IFRScommunity Forum

no wonder

but this approach is also acceptable IMO so nobody's going to go to prison

but under the second approach, you would treat the land as PP&E that is sold together with inventory (i.e. new building),

so the cost of sales would not include cost of land, because the sale of land would be shown as disposal of non-current assets together with allocated proceeds

typical question from management

the investment needs to be remeasured at the derecognition date, through OCI, so there won't be any gain in P&L unfortunately

hi, this is similar to revolving credit facilities that we discussed some time ago:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=200

the conclusion was that interest is accrued on straight-line basis and any fees are amortised over the duration of credit facility

well, I'm afraid you can't use this option now
the classification works like this:

do I use the FV option at initial recognition?
if yes - FV
if no - I need to look at business model

you didn't choose to use the option at initial recognition, so there's no coming back

yes, under IFRS, EU2 would be required to prepare consolidated financial statements

but not all entities domiciled in the EU are required to use IFRS, local GAAP still applies to smaller entities

BTW Switzerland is not a EU member

yes that makes sense

BTW, if you receive data from EU2 and EU3 separately, then it's much more convenient for you to receive it as non-consolidated in my opinion

PS. and in your illustrative group structure: US1 owns 100% of EU2 that owns 100% of EU3

which data does US1 receive to prepare its consolidated financial statements? i.e. separate data from EU2 and EU3 or consolidated data from EU2?

yes, it would make sense that these subsidiaries are not required to prepare consolidated financial statements

or maybe some of them do prepare consolidated financial statements , but you're receiving separate financial statements only (did you ask?)

to me the most likely scenario is that these subsidiaries are not required to prepare consolidated financial statements because their parent, that holds 100% interest, consolidates them at higher level and in separate financial statements, it is perfectly normal to account for investment in subsidia...

thanks, similar approach to EU - illustrative examples and bases for conclusions not available

it depends on the local GAAP, I assume that you don't have IFRS in mind when you write local GAAP, do you? I wouldn't be surprised if local GAAP would exempt a subsidiary from full consolidation if this subsidiary is consolidated at higher level, especially if there is no non-controlling (minority) ...

to be honest I'm not clear about the terms of the agreement, particularly I don't understand how this can work without a direct contract between the landlord and new tenant anyway, it all boils down to the question of whether the lease liability should be derecognised by the original tenant, as the ...

so I would go for cost of debt rather than risk-free, fair value should take credit risk of the borrower into account

Hi, happy to have you here :) This view seems to be confirmed directly in basis for conclusions to IFRS 9 (BC5.21) and by IFRIC: https://cdn.ifrs.org/-/media/feature/news/updates/ifrs-ic/2017/ifric-update-may-2017.pdf As I understand, there is some obligation by the fund to repurchase the units from...

what is the measurement basis? fair value?

I like the last point very much! I.e. the share-based payment must have been taken into account when negotiating acquisition terms between the old parent and new parent, and therefore in substance the remainder of vesting period is sponsored by the new parent

I'm not sure why you think that the first approach would result in gross profit being comprised of non-IFRS figures. Gain on disposal of assets (the disposal of land treated as a fixed asset all the way to the final transaction with external party) would be shown as a separate IFRS line below gross ...

Thanks for this clarification. One more question here: the new tenant signs a new lease agreement directly with the landlord in the lease assignment scenario? And the agreement between original tenant and landlord is amended to say that basically the lease is no longer in force but the original tena...

Hi, what do you mean by 'assignment of the lease' and how does it differ from a sublease in your opinion?

I think that the discussions with auditors would have taken much longer anyway

when you continue to publish under your local GAAP even after the transition to IFRS it makes sense to compare current year as well, I think this is not specifically covered in IFRS 1 because it's not clear what then would be meant under "the end of the latest period presented in the entity’s most r...

Hi, interesting case and indeed not covered specifically (unlike the acquirer's view that is covered in IFRS 3.B62A-B) I think that the best and only reasonable option is to continue accounting as if still under IFRS 2. From the S's point of view, it does not make a huge difference who is the sponso...

neat summary of BIG4's views:

https://disclosurehub.org/2021/01/15/am ... -decision/

what would be the 'it'? as we agree, vaccines are interchangeable...

Vaccines are interchangeable and I cannot imagine a contractual restriction that would overcome this. E.g. the government orders 1m vaccines, but how would they restrict the pharma company from procuring 1.5m vaccines and selling the first 0.5m that were procured somewhere else? Is this contractual ...

yeah me too,

I think that strictly speaking, this is still in the scope of IFRS 15 which would result in revenue decrease

but economically speaking this is akin to cost of obtaining quick finance so I can easily imagine the management being very reluctant to decrease already recognised revenue

Yes then I think you can treat it as non lease distinct service under IFRS 15

PS or finance costs - did the discount correspond somehow to time value of money?