IFRScommunity.com

In my opinion it is not enforceable as the price is not set, you do need a further consent from the lessor to exercise that option...

I think it's best to start with 1/ lease term and 2/ lease payments, and then the assumptions for discount rate should be consistent. When you say that the extension option can be enforced by the Fund, then you must include period covered by this option in lease term and lease payments right? When m...

I see, as I wrote before, I would include them in a lease liability similarly to payments that depend on index/rate. The payments that you mentioned do not depend on future activity of a lessee or an underlying asset and therefore the is no reason to exclude them from lease liability

I would include them in the lease liability, as they don't depend on future activity of a lessee or an underlying asset. And I would use payments as calculated using current valuation of this pension fund obligation. Why are these payments linked to pension fund anyway? Is it a way of financing paym...

So you think that this kind of extension options are enforceable? i.e. they can be exercised by a lessee without any consent by the lessor?
As I see it, if the price is not agreed, such an option is not enforceable, as you de facto need a consent by the lessor, as the price is a crucial factor here

why do you need to allocate commissions to contracts? If they are incremental, aren't they specifically linked to a contract?

Hi, the guidance is already included in the knowledge base:
https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-ba ... a-contract

can you be more specific with you question?

Hi, the point of this paragraph is to state that such expenses should not be added to the cost of inventories in the balance sheet.

The classification in a specific line in P/L is up to you. In my opinion it can be treated as a cost of fulfilling the project

Then yes - two separate discount rates are needed

I think it's more a question on application of the local law. If the equipment is a part of the building, is it really against the law to enter into a 30-year "combined" lease? And if so, does it mean that there is no liability beyond this 7-year period to the lessor with respect to the eq...

Hi,

it depends

see these two sections of the knowledge base:

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... rd-parties

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... e-customer

Note that you need to meet only one of the criteria for PO to be treated as satisfied over time. The entries that you provided are OK, except that a contract asset is not the same as WIP, you probably meant contract costs there

in my opinion, it's very unlikely that each milestione in a contract is a separate PO. And it's hardly possible that such a fragmented PO meets all the criteria for being satisifed over time - all at the same time :) it's all explained in more detail in the knowledge base, it's really worth reading ...

You still haven't answered the most crucial question here: is it a performance obligation satisfied over time? If so - why? You seem to be saying that this should be rather a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time. In such a case, there is no measurement of progress at all - you simply ...

Hi, it's not clear to me what industry this is - construction? I see you have many objections whether input method is suitable. I suggest that you take a step back and answer another question - whether this is a performance obligation satisfied over time? See here: https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledg...

Some details on this arrangement would be useful What is the economic/business reason for such a transfer? Will employees be transferred as well? Which entity will be eventually issuing shares? Will there be any payment made by Co A?

Hi, I'm pretty sure there is no such guidance. Feel free to give us more details on this transaction and your thoughts on how to approach it, and we can develop guidance together

I don’t see any ‘negative goodwill’ here. In consolidated financial statements, it doesn’t really matter which entity pays. If Parent A paid 60m and Subsidiary B paid 40m, then total consideration would be 100m. Alternatively, if the payment by Subsid B of 40m is to be treated as a capital distribut...

Hi, in my opinion such extension options should be ignored as they have no real substance. Or, in IFRS 16 terms, they are not enforceable.

OK so you're saying that the conditions set out in IFRS 16.32 are met, i.e. the lease transfers ownership or the cost of the right-of-use asset reflects that the lessee will exercise a purchase option? then yes - it appears that the part attributable to land should not be depreciated. To reconcile t...

re. depreciation - you must depreciate the part attributable to land as well, you're not the owner of the land as a lessee, but you recognise only the right-of-use of land, which is granted under the lease contract for finite period

Hi, I think the judgement here is the question of whether the criteria in IFRS 16.B32 are met. When it comes to land and buildings, I would argue that they are not separate lease components from the lessee perspective, as none of the two criteria in IFRS 16.B32 are met, especially for the building. ...

I see two reasons: 1/ lack of knowledge:) 2/ simplifications in consolidation process It’s easier to continue the accounting of an acquired subsidiary (i.e. keep the original GBV and accumulated depreciation, subject to fair value adjustments), as it means fewer consolidation adjustments. But it mak...

Hi, I think that the only “provision” results from expected credit losses (ECL) under IFRS 9. The provision under IAS 37 should be recognised only if the contract with customer becomes onerous, but in most cases I think that ECL provision should be enough. ECL are recognised as an expense. Off-balan...

Hi, an interesting case! I would recognise them as a one-off credit to profit or loss. There is no basis to defer their recognition in P/L in my opinion. What do you think?

Something tells me you didn't even bother to look into the knowledge base

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... rrangement

Feel free to come back with specific questions

As I understand it, a limited company should be separate from its owner when it comes to assets and liabilities. Let's think about it this way: if you were to prepare two sets of financial statements : 1/ of the owner and 2/ of the entity - where would you show this property as an asset and why? Who...

No, the mere fact that the cash flows go through an entity does not mean control, even when taking substance over form. Important IFRS question here is whether the entity (taken separately from its owner) has the ability to direct the use of the property.

Hi, this is unusual, normally there should be a clear distinction between assets of a limited company and their owners. If the entity has no legal/ contractual right to the property, I would say that the entity does not control the property. How can the entity direct the significant activities relat...

yes, this results directly from the definition of a related party, and is further explained in basis for conclusions to IAS 24 (par. BC50-BC52)