3 Biggest Myths in Accounting for PPE
I often talk with many professionals about a practical application of IFRS and the topic of long-term tangible asset is very frequent.
To my surprise I found out that a lot of them believed that with regard to accounting for property, plant and equipment (especially real estate of various kinds), there is just 1 standard – IAS 16, and just 2 models are prescribed:
- Cost model, and
- Fair value model under which you revalue your PPE to fair value and you recognize fair value changes in other comprehensive income.
Let me tell you – this is wrong.
Here, I’d like to correct this misunderstanding and set the record straight.
Myth #1: You have to account for all long-term tangible assets under IAS 16
This is wrong.
There are few IFRS standards to pick from and the selection basically depends on the purpose or reason why you hold an asset.
Be extremely careful here, because sometimes, the classification is NOT that easy and obvious and you need to make judgment in order to pick the right standard.
Short example: which standard to apply?
As an example – last year we visited dolphin show with my kids. While they were observing dolphins dancing in the water, I was thinking about how to account for them (yes, I suffer from “job-related impacts”).
The fact it’s a living animal might suggest that it’s automatically biological asset under IAS 41, but is it really?
Well, no. Here, the dolphins were used primarily for being shown to people and they generated income from fees paid by these people – this is NOT an agricultural activity and as a result, IAS 41 does NOT apply. Yes, you guessed that – here, IAS 16 applies.
But, if the company would have bred the dolphins in order to get their offspring (children) and sell young dolphins, then yes, this would have been an agricultural activity and IAS 41 applies here.
This short example should give you a hint to be a little bit careful and think before you classify your assets.
Which standards can we choose from?
- IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment
IAS 16 is probably the first standard catching your attention when you need to decide how to account for your newly acquired piece of long-term tangible asset.
Indeed, if you hold your assets with the purpose of using them in the production of goods or providing services, for rentals to others or administrative purposes, then yes, this one can be the right choice.
- IAS 40 Investment Property
IAS 40 is often an omitted standard, but it gives you a great choice for your buildings or lands held to earn rentals.
Moreover, if you hold your buildings or land for capital appreciation purposes (i.e. making profit from their fair value changes), then you need to apply IAS 40 rather than IAS 16.
- IAS 2 Inventories
This should be no surprise for a seasoned CFO: when you hold some long-term assets in order to sell them in an ordinary course of your business, then they are inventories rather than property, plant and equipment.
For example, car dealers report new cars for resale under “inventories”, and cars for their own use usually under “property, plant and equipment”.
- IAS 41 Agriculture
- IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
IFRS 5 is here for a very special occasion: as soon as specified conditions are met (i.e. management is committed to a sale, an asset is immediately available for sale, etc.), then you can forget about IAS 16 and other standards.
Instead, you need to focus on IFRS 5.
I’m mentioning this one just to give you the full picture, but here again, think of IAS 41 for all your biological assets used in an agricultural activity (with the new exception of bearer plants).
As you can see, the first question you need to ask when classifying your long-term asset is:
What is the purpose or the reason why we hold this asset?
Myth #2: You can choose only between cost model and fair value model.
This is wrong again.
As I wrote above, there are many standards fitting individual situations and each standard contains at least one model available.
But for a while, let’s forget about assets held for sale, inventories and biological assets. Anyway, most questions I receive related to production assets, especially buildings and lands.
What models are available for the production assets, including buildings and lands?
There are 3 models:
- Cost model under IAS 16;
- Revaluation model under IAS 16; and
- Fair value model under IAS 40.
The most common model is probably the cost model, under which you hold your assets at their cost less accumulated depreciation (less accumulated impairment losses if there are some).
Sometimes, this model does not fit the situation well – for example, when you invested into a building with the purpose of selling it later.
Also, many companies do not apply the cost model properly, as they often forget to revise useful lives of their assets and as a result, they still use fully depreciated assets in the business.
Let me tell you, that with the reference to 2 remaining models, there’s one very common misconception:
Myth #3: The fair value model is the same as the revaluation model.
Wrong!
These models are totally different, although they have one common feature: fair value.
Yet I often hear the wrong statement: “under fair value model, you revalue your assets regularly to their fair value with the changes recognized in other comprehensive income”.
This was a mixture of fair value model and revaluation model.
So what’s the difference?
Revaluation model
Revaluation model is prescribed as an option under IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.
It means that you can apply it for any assets used for more than 1 year in the production process, for rental to others or for administrative purposes, including your buildings or machinery.
Under this model, you should revalue your assets regularly to their fair value and depreciate revalued amount over remaining useful life. When you revalue your assets, the change is recognized in other comprehensive income (with some exceptions).
Here, the important thing is that you can use revaluation model also for machinery (unlike fair value model) and also, you charge depreciation (not under fair value model).
Fair value model
Fair value model is prescribed as an option under IAS 40 Investment Property.
You can apply it only for buildings and lands held either to earn rentals or for capital appreciation (or both).
Under this model, you should value your assets at their fair value after initial recognition, with the fair value changes recognized in profit or loss.
Here, you cannot apply fair value model to your machinery (unlike revaluation model), and also, you do NOT charge any depreciation.
To illustrate the differences between fair value model and revaluation model, let’s solve a small example.
Example: Building and 2 models
On 1 January 20X1, ABC company acquired a building with the total cost of CU 300 000. As of 31 December 20X1, the following information is available:
- Building’s useful life is 30 years.
- Building’s fair value at 31 December 20X1 is CU 310 000.
What accounting entries shall ABC make with respect to this building in 20X1 under:
- Fair value model
- Revaluation model
Building and fair value model
Here, the things are quite simple and easy. ABC simply revalues building to its fair value of CU 310 000 and does not care about the depreciation as there’s none.
The journal entry is:
- Debit Assets – Investment property with CU 10 000 (310 000-300 000); and
- Credit Profit or loss – Fair value gain on investment property with CU 10 000.
Here please note that the building is shown under the heading “Investment property” and not “Property, plant and equipment” and of course, it’s purpose is either to earn rentals or for capital appreciation (otherwise, you cannot apply IAS 40 and fair value model).
Building and revaluation model
Similarly as before, ABC revalues its building to the fair value of CU 310 000.
However, as we are under revaluation model now, some depreciation for 1-year usage in 20X1 should be recognized. The building’s useful life is 30 years, therefore, ABC makes the following journal entries:
Depreciation in 20X1:
- Debit Profit or loss – depreciation with CU 10 000 (300 000 divided by 30 years); and
- Credit Assets – PPE (accumulated depreciation) with CU 10 000.
Revaluation as of 31 December 20X1:
- Debit Assets – PPE with CU 20 000 (Fair value of CU 310 000 less carrying amount of CU 290 000); and
- Credit Equity – revaluation surplus with CU 20 000.
In 20X2, ABC will charge depreciation amounting to CU 10 690 per year, which is calculated as revalued amount of CU 310 000 divided by the remaining useful life of 29 years.
The little trick here is to make a transfer between retained earnings and revaluation surplus in equity amounting to difference in depreciation charges from revalued amount and original cost:
- Debit Equity – Revaluation surplus with CU 690; and
- Credit Retained earnings – depreciation charge with CU 690.
The reason for this transfer is to bring revaluation surplus related to building to zero together with its depreciation over its remaining useful life.
I hope that this article cleared the confusion related to fair value model and revaluation model, plus a couple of other myths related to measurement of long-term tangible assets.
Please, if you have anything to say, leave a comment below and share this article with your friends – thank you!
JOIN OUR FREE NEWSLETTER AND GET
report "Top 7 IFRS Mistakes" + free IFRS mini-course
Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription.
Recent Comments
- Silvia on How to calculate deferred tax with step-by-step example (IAS 12)
- lino Rosas on How to calculate deferred tax with step-by-step example (IAS 12)
- Silvia on IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements: summary
- Kevin on IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements: summary
- Silvia on 3 Biggest Myths in Accounting for PPE
Categories
- Accounting Policies and Estimates (14)
- Consolidation and Groups (24)
- Current Assets (21)
- Financial Instruments (56)
- Financial Statements (52)
- Foreign Currency (9)
- IFRS Videos (71)
- Insurance (3)
- Most popular (6)
- Non-current Assets (54)
- Other Topics (15)
- Provisions and Other Liabilities (45)
- Revenue Recognition (26)
- Uncategorized (1)
Silvia,
Why is gain on revaluation being classified in OCI rather than P&L, but loss on revaluation is included in P&l?
Very good explanation
thank you so much
Hi,
Thanks for your nice writing!
I have a question to you if we can change Recognition after initial measurement model from Revaluation Model to Cost Model. If so that will be considered as a change in policy obviously and we need to apply this change retrospectively?
Kind regards,
Nasir
Thank you Silvia for the explanations on how to account for PPE with different purposes.
Thank you Silvia,
Pls what is difference between using long term tangible assets for rent to others under IAS 16 and use to earn rentals under IAS 40. They look same to me. Thank you
The difference is that under IAS 40, only land and properties (buildings…) are covered. Under IAS 16, you are covering everything else (machines…).
You have done very well. This has really explained explained the differences between the treatment of fair value changes and revaluation. Thank you.
Hi Silva. Many thanks for the great article. I do have a question though.
A company applies the Cost model for its building. So through annual depreciation and possible impairment loss, the carrying value of the building keeps on decreasing. But the reality is that building generally appreciates in value over time. Should the increase in value be accounted for? If so what would the entries be.
Would love to hear from you. And thanks again for your great effort..
Hi Mimi,
yes, understood. In this case, you should really think of switching to revaluation model instead of cost model if the value goes up. Or, you should really revise the residual value and remaining useful life at the end of each reporting period and adjust the depreciation charges in future periods accordingly. S.
Hi Silva.
Thank you very very much. BIG help. But please correct me here — By “revise the residual value”” , .does this actually mean increasing the residual value so that the amount to be depreciated gets smaller?
Also, can you help to explain what should be done in this next case. Again building using the cost model having a carrying value of $1 million. The building is then transferred to be an investment property using the fair value method. At the date of transfer fair value of the building is $1.2 million. Because it was under the cost model, can the $200,000 be taken as a revaluation surplus? If so, where does this surplus go?
My understanding is that under the cost model a revaluation is not done at all. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also what happens If the IP is also using the cost model. Would the increase $200,000 be ignored?.
Would again love to hear from you. Really appreciate your reply.
Thank you Silvia.
Perfect.
Hi Silvia, Thank you very much for this article which greatly clear out some confusing in regard to treatment PPE in my organization. It was an eye-opener for me to learnt that the fair value model and revaluation model under IFRS are not the same thing. Great and thanks alot!
Silvia!
Thank you so very much for your most informative elucidation about the accounting differences between Fair Value and Revaluation Actg! You’re doing an inimitable service for even us who are qualified professionals- with little time to pore through the everchanging IFRS rule book to research and learn the the nuances!
Thank you! 🙂
Hi silvia,
If we receive the ownership of assets free of charge from inter company , is it okay to record the assets at zero cost. we are following cost model as accounting policy.
suneth
Thank you for the great great article and I have also seen many people (perhaps accountants) do not know these differences. Much appreciated!!!
Thank you, glad to help!
Hi
I am not able to understand the following para. Please elaborate:
The little trick here is to make a transfer between retained earnings and revaluation surplus in equity amounting to difference in depreciation charges from revalued amount and original cost:
Debit Equity – Revaluation surplus with CU 690; and
Credit Retained earnings – depreciation charge with CU 690.
The reason for this transfer is to bring revaluation surplus related to building to zero together with its depreciation over its remaining useful life.
Hi KG,
if you don’t do this entry, then how will the situation look at the end of asset’s useful life? The carrying amount of the asset would be zero, but you would still have corresponding revaluation surplus in equity, which is incorrect. This entry prevents such a situation.
S.
Dear Silvia,
Good day. Thank you for your articles which make clarify between Fair value model and also Revaluation model.
However, I do facing some complexity situation which have the impairment indicator as below:
In 2016: Cost model adapted – Motor Vessel (Ship) purchase in 2010.
– Cost : $12,000,000
– Depreciation : $400,000 per annum
– Estimated useful life : 25 years
– Residual value : $2,000,000
– Accumulated impairment losses : $850,000
Carrying amount as at 31 December 2016: Cost – Acc. Dep – Impairment
= $12,000,000 – $2,400,000 – $850,000
= $8,750,000
In 2017: To apply Revaluation model
Revaluation amount as at 31 December 2017: $8,500,000
1) When determine the Revaluation surplus should I consider the impairment as below?
(a) Revaluation amount : $8,500,000
(b) Carrying value as at 31 December 2017 = Cost – Acc. Dep – Impairment
CA = $12,000,000 – [$2,400,000 (b/f) + $400,000 (current)] – $850,000
= $8,350,000
Question: Revaluation surplus = Compare (a) vs (b)
= $150,000?
2) Re-compute depreciation for 2018 as below?
(a) Original depreciation = Cost – RV / Estimated useful life
= $12,000,000 – $2,000,000 / 25 yrs
= $400,000
(b) Revalue depreciation = Cost – RV / Remaining useful life
= $8,500,000 – $2,000,000 / 18 yrs
= $361,111
Question: Will the above computation correct? How should I encounter the differences above?
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Areal
How will you account for buildings when the leasehold life which was used as basis for depreciating the buildings is extended.ie there is a change in accounitng estimate?
Will you readjust prior years depreciation charges and write it back as income in the year of change of the accounting estimate and also increase the carrying value of the buildings?
Will such treatment be in accord with IAS 8?
What will be the treatment if part of a PPE which was valued as per revaluation model, be transferred to IP? How will the portion of revaluation reserve relating to the asset being transferred be treated. For example: 4 storey building (PPE) valued 400,000 (Revaluation reserve – 300,000). Out of this building one storey (1/4th) is now reclassified as IP. Fair value on date of transfer of the whole building is 500,000.
I would be grateful if you could explain the above query.
Thanks
Kind regards
Karthik
Hi Karthik, you just leave it there until the investment property is disposed. On disposal, you transfer the remaining revaluation surplus to equity (not via profit or loss). S.
Hello, do you allow guest posting on ifrsbox.com ? 🙂 Please let me know on my email
Please contact me via our Contact page.
Hi Silvia, I have a doubt in IAS 16 it is mentioned that “An entity is using cost model for investment Property as per IAS 40,shall use the cost model in this standard for owned investment property”. Now my question is why in IAS 16 this reference is given, because if we have owned investment property we would have already considering it in investment Property, not here then why a specific mention is given in IAS 16.
hello every one,
i have a question regarding the 2 models i.e cost model and revaluation model, the company we are auditing is an ISP which has alot of technical equipments but the confession is whether to value all the fixed assets on cost or use cost model for some assets and revaluation model for the Technical equipment, Does the standard allow this or is there any exception in this situation or not,
Hi Sharif,
you need to apply the same model to the entire CLASS of your property, plant and equipment. Therefore, it’s possible to apply cost model for buildings and revaluation model for all the technical equipment, just as an example. S.
You have convert very complex area to a very simple way thank you very much
Hi Silvia
It is wonderful article. I have read all your article which help me to understand conceptually. Thanks for work.
Chan
Dear Silvia, thank you for the interesting article once again. However, if the cost of a long term asset is insignificant, will it be possible to recognize it as expense outright rather than as asset under IAS 16 or IAS40?
Hi Alex,
in my opinion yes, it is possible, because IFRS names the materiality and aggregation concept as one of its fundamentals. So, if these items are not material (individually and also in their aggregate value), then just expense them and your financial statements would still present a true and fair view. I suggest you should elaborate it in your internal accounting regulation. S.
Dear Silvia,
The entity has adopted revaluation model for it’s property under IAS 16, can switch back revaluation model to cost model?
Dear Yaohua,
as I wrote somewhere above, yes, it’s possible when a cost model would provide more reliable information than a revaluation model – but this is highly unlikely and you would have a hard time to justify such a shift. S.
Dear Silvia, Thanks for the reply and explanation. In event of switching back to cost model would provide more reliable information, how to account for this? The cost of property would be stated back to original purchase price or the original price plus cumulative fair value reserve?
Transfer between retained earnings and revaluation surplus in equity for difference in depreciation charges from revalued amount and original cost – Is this shown in the OCI or is this shown in the Statement of changes in Equity as a transfer between reserve & retained earnings. How will you account for the deferred tax on this lets say if the tax rate was 30% and were would you disclose this and what will the entries.
Thanks for your help in advance
Dear Vipi, you don’t calculate deferred tax on revaluation surplus in equity 🙂 You calculate your deferred tax on PPE. E.g. if cost was 100, revaluation 20, then you book deferred tax as 20*30% = 6 as Debit reval. surplus 6/credit DTL 6 (let’s say you tax depreciation rates are the same as accounting depreciation rates and the only deferred tax is from revaluation).
Then let’s say you depreciate over 4 years, thus 1-year depr. is 30, thereof 25 on the cost and 5 on the revaluation. Thus, the carrying amount of your asset contains revaluation of 15 (after 1-year depreciation 20-5). Your deferred tax is then 15*30% = 4.5 (DTL). Previous DTL was 6, the difference is 1.5 and you recognize it as Debit DTL 1.5/Credit reval. surplus 1.5. Hope it helps. S.
If we switch revaluation model to cost model:
1) what new value will we use? and
2) how will we apply changes – retrospectively or prospectively?
Dear Silvia,
Please help on the following.
we have invested in REPO and we have diclosed as a held to maturity investment. but REPO investment is a cash equivalent. Therefore can we reclassify as cash equivalent? if so the effects on cash flow and BS?
Dear Vidarshana,
if it’s a cash equivalent (e.g. short-term investment with maturity lower than 3 months), then yes, you should state it as a cash equivalent. S.
Hi Sylvia.
Thank you.
Please assist to explain in simple words what”other comprehensive income” is.
I hear income not yet realized is classified as other comprehensive income. if so, why don’t we classify unrealized exchange gains and losses as other comprehensive income since they have not been realized?
Dear Ify,
I cannot agree with the statement that “other comprehensive income is income not yet reaized” – it’s simply not true. Other comprehensive income- in simple words – is a part of equity created by items other than contribution from shareholders and profit/loss for the period. Some items are recognized directly in equity – in OCI. I think this article explains it very well. S.
Hi Silvia.I do not understand why we are tranfering the depriciation difference of original cost and revalued amount,yes i do get that you say we must bring the revalued amount related to property to zero and its depriciation to zero,but why?Thank you.
Njabulo, I’ve written about it somewhere above in the comment but once again: if you don’t do the transfer, then at the end of asset’s useful life, it’s carrying amount will be zero (as it will be fully depreciated), but you will still have some revaluation surplus in the equity related to that revaluation, which is not OK.
I believe Revaluation surplus can also be transferred to revenue reserve once asset is de recognised from books
Sure, but the logic of the standard is to do this gradually over the asset’s useful life and not at the end of it at derecognition.
Thanks for the clarifications!
Excellent explanation …Easy to understand
Hi Sylvia, may you please explain if it is allowed to use cost model for a certain period of time then change it to revaluation model and then use the cost model again?
Dear Eduard,
well, you should not really move back and forth from one model to another one – technically it’s not forbidden, but you should have pretty good reasons for doing so. S.
Hi Silvia, thanks for the response. Can you please help on giving specific examples for this? Would appreciate if you could cite specific statement with reference IAS 8 or any applicable standard. Thanks much!
Silva thanks for hammering my confusions regarding the models. I wonder if you can help with intragroup
Dear Silvia,
Thank you a lot for shedding light on a lot of my questions! Your articles are really very helpful! Could you please also explain what do you mean when you say: “for rentals to others” and “to earn rentals”. Maybe I am foreigner therefore I cant catch the difference between these two. I would highly appreciate if you could respond to my inquiry. Thanks in advance!
I don’t think there’s actually any difference at all. You’re probably confused because IAS 16 claims to include in its definition of PPE tangible items held “for rental to others” while IAS 40 also says that it covers assets held to “earn rentals”. If my guess is right, you’re not sure which of the two standards to apply. The answer depends on whether the asset in question (held to earn rentals) is immovable (i.e. land/or building) or not. If it is, then you account for it using IAS 40 (cost/FV model). If not (e.g. it’s a machinery), follow the provisions of IAS 16.
Thank you for your comment, but I disagree with the last 2 sentences. There is NO rule of thumb – immovable asset=IAS 40 and movable asset=IAS 16.
Yes, you can’t apply IAS 40 to movable assets, but you actually can apply revaluation model to immovables, like buildings. For example, a building that you use for your own admin purposes, having a high market value due to great location – in this case, you can well opt to apply revaluation model, as revaluations reflect the changes in building’s market value and depreciation reflects the usage of the building. S.
Hi! I agree that an immovable property may be measured using the revaluation model, but ONLY if it’s a PPE not being held to be rented out to others. If the immovable is being used for purposes that would qualify it as PPE (e.g. for administrative purposes), then yes, it may be measured subsequently either at historical cost (less acc dep and acc impairment losses) or at revalued amount as per IAS 16. But if the immovable is being held for rentals to others, I believe it should be measured using the provisions of IAS 40. Reading my previous comment, I can see now that it was a bit unclear; I hope this clears everything out.
Awesome website, btw! 🙂
Thanks!
And yes,of course, I agree that when immovable is rented out, then it falls under the scope of IAS 40. Peace! 🙂
I’m so grateful for the explanation you’ve given on these various models which I never had an idea of. Keep up with the good work.
Thanks well explain.
Hi. Thanks for the informative article. Quick question if a customer defaults and offers us their property as payment of debt, confirm we measure the property received initially at fair value. If so please point me to the IFRS reference that says so. I am getting confused with IAS 16, para 6 which states, “Cost is the amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the other consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or construction or where applicable , the amount attributed to that asset when initially recognized in accordance with specific requirements of other IFRSs”. This seems to imply that we should measure the property intial cost at the amount for the debt that the customer owed.
simple and well explained. thank you. Im about to take my exam tomorrow. your articles helped me a lot in clarifying confusing matters. very enlightening. cheers! 🙂
Aaaa, wishing you a good luck! Let us know the outcome 🙂 S.
In the buildings revaluation model example, I don’t understand the logic behind the journal for 20×2 – decreasing the reval by 690 & increasing your Retained earnings by the same. Whereabouts in the standard does this is mentioned- can you please provide me a reference to IAS 16 as well.
Thanks
IAS 16 paragraph 41
I have been through the para as provided above- but still not clear about the logic for the entry – as this doesn’t affect the equity but its just a transfer between equity.
If you are doing a revaluation of building – lets say by a registered valuer – who will have take into account the age/useful life of the asset for valuation purposes. In this case , should we increase the dep rate?
Dear Vipin,
the logic in the entry: if you don’t do it, then you would have some revaluation surplus forever there. However, you depreciate your asset. So after the end of asset’s useful life, its carrying amount is 0, but there’s a revaluation surplus related to that asset in the equity – which is not right.
Increase of the depreciation rate: it depends on the useful life and on the previous rates – are they straight line? Or some other? S.
Hi Silvia,
Thanks for that quick response. Now this makes sense – thanks for clarifying the reasoning behind the entry- much appreciated.
Can you please clarify the other with an example?
Thanks
Hi Silvia,
With respect to your question on whether its straigthline or some other.
Lets say if its straightline for 20yrs and lets say its diminishing value @ 10%.
Can you please clarify with a small example?
Thanks for your help
Very good explanation. But now I really confused between IAS 40 Investment property and IAS 17 Leases. Both relates to assets given to rental to others.
Sylvia,
I really appreciate.
Very informative, and easy to understand. Keep it up.
Hello, I am auditing a hospital, which got PPE free of charge from one of its supervisory board member. The company uses cost model for PPE valuation. How should i account for this transaction?
Hi Kitty,
at fair value, as an income in profit or loss (unless the board member is a shareholder). The reason is that IFRS are not in favor of “capital” approach or accounting these items directly in equity. You can adopt analogical policy as for government grants under IAS 20. S.
Silvia, congrats for the very enlighting article. However, i need one clariffication.
What is the difference between
– “used for more than 1 year …. for rental to others” –> IAS 16 applies and
– ” buildings and lands held either to earn rentals ” –> IAS 40 applies?
As I understand, both properties are rented to third parties, so they should be classified as “Investment Property”.
What am I missing?
Hi Themis, the example does not say that the building is held to earn rentals 🙂 I just illustrate 2 different models. And yes, if the building is used only for earning rentals, then it would be more appropriate to apply IAS 40, although IAS 16 also covers assets held for rentals. Anyway, you can still apply revaluation model to your buildings for various reasons. S.
The answer depends on whether the asset in question (held to earn rentals) is immovable (i.e. land/or building) or not. If it is, then you account for it using IAS 40 (cost/FV model). If not (e.g. it’s a machinery), follow the provisions of IAS 16.
I do not agree fully. There is no rule of thumb. Please see my comment below under your other comment. S.
Silvia what happens with I.P’s ie copyrights?Client developed (internally) banking software and he estimates that it can be sold for 5m but he will not put it in market as its value will drop by 90m, however he estimates that the cost is around 800 thousand.
1.I recognised the asset at 800k under cost model in 2014 which was the first year using straight line for 5 years however estimated life could be wrong
2.I have noticed the revenue for the years 2014-2016 is close to 2million which exceeds the cost of 800k.How i shall match the revenue been depreciated over the years?
Should i change to revaluation model? Increase the estimated usef economic life?
Thanks
Marios
is the service in order to upgrade the existing PPE capitalised or expensed?WHY?
Njabulo, sometimes is is expensed and sometimes it is capitalised – that depends on whether the expenditure meets the asset recognition criteria, on its materiality, etc. S.
Thanks very informative.
Ms.Silvia, Thanks for your mail and clear explanations.
futher, i think in the following para: the number of IAS to be IAS-40 i/o IAS -41. please correct me if i am worng.
“Here please note that the building is shown under the heading “Investment property” and not “Property, plant and equipment” and of course, it’s purpose is either to earn rentals or for capital appreciation (otherwise, you cannot apply IAS 41 and fair value model)”.
Sure, that’s a typo, thank you!
Very interesting article regarding the dolphins.
What are your thoughts on accounting for the birth of a dolphin in the case of an existing “asset” breeding?
Also, for impairment in respect of bad health of a dolphin, I assume IAS 36 would apply?
excellent
Thanks for ur advise. What if if the asstes i discarded in beginning
Silica. I am quite impressed about the way you present this article. Bravo
Silvia, thank you for the explanations.
Silvia, thank you, for me it was an eye-opener. Ashamed to say I was not aware that the fair value model and revaluation model are not the same thing 🙁
Me too, thanks
Very insightful, thank you Silvia!