• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

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

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA SBR (INT/UK):
  • SBR notes
  • SBR lectures
  • SBR Flashcards
  • SBR Revision lectures
  • SBR Forums
  • Ask the Tutor
  • Ask AI (New!)

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

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

Impairment – ACCA (SBR) lectures

VIVA

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. lavish111 says

    April 14, 2023 at 9:04 am

    Thank you for this excellent lecture which was entertaining yet informative.

    As to your query vincent1989, while you may have completed this paper, for others viewing your query, you are correct to say that it has to be allocated on a pro-rata basis BUT here the answer in the video is correct as remember (to look for hints in the question) here we do not have to impair the remaining plant and equipment as we are expressly told that it was worth at least its carrying value – why should we allocate the remaining impairment to it then when it is worth its carrying value. I trust this cleared your point.

    Log in to Reply
    • lavish111 says

      April 14, 2023 at 9:05 am

      See this line from the question: “The remaining plant was worth at least its carrying value.”

      Log in to Reply
  2. James says

    October 9, 2021 at 11:58 pm

    Please tell us the friend continued their bus driving career! Terrible if it ended on the first day.

    Log in to Reply
  3. Zura says

    August 13, 2020 at 9:49 pm

    Thank you, it’s amazing!

    Log in to Reply
  4. mubariz123 says

    August 4, 2020 at 12:00 am

    There was no reply to this previously and I have the same question:

    I actually allocated part of the 3.1 to the building (1.86) and part to the remaining P and E (1.24). Was I wrong?

    Log in to Reply
  5. naurin8910 says

    June 7, 2020 at 5:06 pm

    Is the impairment review done on the basis of prudence concept?

    Log in to Reply
    • eloisedavey says

      August 26, 2022 at 6:57 am

      Hi, should the allocation of impairment gone to the intangible asset first given it is a specific asset and not goodwill? I know for this question it is not really revel at as you get the same answer anyway but say if the carrying account and impairment of the intangible was higher, then this would mean good will is not fully impaired, it would leave you to give the wrong answer. Please can you confirm ? Thanks

      Log in to Reply
  6. sctima says

    August 28, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    What if the Sub ownership was 80%? Shall we allocate impairment to NCI also?

    Log in to Reply
  7. proticz says

    June 16, 2019 at 6:22 am

    Hello
    can someone tell me why the goodwill is impaired at full amount?

    Log in to Reply
    • ACCANeha786 says

      December 30, 2024 at 11:18 am

      assuming full goodwill method and It is wholly-owned subsidiary as well

      Log in to Reply
  8. loukasierides says

    February 25, 2019 at 4:54 pm

    I actually allocated part of the 3.1 to the building (1.86) and part to the remaining P and E (1.24). Was I wrong?

    Log in to Reply
    • quintusking says

      March 3, 2019 at 7:39 am

      Chris says the P&E has already been impaired (by the 1.2m scrap). So the excess impairment of 3.1m will not be allocated to it anymore. Remember? The impairment hierarchy is specific assets > goodwill > remaining assets on a pro-rata basis. The remaining assets are those assets that have not been specifically impaired at first, and P&E as a whole is considered as one single asset for impairment purposes, so once you have written off the impairment that is attributable to the asset, you’ll not need to write it off further.

      Log in to Reply
      • vincent1989 says

        April 8, 2019 at 8:51 am

        I may well be wrong but I don’t feel that is correct. As the question does not specifically state that the only impairment to Plant and Equipment was the specific impairment of 1.2m I think that the remaining 3.1m should be apportioned across the remaining unimpaired Property, Plant and Equipment.

        This doesn’t break the hierarchy as you are:

        -impairing first specific assets (the amount destroyed)
        -impairing goodwill (in full where applicable)
        -apportioning the remainder over any remaining assets not already impaired (excl. cash and cash equivalents)

        It would be great if we could get a response from Chris as the above is how I was taught to do it in F7 (by open tuition) and it would be great to get some clarity.

  9. shujhon says

    December 2, 2018 at 10:15 pm

    Haha you forgot to play around with the video!

    Made me laugh a little, which helps while revising for Thursday!

    Thanks for the videos!

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in