gores net assets as follows:
Book Value Cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30,000 40,000 20,000 0 (40,000)
In addition, in-process research and development costs incurred by Gore up to the date of acquisition were $100,000. Sixty percent of in-process research and development costs were related to research. One-half of the costs related to development were incurred prior to the technical feasibility of completing and the ability to sell the product could be demonstrated. Required: Determine the amount of goodwill to be reported in accordance with IAS 22 by Clinton Company as a result of its purchase of Gore Company. 9. Buch Corporation purchased Machine Z at the beginning of Year 1 at a cost of $100,000. The machine is used in the production of Product X. The machine is expected to have a useful life of 10 years and no residual value. The straightline method of depreciation is used. Adverse economic conditions develop in Year 3 that result in a significant decline in demand for Product X. At December 31, Year 3, the company develops the following estimates related to Machine Z:
Expected future cash flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present value of expected future cash flows . . . Selling price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs of disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75,000 55,000 70,000 7,000
At the end of Year 5, Buchs management determines that there has been a substantial improvement in economic conditions resulting in a strengthening of demand for Product Z. The following estimates related to Machine Z are developed at December 31, Year 5:
Expected future cash flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present value of expected future cash flows . . . Selling price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs of disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $70,000 53,000 50,000 7,000
Required: Apply IAS 36 to determine: a.The carrying value for Machine Z to be reported on the balance sheet at the end of Years 15. b.The amounts to be reported in the income statement related to Machine Z for Years 15. 10. On January 1, Year 1, Holzer Company hired a general contractor to begin construction of a new office building. Holzer negotiated a $900,000, five-year, 10 percent loan on January 1, Year 1, to finance construction. Payments made to the general contractor for the building during Year 1 amount to $1,000,000. Payments were made evenly throughout the year. Construction is completed at the end of Year 1 and Holzer moves in and begins using the building on January 1, Year 2. The building is estimated to have a 40-year life and no residual value. On December 31, Year 3, Holzer Company determines that the market value for the building is $970,000. On December 31, Year 5, the company estimates the market value for the building to be $950,000. Required: Using the benchmark and allowed alternative treatments provided in (1) IAS 16 with respect to the measurement of property, plant, and equipment subsequent to initial recognition and (2) IAS 23 with respect to borrowing costs attributable to the construction of qualifying assets, there are four different combinations that could be used to determine the carrying value of the building over its useful life. For each of the four possible combinations determine: a. The carrying value of the building that would be reported on the balance sheet at the end of Years 15. b. The amounts to be reported in the income statement related to this building for Years 15. In each case, assume that the buildings value in use exceeds its carrying value at the end of each year and therefore impairment is not an issue. 11. Access the most recent Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by one of the following foreign companies: Bayer China Southern Airlines Nokia Novartis Swisscom Find the reconciliation from IFRSs to U.S. GAAP. Select three line items included in the reconciliation to fulfill the requirements of this exercise. Required: For each of the three line items: a. Describe, in your own words, the difference between the rules in IFRSs and the rules in U.S. GAAP that caused a reconciliation adjustment to be made. b. Explain the sign of the adjustments (positive or negative) related to net income and stockholders equity. If possible, also explain the magnitude of the adjustments related to net income and stockholders equity and/or the relative magnitude of the adjustment to net income and the adjustment to stockholders equity.
Case 4-1
Jardine Matheson uses International Financial Reporting Standards in preparing its financial statements and has done so for a number of years.
Required:
Access Jardine Mathesons most recent annual report on the companys Web site (www.jardine-matheson.com). Review the companys list of principal accounting policies to evaluate whether the accounting policies followed are in accordance with IFRSs. Document your evaluation. In those areas in which IFRSs allow choice among accounting alternatives, identify the alternative selected by Jardine Matheson.
1
References
Financial Accounting Standards Board. The IASC-U.S. Comparison Project, 2nd ed. Norwalk, CT: FASB, 1999. Ernst & Young. The Evolution of IAS 39 in Europe, Eye on IFRS Newsletter, November 2004, pp. 14. Reimers, J. L. Additional Evidence on the Need for Disclosure Reform. Accounting Horizons, March 1992, pp. 3641.