Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA FR Exams › measurement of non-current assets
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by MikeLittle.
- AuthorPosts
- September 29, 2016 at 7:16 pm #342077
Hi sir,
i have 2 questions. 1) if an entity witnesses that the carrying amount of non current tangible asset is zero, however the entity has intention to use it , So, the entity decides to revalue it and carry it in fair value(revalued value) in its SOFP. i want to know that the entity must revalue that asset in the following each year? Does IFRS have any such requirement?2)the second one is quite similar to the question above.
We know that an entity can do subsequent measurement to initial recognition through cost and revaluation model. If we recognised the tangible non current asset at cost initially, but later we measured it with fair value replacing our cost model with revaluation model. Must we revalue that asset in the following every year?Thank you a lot in advance..
September 29, 2016 at 9:02 pm #342079Yes and yes
Where the entity elects to use the valuation model then all assets in that class shall be treated the same and a valuation exercise should be regularly carried out
Ok?
September 29, 2016 at 10:11 pm #342083ok, thank you so much
September 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm #342084But if the entity calculates in the following year and witnesses that cost of revaluation (eg cost of experts) exceeds benefit. i mean if revaluation is usefulness, the entity does not have a chance return back again to cost model according to IFRS? how can entity do in such stiuation?
September 30, 2016 at 6:59 am #342097The subsequent revaluations are recognised through statement of profit or loss
Where’s the problem?
September 30, 2016 at 8:39 am #342103statement of profit or loss? according to IAS 40, subsequent revaluations are recognized in the P/L statement, but as per IAS 16 we recognize subsequent revaluation in the Revaluation Surplus. am i right??
September 30, 2016 at 4:26 pm #342138Yes, you’re right of course.
I had in mind the reversal of a previous fall on the event of a revaluation! Heaven knows why I was thinking along those lines 🙁
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.