Reliable

IFRS 2022 update – IFRS 16 Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback – Best read

by

IFRS 2022 update – IFRS 16 Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback

Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2024.

Key requirements

On 22 September 2022, the International Accounting Standards Board (the IASB or Board) issued Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback (Amendments to IFRS 16) (the amendment). The amendment to IFRS 16 Leases specifies the requirements that a seller-lessee uses in measuring the lease liability arising in a sale and leaseback transaction, to ensure the seller-lessee does not recognise any amount of the gain or loss that relates to the right of use it retains.

A sale and leaseback transaction involves the transfer of an asset by an entity (the seller-lessee) to another entity (the buyer-lessor) and the leaseback of the same asset by the seller-lessee.

The amendment is intended to improve the requirements for sale and leaseback transactions in IFRS 16. It does not change the accounting for leases unrelated to sale and leaseback transactions.IFRS 16 Lease Liability in a Sale and Leaseback

Background

In a sale and leaseback transaction, the seller-lessee assesses whether the transfer of the asset satisfies the requirements in IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers to be accounted for as a sale. If it is accounted for as a sale, paragraph 100(a) of IFRS 16 requires the seller-lessee to measure the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback at the proportion of the previous carrying amount of the asset that relates to the right of use retained by the seller-lessee.

However, IFRS 16 did not specify the measurement of the liability that arises in a sale and leaseback transaction. This has been addressed in the amendment.

Amendment to IFRS 16

After the commencement date in a sale and leaseback transaction, the seller-lessee applies paragraphs 29 to 35 of IFRS 16 to the right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback and paragraphs 36 to 46 of IFRS 16 to the lease liability arising from the leaseback. In applying paragraphs 36 to 46, the seller-lessee determines ‘lease payments’ or ‘revised lease payments’ in such a way that the seller-lessee would not recognise any amount of the gain or loss that relates to the right of use retained by the seller-lessee. Applying these requirements does not prevent the seller-lessee from recognising, in profit or loss, any gain or loss relating to the partial or full termination of a lease, as required by paragraph 46(a) of IFRS 16.

Read more

The real meaning of Integrated reporting

by

The real meaning of integrated reporting

Integrated reporting is more than only aimed at informing interested stakeholders about performance achieved against targets, the vision and strategy adopted to serve the stakeholders’ interests, and other factors that can influence business performance in future.

Clearly regulations require companies to exercise transparency. However, a more fundamental reason for reporting lies in accountability: a company needs to account for the impact it has on the stakeholders it relates to. Not exercising such transparency would impose serious risks, including high financing costs to compensate for a lack of transparency or governance or, ultimately, losing the license to operate. By contrast, a transparent approach would not only improve reputation, but also would bind stakeholders such as employees to the company’s objectives.

The reason for including environmental and social factors in reporting

In today’s world companies play a significant role in shaping the future of society. Awareness of this has risen significantly over the last decades, resulting in changed attitudes towards the role business is expected to play.

It also resulted in changes in the views of business leaders about the role they want to play.

Business these days is seen more than ever as the agent of a wide group of stakeholders. Unlike the old paradigm that ‘the business of business is business’, companies accept wider accountability in current times towards the stakeholders whose interests they impact – no longer can companies focus only on the interests of those with a financial interest.

This wider accountability implies that companies have to fulfil the (information) needs of those who provide them with integrated reportingother economic resources such as labour, space, air or natural resources and those who enter into transactions with the organization such as customers. Therefore a company’s current performance and future ability to continue operations and achieve business growth needs to be evaluated on the basis of a comprehensive set of factors that influence these.

Read more

Acquisitions and mergers as per IFRS 3

by

Acquisitions and mergers

Acquisitions and mergers are becoming more and more common as entities aim to achieve their growth objectives. IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’ contains the requirements for these transactions, which are challenging in practice.

This narrative sets out how an entity should determine if the transaction is a business combination, and whether it is within the scope of IFRS 3.

Identifying a business combination

IFRS 3 refers to a ‘business combination’ rather than more commonly used phrases such as takeover, acquisition or Acquisitions and mergersmerger because the objective is to encompass all the transactions in which an acquirer obtains control over an acquiree no matter how the transaction is structured. A business combination is defined as a transaction or other event in which an acquirer (an investor entity) obtains control of one or more businesses.

An entity’s purchase of a controlling interest in another unrelated operating entity will usually be a business combination (see case below).

Case – Straightforward business combination

Entity T is a clothing manufacturer and has traded for a number of years. Entity T is deemed to be a business.

On 1 January 2020, Entity A pays CU 2,000 to acquire 100% of the ordinary voting shares of Entity T. No other type of shares has been issued by Entity T. On the same day, the three main executive directors of Entity A take on the same roles in Entity T.

Consider this…..

Entity A obtains control on 1 January 2020 by acquiring 100% of the voting rights. As Entity T is a business, this is a business combination in accordance with IFRS 3.

However, a business combination may be structured, and an entity may obtain control of that structure, in a variety of ways.

Read more

Fair value employee share options in IFRS 2

by

Fair value employee share options

Share options give the holder the right to buy the underlying shares at a set price, called the ‘exercise price’, over or at the end of an agreed period. If the share price exceeds the option’s exercise price when the option is exercised, then the holder of the option profits by the amount of the excess of the share price over the exercise price. Benefit is derived from the right under the option to buy a share for less than its value.

The holder’s cost is the exercise price, whereas the value is the share price. It is not necessary for the holder to sell the share for this profit to exist. Sale only results in realisation of the profit. Because an option holder’s profit increases as the underlying share price increases, share options are used to incentivise employees to contribute to an increase in the price of the underlying shares.

Employee options are typically call options, which give holders the right but not the obligation to buy shares. However, other types of options are also traded in markets. For example, put options give holders the right to sell the underlying shares at an agreed price for a set period.

Given that holders of put options profit when share prices fall below the exercise price, such options are not viewed as aligning the interests of employees and shareholders. All references in this section to ‘share options’ are to employee call options.

Share options granted by entities often cannot be valued with reference to market prices. Many entities, even those whose shares are quoted publicly, do not have options traded on their shares. Options that trade on recognised exchanges such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange are created by market participants and are not issued by entities directly.

Even when there are exchange-traded options on an entity’s shares for which prices are available, the terms and conditions of these options are generally different from the terms and conditions of options issued by entities in share-based payments and, as a result, the prices of such traded options cannot be used directly to value share options issued in a share-based payment.

Read more

Option valuation models

by

Option valuation models

Option valuation models use mathematical techniques to identify a range of possible future share prices at the exercise date. From these possible future share prices, the pay-off of an option can be calculated. These intrinsic values at exercise are then probability-weighted and discounted to their present value to estimate the fair value of the option at the grant date.

This narrative is part of the IFRS 2 series, look here.

Model selection

There are three main models used to value options:

  • closed-form models: e.g. the BSM model;
  • lattice models; and
  • simulation models: e.g. Monte Carlo models.

These models generally result in very similar values if the same assumptions are used. However, certain models may be more restrictive than others – e.g. in terms of the different pay-offs that can be considered or assumptions that can be incorporated.

For example, a BSM model incorporates early exercise behaviour by using an expected term assumption that is shorter than the contractual life, whereas a lattice model or Monte Carlo model can incorporate more complex early exercise behaviour.

Simple model explanation

The approach followed in, for example, a lattice model illustrates the principles used in an option valuation model in a simplified manner.

Read more

Transfer pricing – IAS 12 Best complete read

by

Transfer pricing
 for
transactions between related parties

A transfer price is the price charged between related parties (e.g., a parent company and its controlled foreign corporation) in an inter-company transaction. Although inter-company transactions are eliminated when consolidating the financial results of controlled foreign corporations and their domestic parents, for preparation of individual tax returns each entity (or a tax consolidation unit of more than one entity in the group in one and the same tax jurisdiction) prepares stand-alone (or a tax consolidation unit) tax returns.

See also:

IAS 24 Related parties narrative IFRS 15 Revenue narrative IAS 12 Income tax narrative

Transfer prices directly affect the allocation of group-wide taxable income across national tax jurisdictions. Hence, a group’s transfer-pricing policies can directly affect its after-tax income to the extent that tax rates differ across national jurisdictions.

Arm’s length transaction principle

Most OECD countries rely upon the OECD TP Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, that were originally released in 1995 and subsequently updated in 2017 (OECD TP Guidelines). The OECD TP Guidelines reaffirmed the OECD’s commitment to the arm’s length transaction principle.

In fact, the arm’s length transaction principle is considered “the closest approximation of the workings of the open market in cases where goods and services are transferred between associated enterprises.” The arm’s length principle implies that transfer prices between related parties should be set as though the entities were operating at arm’s length (i.e. were independent enterprises).

The application of the arm’s length transaction principle is generally based on a comparison of all the relevant conditions in a controlled transaction with the conditions in an uncontrolled transaction (i.e. a transaction between independent enterprises).

Read more

Disclosure non-financial assets and liabilities example

by

Disclosure non-financial assets and liabilities example

The guidance for this disclosure example is provided here.

8 Non-financial assets and liabilities

This note provides information about the group’s non-financial assets and liabilities, including:

  • specific information about each type of non-financial asset and non-financial liability
    • property, plant and equipment (note 8(a))
    • leases (note 8(b))
    • investment properties (note 8(c))
    • intangible assets (note 8(d))
    • deferred tax balances (note 8(e))
    • inventories (note 8(f))
    • other assets, including assets classified as held for sale (note 8(g))
    • employee benefit obligations (note 8(h))
    • provisions (note 8(i))
  • accounting policies
  • information about determining the fair value of the assets and liabilities, including judgements and estimation uncertainty involved (note 8(j)).

8(a) Property, plant and equipment

Amounts in CU’000

Freehold land

Buildings

Furniture, fittings and equipment

Machinery and vehicles

Assets under construction

Total

At 1 January 2019

Cost or fair value

11,350

28,050

27,510

70,860

–

137,770

Accumulated depreciation

–

–

-7,600

-37,025

–

-44,625

Net carrying amount

11,350

28,050

19,910

33,835

–

93,145

Movements in 2019

Exchange differences

–

–

-43

-150

–

-193

Revaluation surplus

2,700

3,140

–

–

–

5,840

Additions

2,874

1,490

2,940

4,198

3,100

14,602

Assets classified as held for sale and other disposals

-424

–

-525

-2,215

–

3,164

Depreciation charge

–

-1,540

-2,030

-4,580

–

8,150

Closing net carrying amount

16,500

31,140

20,252

31,088

3,100

102,080

At 31 December 2019

Cost or fair value

16,500

31,140

29,882

72,693

3,100

153,315

Accumulated depreciation

–

–

-9,630

-41,605

–

-51,235

Net carrying amount

16,500

31,140

20,252

31,088

3,100

102,080

Movements in 2020

Exchange differences

–

–

-230

-570

–

-800

Revaluation surplus

3,320

3,923

–

–

–

7,243

Acquisition of subsidiary

800

3,400

1,890

5,720

–

11,810

Additions

2,500

2,682

5,313

11,972

3,450

25,917

Assets classified as held for sale and other disposals

-550

–

-5,985

-1,680

–

-8,215

Transfers

–

–

950

2,150

-3,100

–

Depreciation charge

–

-1,750

-2,340

-4,380

–

-8,470

Impairment loss (ii)

–

-465

-30

-180

–

-675

Closing net carrying amount

22,570

38,930

19,820

44,120

3,450

128,890

At 31 December 2020

Cost or fair value

22,570

38,930

31,790

90,285

3,450

187,025

Accumulated depreciation

–

–

-11,970

-46,165

–

-58,135

Net carrying amount

22,570

38,930

19,820

44,120

3,450

128,890
(i) Non-current assets pledged as security

Refer to note 24 for information on non-current assets pledged as security by the group.

(ii) Impairment loss and compensation

The impairment loss relates to assets that were damaged by a fire – refer to note 4(b) for details. The whole amount was recognised as administrative expense in profit or loss, as there was no amount included in the asset revaluation surplus relating to the relevant assets. [IAS 36.130(a)]

Read more

Definition of provision – IAS 37 Complete easy read

by

Definition of provision

The definition of provision is key to IAS 37. A provision is a liability of uncertain timing or amount, meaning that there is some question over either how much will be paid or when this will be paid. In the past, these uncertainties may have been exploited by companies trying to ‘smooth profits’ in order to achieve the results they believe that their various stakeholder may want.

As part of the attempt of IASB to further restrict this type of earnings management within IFRSs, IASB adopted an update of IAS 37 in April 2001 originating from September 1998. IAS 37 was further updated for Onerous contracts – Costs of fulfilling a contract in May 2020.

IAS 37: ‘Onerous Contracts – Cost of Fulfilling a Contract’

lAS 37 defines an onerous contract as one in which the unavoidable costs of meeting the entity’s obligations exceed the economic benefits to be received under that contract. Unavoidable costs are the lower of the net cost of exiting the contract and the costs to fulfil the contract. The amendment clarifies the meaning of ‘costs to fulfil a contract’.

The amendment explains that the direct cost of fulfilling a contract comprises:

  • the incremental costs of fulfilling that contract (for example, direct labour and materials); and
  • an allocation of other costs that relate directly to fulfilling contracts (for example, an allocation ofthe depreciation charge for an item of PP&E used to fulfil the contract).

The amendment also clarifies that, before a separate provision for an onerous contract is established, an entity recognises any impairment loss that has occurred on assets used in fulfilling the contract, rather than on assets dedicated to that contract.

The amendment could result in the recognition of more onerous contract provisions, because previously some entities only included incremental costs in the costs to fulfil a contract.

The key definition of provision

Read more

11 Best fair value measurements under IFRS 13

by

11 Best fair value measurements under IFRS 13

Several IFRS standards provide guidance regarding the scope and application of the fair value option for assets and liabilities. Here they are from 1 to 11…….

1 Investments in associates and joint ventures

Investments held by venture capital organizations and the like are exempt from IAS 28’s requirements only when they are measured at fair value through profit or loss (FVPL) in accordance with IFRS 9. Changes in the fair value (FV) of such investments are recognized in profit or loss in the period of change.

The IASB acknowledged that FV information is often readily available in venture capital organizations and entities in similar industries, even for start-up and non-listed entities, as the methods and basis for fair value measurement are well established. The IASB also confirmed that the reference to well-established practice is to emphasize that the exemption applies generally to those investments for which fair value is readily available.

2 Intangible assets

Subsequent to initial recognition of intangible assets, an entity may adopt either the cost model or the revaluation model as its accounting policy. The policy should be applied to the whole of a class of intangible assets and not merely to individual assets within a class11 Best fair value measurements under IFRS 13, unless there is no active market for an individual asset.

The revaluation model may only be adopted if the intangible assets are traded in an active market; hence it is not frequently used. Further, the revaluation model may not be applied to intangible assets that have not previously been recognized as assets. For example, over the years an entity might have accumulated for nominal consideration a number of licenses of a kind that are traded on an active market. 11 Best fair value measurements under IFRS 13

The entity may not have recognized an intangible asset as the licenses were individually immaterial when acquired. If market prices for such licenses significantly increased, the value of the licenses held by the entity would substantially increase. In this case, the entity would be prohibited by IAS 38 from applying the revaluation model to the licenses, because they were not previously recognized as an asset.

Read more