Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition
Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition
Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams
why dont we take 80% of impairment?
That’s what I was thinking too. My logic is that the parent has a share of the goodwill that is being impaired as well. So why is the subsidiary suffering the whole impact of the impairment?
The figure 20 should be on the SPL because we’re consolidating all the costs but when it comes to attributing the profit, I think it should be different. 80% of impairment costs charged to the Parent and 20% of impairment costs to the NCI.
My bad. If you put in the subsidiary’s column, at the end of they day you’re allocating only 20% to NCI and the other 80% goes to the group. So the method done by Chris is good.
I think it is the Same Logic exactly as with Revaluation Gain. It happens at a point in time
Happy with that, well explained. Thank you 🙂
i hate liverpool fc hahahahaha sorry sir
Well Explained
Well explained. Thank you Sir
Don’t we pro rate the dividend income from subsidiary ? Since we have acquired the sub mid way through the year. Doesn’t that make us entitle to only 6m dividends which then are deducted in adjusting the investment income ?
No – who ever owns the share(s) on the date they go ex-dividend is entitled to the whole amount of dividend per share that has been declared and approved.
Dividend income occurs at a point in time not over time like revaluation gain, as such it is purely based on shareholding% in the company. Date of acquisition for dividend income is quite irrelevant for consol.