Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for September 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Hey there,

    Can I ask why do you minus excess depreciation from the selling company? Isn’t the excess net off from the buyer’s retained earnings? That way, aren’t we supposed to add back the excess value on the buyer’s side instead? Thank you!

    • I’ve answered a question very similar just recently!

      The current thinking is that the unrealised profit becomes realised over the period of the life of the asset. So, as each year passes, some of that pup becomes realised.

      How much?

      Why, the amount of the depreciation on the excess

      So the NET pup is shown as an adjustment to the seller’s retained earnings

      OK?

  2. Hi Mike,
    wonderful lecture, thank you.

    If we have to make adjustments for unrealised profits at the end of the accounting year, why not just transfer TNCA and even inventory at cost rather at a profit and then having to make adjustments later?

  3. Normally deduct 1000 (5000-1000) from group retained earnings and add back 250 (inflated depreciation: 1250-1000) to subsidiary post acquisition profit the logic is that the one who sold the asset should remove the profit and the one who bought the asset holds the asset should add back inflated depreciation we cannot put it 1000-250 because NCI is affected by inflated depreciation

  5. Hey, I’m having trouble watching this video. All the other videos are fine but this one continues to reload over and over again. I tried on numerous devices (Phone, laptop, tablet and even a P.C). Please help.

  6. Thanks Mike, you are quicker than Batman!
    One thing I want to confirm here that whenever the “Negative” goodwill arises then it should always completely add in Group Retained Earning ? It doesn’t really matter that either a NCI value is given or it proportionate ?? I mean should we require to apportion the amount of negative goodwill if NCI is not proportionate ??

    • Hi Saqib, whenever there is a negative good will that means there has been a profit on bargain for purchase of the subsidiary therefore, it is considered as reserves and added to retained earnings, why it is not given a share in the NCI is because it is a benefit to the Parent company based on its bargain and as such the NCI can not benefit from this.

      But if goodwill was positive notice it is not good will that is apportioned to NCI but the percentage of value impaired if any and if the bases of the NCI is not proportionate.

  7. Hi,

    I’d like some help on the following question:

    “The acquisition of Subsidiary (S) by Parent (P) took place on 1/10/x0.
    Immediately after the acquisition P transferred an item of plant with a carrying amount of $4,000 to S an agreed value of $5,000. At this date the plant had a remaining life of 2 1/2 years.
    P had included the profit the profit on this transfer as a reduction in its depreciation costs. All depreciation is charged to the CoS.”

    Calculate the depreciation.
    Consolidated accounts are being prepared for the YE 31.3.x1

    The answer says depreciation is:
    Profit on transfer $5000 – $4000 = $1,000
    Proportion depreciated 0.5 / 2.5 = ($200)
    Unrealised Profit = $800

    Dr CoS $800
    Cr Plant $800

    My question is, why is the profit multiplied by 0.5?
    Is it because although a full years’ depreciation should be charged in the year of acquisition, P acquired S half way through their financial year and therefore have pro-rated the depreciation charge?
    If this is the case, what has happened to the remaining depreciation charge for that year? Are we to assume that depreciation prior to acquisition has already been charged to CoS?

    Thanks
    x

    • The depreciation of that asset is split into two parts. The first part (the first six months of the year) the depreciation is accounted for in the records of the parent company and is taken into account in arriving at the carrying value as at date of transfer.

      The second part (since date of acquisition until the year end) is accounted for in the subsidiary and, since it’s only half a year, then the element of depreciation that is to be charged in the subsidiary’s statement of profit or loss is depreciation for a full year but then divided by 2 because it’s only for half a year

      It’s actually an unfortunate example because the depreciation for half a year on the $5,000 asset is $1,000 and that figure is the same as the pup on the initial transfer 馃檨

      You say in your post that “although a full year’s depreciation should be charged in the year of acquisition ….”

      What makes you think that?

      • Thanks Mike 馃檪

        In my last comment, I meant that the rule is for a full years depreciation to be charged in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal.

        Ordinarily if the asset was acquired on 1.10.x0 then depreciation should’t have been pro-rated, but from what I understand, half the years’ depreciation was already charged in the Subsidiary, therefore the remaining half would be charged to the Parent after acquisition, and when looking at the group accounts, a whole year’s depreciation would have been charged.

        Or maybe I am just totally confused… in which case I think I will just give up and focus on answering the rest of the questions correctly.

      • Hi Simone

        Don’t give up!

        The parent is selling to the subsidiary so 6 months’ pre-transfer depreciation is in the parent and now we need 6 months’ post-transfer depreciation in the subsidiary.

        You are quoting this rule to me as though it is cast in tablets of stone “…. the rule is for a full year’s depreciation ….”

        That’s not a rule! It’s a policy that some companies choose to adopt, but it’s not a rule

    • Normally deduct 1000 (5000-1000) from group retained earnings and add back 250 (inflated depreciation: 1250-1000) to subsidiary post acquisition profit the logic is that the one who sold the asset should remove the profit and the one who bought the asset holds the asset should add back inflated depreciation we cannot put it 1000-250 because NCI is affected by inflated depreciation

      • I do wish that you hadn’t posted this and that I had seen it earlier!

        It’s wrong!

        Calculate the profit on the transfer,

        deduct the appropriate element of depreciation on that profit to arrive at a net figure and

        deduct that NET figure from the retained earnings of the company that was making the transfer

  8. Hi Mike
    Apologies for raising this query on the lecture site rather than “ask the tutor”. Just thought it might be quicker than referring back to the lecture example. My query is if the example above had made the exact same transaction but from the sub to the parent (i.e. PUP of 10 on sale less the excess of 5 on dep’n now in parent company) then the net effect is now a reduction in the sub rather than parent – Dr Ret Earn, CR TNCA etc.

    Does the sub now present as follows on the consolidated statement of retained earnings (for the sub);

    Per Question 600
    Pre Acq (275)
    Less: PUP (5)
    Post Acq 320

    This would leave post-acq for parent as 60% x 320 = $192,000. I’m assuming this is correct as the 600 would (theoretically) already incorporate the accelerated depn etc. Equally the NCI of 40% in W4 would then be 40% x 320 = $128,000.

    Many thanks for your help in advance and many thanks for getting me through my F4 paper last month too!

    Kindest Regards

    Chris

    • This is pure chance that I saw this post – I rarely look at the comments after the lectures. You, of all people, should know that I respond always when the post is on “Ask the Tutor” but it’s a rare occurrence that I see other posts.

      Your principles are correct (I don’t have the question in front of me, but so long as the figures that you are using are correct, then so too are your observations)

      Congratulations of your F4 roaring success – I bet you’re missing it now….all that fun and excitement!

  9. Hi Mike, im just wondering why the net pups is written off against the retained earning of the selling company only.
    Taking this example, the parent made a sale of asset to the sub making a profit of 10. Therefore the subsidiary is charging extra depreciation (of 5)
    So logically, the profit of 10 should be charged against the retained earning of the parent while the extra depreciation of 5 should be added on to the retained earning of the subsisidiary. This would affect working 3 . cons retained earning.right?

    • Jonathan, if ever in the future you want a tutor to respond, please post your question on the ask the tutor page. It’s a rare occurrence that we look at other posts!

      It used to be the case that we eliminated the profit on disposal from the seller’s retained earnings and added the excess depreciation back to the buyer’s retained earnings.

      This changed about 4 years ago so the NET adjustment is now made in the seller’s retained earnings

      Ok?

  10. Fantastic! The step by step approach is interesting. I recommend these series of lectures for all ICAN students in Nigeria.
    Question sir.
    The method used to treat inter group non current assets. How can we compute depreciation if useful life of the asset is unknown using the short method you recommended?
    I mean how can I compute depreciation using (unrealized profit divided by remaining useful life)

    • A question HAS to give you that information. Let me turn your question round ….. how can you calculate depreciation if you use the “long” way round and the examiner doesn’t tell you remaining useful life?

  13. Hi!
    Could you please explain, the example says, that assets fully depreciated in the year of purchase and none in the year of sale.
    Is this a kind of examiner trick? because we do have a sale (to our subsidiary) but we still charge depreciation?

    • Yes, but it’s the subsidiary that is charging depreciation because the subsidiary has just bought the asset.

      The parent has sold the asset and therefore is not charging depreciation (in the year of sale)

      OK?

      • PUP = Provision for Unrealised Profits 馃榾

        Quick and easy way for PUP:
        Profit from transfer / number of years remaining useful life

        Profit from transfer less answer above = PUP

        That diagram helped me understand the fast way to calculate.

        Thanks!

  15. Great lectures Sir, I’ve Passed my 5 exams (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6) on first attempts with the help of opentution. Without these i would have been stuck in ACCA forever. Thank you for sharing the great knowledge and helping us.

  16. sir, i’m madly in love with your delivery. impeccable lectures… but i just wanna be sure if i could, in the adding of TNCA of Lina and Asta, just reduce the assets by only the net adjustment (5) rather than -10+5. Just don’t like losing silly marks so i wanna be sure…. thanks sir.

    • You can expect two types of depreciation in the F7 exam – normally it’s straight line and reducing balance. But sum of the digits method has been asked and, in a recent question 5 (I think) there was a “complex asset” question involving 5 (I think) elements of a ship being depreciated in different ways over different periods of time. Yes, question 2 will typically have both s-l and reducing balance, but others could be in there too

  19. Dear Sir Mike,

    I read the comments and you said that this lecture is outdated so Do I only view the notes or if this lecture is still applicable for current exams? Please do reply me asap, Thanks in advance 馃檪

    • Hi

      The only little way in which it is outdated is in the treatment of the depreciation on the transferred non-current asset.

      In the lecture the extra depreciation calculated on the profit element of the transferred asset is adjusted in the records of the buyer.

      This has now changed and the NET gain on transfer, net after the depreciation, is adjusted in the records of the selling company – so there’s no adjustment to be made to the records of the buying company

      OK?

      • Thank you sir, that means its still applicable now with only a little bit of exception of treatment of non current assets transferred, Thanks Again I understood, God bless you! 馃檪

      • Mike, every thing fine but this changes in the net effect of profit and dep changed by whom. I mean by IAS or IFRS can you please give the reference.

        Thank you sir, God bless you
        Can you please mark the reference through which the changed affected

Leave a Reply