Impairment testing cash generating unit with IFRS 16 leases

Impairment testing cash generating unit with leases (or impairment of leased assets) is about a right-of-use asset (leased asset) and  such an asset will frequently be included in a cash generating unit to be tested for impairment. At initial recognition, the right-of-use-asset equals the recognised lease liability, plus any lease payments made at or before the commencement date, less any lease incentives received, plus any initial direct costs incurred by the lessee and an estimate of costs to be incurred by the lessee in dismantling and removing the underlying asset and restoring the site on which the leased asset is located.

The most significant part of the right-of-use asset will often be the lease liability, which is the present value … Read more

Determining a leases discount rate

Determining a leases discount rate

The definition of the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate states that the rate should represent what the lessee ‘would have to pay to borrow over a similar term and with similar security, the funds necessary to obtain an asset of similar value to the right-of-use asset in a similar economic environment.’ In applying the concept of ‘similar security’, a lessee uses the right-of-use asset granted by the lease and not the fair value of the underlying asset.

This is because the rate should represent the amount that would be charged to acquire an asset of similar value for a similar period. For example, in determining the incremental borrowing rate on a 5 year lease of a property, the security for the portion of the asset being leased (i.e. the 5 year portion of its useful life) would be likely to vary significantly from the outright ownership of the property, as outright ownership would confer rights over a period of time that would typically be significantly greater than the 5-year right-of-use asset contained in the lease.

In practice, judgement may be needed to estimate an incremental borrowing rate in the context of a right-of-use asset, especially when the value of the underlying asset differs significantly from the value of the right-of-use asset.

An entity’s weighted-average cost of capital (‘WACC’) is not appropriate to use as a proxy for the incremental borrowing rate because it is not representative of the rate an entity would pay on borrowings. WACC incorporates the cost of equity-based capital, which is unsecured and ranks behind other creditors and will therefore be a higher rate than that paid on borrowings.

Read more

Lessee accounting under IFRS 16

Lessee accounting under IFRS 16

The key objective of IFRS 16 is to ensure that lessees recognise assets and liabilities for their major leases.

1. Lessee accounting model

A lessee applies a single lease accounting model under which it recognises all leases on-balance sheet, unless it elects to apply the recognition exemptions (see recognition exemptions for lessees in the link). A lessee recognises a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset and a lease liability representing its obligation to make payments. [IFRS 16.22]

[IFRS 16.47, IFRS 16.49]

IFRS 16 Balance sheet Profit or loss

Read more

IFRS 16 Lessor accounting

IFRS 16 Lessor accounting

Lessors continue to classify leases as finance or operating leases.

1. Lessor accounting model

The lessor follows a dual accounting approach for lease accounting. The accounting is based on whether significant risks and rewards incidental to ownership of an underlying asset are transferred to the lessee, in which case the lease is classified as a finance lease. This is similar to the previous lease accounting requirements that applied to lessors. The lessor accounting models are also essentially unchanged from IAS 17 Leases. [IFRS 16.B53, IFRS 16.BC289]

Are the lessee and lessor accounting models consistent?

No. A key consequence of the decision to retain the IAS 17 dual accounting model for lessors is a lack of consistency with the new lessee accounting model. This can be seen in the case Lease classification below:

  • the lessee applies the right-of-use model and recognises a right-of-use asset and a liability for its obligation to make lease payments; whereas
  • the lessor continues to recognise the underlying asset and does not recognise a financial asset for its right to receive lease payments.

There are also more detailed differences. For example, lessees and lessors use the same guidance for determining the lease term and assessing whether renewal and purchase options are reasonably certain to be exercised, and termination options not reasonably certain to be exercised. However, unlike lessees, lessors do not reassess their initial assessments of lease term and whether renewal and purchase options are reasonably certain to be exercised, and termination options not reasonably certain to be exercised (see changes in the lease term in the link).

Other differences are more subtle. For example, although the definition of lease payments is similar for lessors and lessees (see lease payments in the link), the difference is the amount of residual value guarantee included in the lease payments.

  • The lessor includes the full amount (regardless of the likelihood that payment will be due) of any residual value guarantees provided to the lessor by the lessee, a party related to the lessee or a third party unrelated to the lessor that is financially capable of discharging the obligations under the guarantee.
  • The lessee includes only any amounts expected to be payable to the lessor under a residual value guarantee.

Read more

Sub-leases under IFRS 16

Sub-leases under IFRS 16

The classification guidance in IFRS 16 means that many sub-leases are finance leases, impacting the financial position and financial performance of intermediate lessors.

A sub-lease is a transaction in which a lessee (or ‘intermediate lessor’) grants a right to use the underlying asset to a third party, and the lease (or ‘head lease’) between the original lessor and lessee remains in effect.

A company applies IFRS 16 to all leases of right-of-use assets in a sub-lease. The intermediate lessor accounts for the head lease and the sub-lease as two different contracts, applying both the lessee and lessor accounting requirements. [IFRS 16.3]

Sub-leases under IFRS 16

An intermediate lessor classifies the sub-lease as a finance lease or as an operating lease with reference to the right-of-use asset arising from the head lease. That is, the intermediate lessor treats the right-of-use asset as the underlying asset in the sub-lease, not the item of property, plant or equipment that it leases from the head lessor. [IFRS 16.B58]

Read more

IFRS 16 Good Important Read – Lease payments

Lease payments – Lessee perspective

or what does a lessee include in its lease liability?

At the commencement date, a lessee measures the lease liability as the present value of lease payments that have not been paid at that date. In a simple lease that includes only fixed lease payments, this can be a simple calculation (IFRS 16.26).

Lease payments

Worked example – Fixed lease payments are included in lease liabilities
Lessee B enters into a five year lease of a photocopier. The lease payments are 10,000 per annum, paid at the end of each year.

Because the annual lease payments are fixed amounts, B includes the present value of the five annual payments in the initial measurement of the lease liability.

Using a discount rate (determined as B’s incremental borrowing rate) of 5%, the lease liability at the commencement date is calculated as follows:

Year

Lease payments

Discounted

1

10,000

9,524

2

10,000

9,070

3

10,000

8,638

4

10,000

8,227

5

10,000

7,835

Lease liability at commencement date

43,294

 

Categories of lease payment

Read more

IFRS vs US GAAP Investment property – Broken in 10 great excellent reads

IFRS vs US GAAP Investment property

The following discussion captures a number of the more significant GAAP differences under both the impairment standards. It is important to note that the discussion is not inclusive of all GAAP differences in this area.

The significant differences and similarities between U.S. GAAP and IFRS related to accounting for investment property are summarized in the following tables.

Standards Reference

US GAAP1

IFRS2

360 Property, Plant and equipment

IAS 40 Investment property

Introduction

The guidance under US GAAP and IFRS as it relates to investment property contains some significant differences with potentially far-reaching implications.

Links to detailed observations by subject

Definition and classification Initial measurement Subsequent measurement
Fair value model Cost model Subsequent expenditure
Timing of transfers Measurement of transfers Redevelopment
Disposals

Overview

US GAAP

IFRS

Unlike IFRS Standards, there is no specific definition of ‘investment property’; such property is accounted for as property, plant and equipment unless it meets the criteria to be classified as held-for-sale.

‘Investment property’ is property (land or building) held by the owner or lessee to earn rentals or for capital appreciation, or both.

Unlike IFRS Standards, there is no guidance on how to classify dual-use property. Instead, the entire property is accounted for as property, plant and equipment.

A portion of a dual-use property is classified as investment property only if the portion could be sold or leased out under a finance lease. Otherwise, the entire property is classified as investment property only if the portion of the property held for own use is insignificant.

Unlike IFRS Standards, ancillary services provided by a lessor do not affect the treatment of a property as property, plant and equipment.

If a lessor provides ancillary services, and such services are a relatively insignificant component of the arrangement as a whole, then the property is classified as investment property.

Like IFRS Standards, investment property is initially measured at cost as property, plant and equipment.

Investment property is initially measured at cost.

Unlike IFRS Standards, subsequent to initial recognition all investment property is measured using the cost model as property, plant and equipment.

Subsequent to initial recognition, all investment property is measured under either the fair value model (subject to limited exceptions) or the cost model.

If the fair value model is chosen, then changes in fair value are recognised in profit or loss.

Unlike IFRS Standards, there is no requirement to disclose the fair value of investment property.

Disclosure of the fair value of all investment property is required, regardless of the measurement model used.

Similar to IFRS Standards, subsequent expenditure is generally capitalised if it is probable that it will give rise to future economic benefits.

Subsequent expenditure is capitalised only if it is probable that it will give rise to future economic benefits.

Unlike IFRS Standards, investment property is accounted for as property, plant and equipment, and there are no transfers to or from an ‘investment property’ category.

Transfers to or from investment property can be made only when there has been a change in the use of the property.

IFRS vs US GAAP Investment property IFRS vs US GAAP Investment property IFRS vs US GAAP Investment property

Read more

Best guide IFRS 16 Lessee modifications

Best guide IFRS 16 Lessee modifications

summarises the process surrounding changes in lease contracts that identify as lease modification.

A lessee that chooses not to apply the practical expedient (IFRS 16 option for rent concessions arising directly from the COVID-19 pandemic that are not going to be accounted for as lease modifications), or agrees changes to its lease contracts that do not qualify for the practical expedient, assesses whether there is a lease modification.

Overview

A change in the scope of a lease, or the consideration for a lease, that was not part of the original terms and conditions meets the standard’s definition of a lease modification.

A lessee accounts for a lease modification as a separate lease if both of the following conditions exist:

  • the modification increases the scope of the lease by adding the right to use one or more underlying assets; and
  • the consideration for the lease increases by an amount equivalent to the stand- alone price for the increase in scope and any appropriate adjustments to that stand-alone price to reflect the circumstances of the particular contract.

For a modification that is not a separate lease, at the effective date of the modification the lessee accounts for it by remeasuring the lease liability using a discount rate determined at that date and:

  • for modifications that decrease the scope of the lease: decreasing the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset to reflect the partial or full termination of the lease, and recognising a gain or loss that reflects the proportionate decrease in scope; and
  • for all other modifications: making a corresponding adjustment to the right-of- use asset.

Read more

IFRS 16 Effective date of a modification

IFRS 16 Effective date of a modification

The date on which to account for a lease modification is a key consideration – and may be earlier than you think.

Lease modifications are accounted for at the effective date of the lease modification. This is the date on which both parties agree to the lease modification. For modifications that are not accounted for as separate leases, the lease liability and right-of-use asset are remeasured at this date.

Complex application issues arise if the modification is agreed on one date but an additional right of use starts on a later date. This section illustrates some issues. IFRS 16 Effective date of a modification

The following diagram summarises the accounting for common scenarios in which a modification is agreed on one date but the change in the right of use or consideration happens at a different date. IFRS 16 Effective date of a modification

IFRS 16 Effective date of a modification

When a modification is accounted for as a separate new lease, it is accounted for in the same way as any other new lease.

Read more

Beware of COVID 19 Rent concessions IFRS accounting

Beware of COVID 19 Rent concessions IFRS accounting

IFRS 16 amendments Corona Rent concessions provide relief to lessees in accounting for rent concessions.

IFRS 16 Rent concession amendments in a nutshell

The lessee perspective

The amendments to IFRS 16 add an optional practical expedient that allows lessees to bypass assessing whether a rent concession that meets the following criteria is a lease modification:

  • it is a direct consequence of COVID-19; Beware of COVID 19 Rent concessions IFRS accounting
  • the revised lease consideration is substantially the same as, or less than, the original lease consideration;
  • any reduction in the lease payments applies to payments originally due on or before June 30, 2021; and
  • there is no substantive change to the other terms and conditions of the lease.

Lessees who elect this practical expedient account for qualifying rent concessions in the same way as changes under IFRS 16 that are not lease modifications. The accounting will depend on the nature of the concession, but one outcome might be to recognize negative variable lease payments in the period in which the lessor agrees to an unconditional forgiveness of lease payments.

Lessees are required to apply the practical expedient consistently to similar leases and similar concessions. They must also disclose if they elected the practical expedient and for which concessions, as well as the amount recognized in profit and loss in the reporting period to reflect changes in lease payments that arise from rent concessions to which they have applied the practical expedient.

The amendments are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 1, 2020, with early application permitted.

Read more