Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANSWERS
1 B This feature suggests that the transaction is a genuine sale.
If the seller retains the right to use the asset or it remains on his premises,
then the risks and
rewards have not been transferred. If the sale price does not equal market
value, then the transaction is likely to be a secured loan.
2 C This is in substance a secured loan, so the asset will be recognised at its
new carrying amount of $50m and a lease liability will be set up for the same
amount.
The $10m increase in carrying amount will be treated as other income
deferred over the life of the asset. The amount which can be recognised for
the year to 30 September 20X4 is:
($10m / 5) 6/12 = $1m
3 C $2.6m 30 / 130
4 B These both indicate that the manufacturer retains ownership of the
inventory. (i) and (iii) would indicate that the risks and rewards have been
transferred to the dealer.
5D
Revenue per draft profit or loss
Servicing costs (800 2 130%)
Agency collections
Agency commission (4,000 10%)
$000
27,000
(2,080)
(4,000)
400
21,320
6 Derringdo
(a) Liability
There are two issues here:
(i) Should a capital grant be treated as deferred income in the financial
statements?
(ii) Should a liability be recognised for the potential repayment of the grant?
Derringdo has credited the $240,000 grant to a deferred income account
which is shown as a liability in the statement of financial position. It is then
released to profit or loss over the ten year life of the related asset.
However, the Conceptual Framework states that a liability should only be
recognised if there is a probable outflow of economic benefits. This is not true
for a grant; under normal circumstances the grant will not have to be repaid
and so a liability does not exist.
This example is complicated by the possibility of having to repay the grant if
the asset is sold. At the end of the reporting period the asset has not been
sold, and so there is no past event to give rise to a liability. Derringdo intends
to keep the asset for its ten year useful life. Nor can it be classified as a
contingent liability. Under IAS 37 the 'uncertain future event' that creates a
contingent liability must be 'not wholly within the control of the entity'. In this
case Derringdo will make the decision to keep or sell the asset.
4
Following on from the above, the Conceptual Framework would not permit the
grant to be shown as a liability. Instead the grant would be claimed as income
in the year that it was received (provided that there was no intention to sell the
asset within the four year claw-back period). However, the treatment of the
grant as deferred income is in accordance with IAS 20 Accounting for
government grants.
(b) Extracts (Company policy complies with one of the two alternatives in IAS
20)
STATEMENT OF PROFIT OR LOSS
$
Operating expenses
Depreciation charge (W1)
34,000
Release of grant (W2)
(12,000)
22,000
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
$
Non-current assets
Property, plant and equipment (W1)
766,000
Non-current liabilities
Deferred income (W2)
204,000
Current liabilities
Deferred income (W2)
24,000
228,000
Workings
1 Property, plant, equipment $
Cost (gross, excluding grant)
Depreciation (10 years straight line, 15% residual value for 6 months
800,000 x 85% x 10% x 6/12)
Carrying value
2 Deferred income $
Grant received ($800,000 X 30%)
Release for this year ($240,000 x 10% x 6/12)
Total balance at year-end
Presentation
Current liability ($240,000 x 10%)
Non-current liability (balance)
800,000
(34,000)
766,000
240,000
(12,000)
228,000
24,000
204,000
228,000
34,000
(240,000)
(206,000)
766,000
8 Wardle
(a) It is important that financial statements should reflect the economic
substance of a transaction, where this differs from legal form, because this
provides users with a faithful representation of the transaction.
For instance, if an asset held under a finance lease were treated according to
its legal form it would not appear under non-current assets and the related
lease liability would not be shown. This would make the entitys gearing look
lower than it actually was and probably inflate its ROCE. This treatment is not
allowed under IFRS.
Sale and leaseback or sale and repurchase arrangements can be used to
disguise the substance of loan transactions by taking them off balance sheet.
In this case the legal position is that the asset has been sold, but the
substance of the transaction is that the seller still retains the benefits of
ownership.
Features which suggest that the substance of a transaction may differ from its
legal form are:
The seller of an asset retains the ability to use the asset
The seller remains exposed to the risks of ownership eg maintenance
An asset which has been sold is one that can reasonably only be used by
the seller
A sold asset remains on the sellers premises
An asset has been transferred at a price substantially above or below its fair
value
An asset has been sold under terms which make it very unlikely that it will
not be repurchased
A number of linked transactions have taken place All of these features
suggest that control has been separated from legal ownership and that the
substance of the transaction may not have been correctly represented.
(b) (i) Legal form
Revenue
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Finance costs
Net profit
(ii) Substance
Revenue
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Finance costs
Net profit
31 March: 20X1
$000
6,000
(5,000)
1,000
1,000
31 March: 20X1
$000
(600)
(600)
20X2
$000
20X2
$000
(660)
(660)
20X3
$000
10,000
(7,986)
2,014
2,014
20X3
$000
10,000
(5,000)
5,000
(726)
4,274
Total
$000
16,000
(12,986)
3,014
3,014
Total
$000
10,000
(5,000)
5,000
(1,986)
3,014
(c) While net profit at the end of the three-year period is the same under both
treatments, we can see that under the legal form revenue is much greater,
because of the assumption that Wardle has sold the asset twice.
6
This leads to profit being split between two of the three years rather than
shown wholly in year 3, so there is some smoothing effect. Reporting under
the legal form of the transaction removes the finance cost, which will have a
favourable effect on interest cover, and will also have removed the loan from
the statement of financial position, thus making gearing appear lower.
Similarly, under the legal form, the asset will not appear in the statement of
financial position, which will make ROCE appear higher than it would
otherwise have been.