IFRScommunity.com

What's your reading of the standard?

Oh I thought C acquires B but A 'pays' for it in services.

If wonder if the cost of providing those specific services is actually a distribution, as the owner is extracting that value to settle their liability (to acquire B). I assume A and C have common ownership.

So A signs a contract where it performs services and gets nothing in return. So it's not revenue as the scope of IFRS 15 requires commercial substance.

Why would A do this? Seems like the owner of A is extracting value in 'services' for its own purposes.

I'm not sure if there are any US-based posters on this forum

The earn out was not recognised as a liability? It should have been recorded at fair value. Maybe it was a stretch target recorded at nil? It will increase goodwill accordingly once paid later? Only if it's a measurement period adjustment, otherwise that should be to P&L. May be worth looking at...

Seems like PPE to me.

I would have the same view. Either the audit is finished or it isn't; if it isn't, then management shouldn't be signing. If it is, the auditor should be ready to sign.

I would say it's not a policy; as the business grows in size your threshold might increase too but I don't see restatements as necessary; presumably the impact is almost by definition immaterial too.

a bit confusing because the investment in subsidiary is nothing to do with the consolidated financial statements, but if that entity was acquired in a business combination then maybe you have DT movements on group level intangibles.

Do you let it out the golf facilities someone else to operate for a period of time, or operate them yourself?

Just checked Shell plc (most valuable UK company) as an example and management signed on same date as auditor. Gap is technically fine but we've seen issues in one of the recent big FRC penalties where the partner got into problems when backdating the audit report in an effort to reduce the gap betw...

Anything which could affect the accounts which have already been signed by management.

Ok but what are you going to do if any issues come up in those few days?

I looked at it slightly different, ie instead of subscribing for shares now and just leaving the liability unpaid, the alternative is simply an agreement to subscribe for shares in the future, so you don't have the shares now, nor the liability to pay for them, until say 2 years. Then yes that seems...

You can issue the audit after the company signs off but as you say typically is is the same time. You need to be ready to explain why there was a gap and what happened in between. Why did the company sign before the audit was finished? If the audit was finished, why delay the sign off?

in my experience of french administration, 19th century sounds about right. the amount of payroll deductions all with different rules.....

If you look at it technically then you could also look at an example when you agree to buy shares in 10 years' time, which is a forward?

Am I right to say that France has a mandated 'chart of accounts'? In which case that would explain it.

Technically it depends exactly when the agreements says the shares will be allotted (Dec or Feb). Seems like overkill to think of this as a forward but I accept we're thinking about what's technically correct.

I don't think it's necessarily any of those dates; its when the management (Board?) of that company met and agreed to approve the accounts. You wouldn't issue an audit opinion after the date they were authorised, and it can't be before the final revisions, so it must be at some point between 2 Oct a...

some fairly sizeable organisations use spreadsheets for consolidation in the UK, I wonder if it differs elsewhere.

seems like a fine line between this and simple unpaid share capital.

is the sublease an operating or finance lease? if operating then you'll keep the lease entries. you mention re-recognising the lease so presumably the sublease is only part of the life of the lease, so presumably it's operating. so leave the lease on balance sheet.

How do you know that asset is impaired?

Yes most likely, other impacts depend on how the restructure was achieved.

correct. but there is impact in standalone accounts.

Sounds like part of the costs of acquisition in some ways, so I'd say no, seems like costs you often see in a separate line in P&L in the acquisition year.

Yes and I think in this case there's insufficient explanation for the reason for the change.
But a bit clearer now.