IFRScommunity.com

Which solution worked best for you then?

When applying this exception, Level 3 disclosures aren't necessary since there's no fair value measurement recognised at the reporting date. Regarding the convertible instruments you're considering, would it be reasonable to assume that their cost approximates their fair value even after 12 months?

I'm not saying that this isn't the commonly accepted practice. In the case of public companies, it's different because their final results are deemed market-sensitive information. My focus was more on the audits of privately owned companies.

For sure there is an automatic solution. But I'm not entirely clear on your question. Could you elaborate a bit more? Using example terms like 'customer' and 'outstanding balance' would help clarify your request.

@ramica - please start a new topic, describe the scenario, and explain what you're trying to achieve

I don't think specific disclosure requirements exist for such cases. Making up these disclosures wouldn't make sense. Instead, I'd disclose that you used cost as an approximation of fair value and provide the rationale behind this decision.

I guess it's better to identify any issues during the brief period when the financial statements are 'frozen', rather than missing them entirely. Just to clarify, I'm not thinking about edge cases where the auditor is involved only after the financial statements are authorised. I'm talking about a s...

This could stem from practices before implementation of IFRS 9. Under IAS 39 there was a clear exception allowing equity investments whose fair value couldn't be reliably measured to be carried at cost. IFRS 9 is stricter, but still offers a bit of flexibility (see IFRS 9.B5.2.3-B5.2.6)

In terms of adjusting events, or errors in the financial statements?

Provide more details about the transaction, please

Well, there must be a reason why you haven't converted into ordinary shares yet. For example, to what extent does the yield on these preference shares depend on investee's results? What are the current voting rights attaching to them? What are the conversion terms?

These questions assume that the same day sign-off is the default way to go. In my early days as a trainee auditor, I was struck by the expectation for same-day sign-offs. It seemed more logical to allow auditors several days with the finalised financial statements. This would enable a thorough final...

Retained earnings of some specific merger reserve

Leo, you don't understand the question being asked I'm afraid...

Well, this approach may have worked until like 19th century when there were no complex financial instruments...

You can also add curtailments and settlements to this equation, and current service cost of course

Tough judgement to make! I'd also refer to IAS 28.12 which says the interest in an associate is determined solely on the basis of existing ownership interests and does not reflect the possible exercise or conversion of potential voting rights. It appears that these convertible preference shares don'...

I'd check if the infrastructure assets are clearly identified and if you're acquiring their full capacity. If these conditions aren't met, it's likely not a lease, see https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-bas ... -of-assets

So you keep derivatives off balance sheet, for example?

Does the leased ('underlying') asset generate independent cash inflows?

No, changes in actuarial assumptions are reflected as one-time adjustments to the liability, whereas current service cost reflects benefits earned in current period. https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/ias-19-employee-benefits/#actuarial-gains-and-losses https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base...

Through contractual provisions for example
PS. don't quote preceding posts please https://ifrscommunity.com/ifrs-forum-qu ... in-replies

JRSB wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 12:18 You wouldn't issue an audit opinion after the date they were authorised

I know that issuing the audit opinion on the same day is a standard practice, but what are the potential issues with issuing it at a later date?

If asset X doesn't generate independent cash inflows then you're not able to determine its value in use and recognise impairment the way you illustrated in your scenario.

https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/cost-of-property-plant-equipment/#costs-of-major-inspections-or-overhauls When assets are fully depreciated, their carrying value and remaining useful life both drop to zero. But significant events like major inspections or overhauls warrant a re-evaluation ...

Your scenario is a bit unclear to me. Could you clarify if asset X generates independent cash inflows? Also, I'm curious as to why you brought up CGUs B and C and goodwill if they aren't relevant to asset X, which seems to be the main focus of your question?

a. Don't think this is covered, but I'd say yes
b. No, lessors must always use the interest rate implicit in the lease.
c. yes

@ Viv, please start a new topic please

There are two distinct questions here: 1. Is this expenditure eligible to be included in the carrying amount of the associated asset? 2. Assuming it is, should the entity reassess the asset's remaining useful life? If the response to the first question is 'no', the expenditure is instantly recognise...

How is this different from the general exclusion of Pillar Two taxes from DTA/DTL calculation?

Recognised liabilities should be excluded from impairment tests based on ViU (the point about a buyer not assuming the liability is irrelevant here). If inclusion of recognised liabilities is necessary for operational reasons, ensure that cash flows related to their repayment are discounted using th...