This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

IAS 16 & IAS 38 — Revaluation method – proportionate restatement of accumulated depreciation

Date recorded:

In May 2012, the IASB published Exposure Draft ED/2012/1 Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010-2012 Cycle which proposed to amend IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment and IAS 38 Intangible Assets to clarify the requirements for the computation of the accumulated depreciation at the date of a revaluation when applying the revaluation method.

The Staff provided an analysis of comment letters received on the proposed amendments, in which the majority of respondents agreed with the proposed amendments. However, several specific concerns were raised regarding specific aspects of the proposals. As a result, the Staff recommended several changes to the proposals included in the exposure draft, while also recommending changes to the transition requirements associated with the amendments.

Specifically the Staff recommended to the Interpretations Committee that they should recommend to the IASB that they should proceed with the proposed amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 38.  The Staff recommended:

  1. The Basis for Conclusions for IAS 16 and IAS 38 should be amended to reflect that the definition of carrying amount implies that when revaluing, the accumulated depreciation is calculated as the difference between the gross and the net carrying amount of a non-financial asset.
  2. Changing the use of the term ‘net amount’ in IAS 16 paragraph 35(b) and IAS 38 paragraph 80(b) to ‘net carrying amount’.
  3. To amend the Basis for Conclusions of IAS 16 and IAS 38 to reflect that accumulated depreciation/amortisation would not be able to be restated proportionately to the gross carrying amount in situations in which both the gross carrying amount and the net carrying amount are revalued disproportionately from each other. This is regardless of whether a re-estimation of the residual value, the useful life or the depreciation method occurs prior to revaluation.
  4. That the transition requirements be changed so that:
    1. the proposed amendments are required to be applied to all revaluations recognised in annual periods beginning on or after the date of initial application of that amendment and in the annual period immediately preceding that date
    2. that an entity may also present adjusted comparative information for any earlier periods presented, but is not required to do so. If an entity presents unadjusted comparative information for any earlier periods, it shall clearly identify the information that has not been adjusted, state that is has been presented on a different basis, and explain that basis.

One of the Committee members disagreed with the Staff proposals especially where terminology will be changed.  Another Committee member disagreed with the language in the revised paragraph 80(b) of IAS 38 and noted that once you eliminate the accumulated depreciation against the gross carrying amount this does not leave a “net” carrying amount, this is just a residual number.  Although he noted that he understood what the language was telling the preparer to do, he noted that the language was confusing and was better as it was previously drafted.

Other Committee members did not agree with the use of the wording of “gross carrying amount” and argued that there is no such concept as gross carrying amount – the carrying amount is the value in the balance sheet.

Another Committee noted that what the Staff were trying to achieve with the Annual Improvement was correct but it was just a matter that the wording was confusing.

The Chair noted that there was little Committee support for recommendations (a) and (b) and questioned whether this was just a drafting issue or more fundamental.  One Committee member responded that the Staff needed to spend more time on the issue.  A Staff member noted that the terminology could be looked at.

The Chair noted that there was no objection to carrying forward the Annual Improvement.  However the suggested language was not agreed by the Committee members.  He noted that the Staff and two Committee members (who were most vocal) consult with the Staff on revised wording to see if the necessary drafting changes can be made.

All of the Committee members tentatively agreed to recommendations (c) and (d).

Related Topics

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.