Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Hello, I would like to continue on this thread though it’s a bit old and I hope you can help.
Both questions of Trailer and Traveller had acquired Park and Captive respectively. The scenarios look similar due to the fact of partial good will is used.
However, the allocation of impairment is different.In Park, the impairment of 300 was allocated firstly to the notional good will 133. Then the remaining was allocated to other assets of which 167×60% to Parent reserves and 167×40% to NCI
In Captive, the impairment of 76.3 was allocated to the partial good will 76.3 x 80% of which was also deducted in reserves of parent. No NCI impairment here.
Why in one question we charged impairment to NCI but with the other we ignored?
I realise in Park the impairment was great than goodwill, unlike Captive.Under IAS 24, a related party is where there is a significant control or influence. 2% would not be considered significant I assume.
A disclosure is required between parents and subsidiaries whether a transaction has incurred or not. A disclosure will include the name of the parent and the ultimate control party.
If a related party transaction took place, a separate disclosure required in regards of the nature of relationship and details of transaction and any outstanding balances.
