Forum Replies Created
- Posts
If payment is less than probable. do we still include it as part of the acquisition cost?
Hi
I too have enjoyed this interchange 🙂
You start the thread with this: ‘Hi , I am a lot confused about study hub treatment of legal costs related to IAS 37’
You have now totally confused me with your last post! HOW is Candel wrong?
I believe that it’s time to move to greater authority – to the FR Ask ACCA Tutor forum.
I suggest that you forward the entire thread to P2D2 and get his take on the issue. I personally take issue with the response that you have received from the study hub creators – but what do I know?
Ask P2D2!
I agree, both scenaria are similar. And, from what I can see, both solutions are identical.
Legal costs (irrecoverable) are provided for / accrued / recognised in full whereas the improbable / only possible liabilities should be merely noted as contingent.
Abhay, maybe it’s me and, if so, I apologise profusely. But I cannot see where, or how, you find an inconsistency.
Is it because you don’t realise that the expression ‘provided for’, ‘accrued’ and ‘recognised’ are pretty much synonymous?
Could that provide us with a reconciled position do you think? I’m happy to continue this thread but I’m wondering whether P2D2 might want to take over.
If so, I suggest that you repost your query on the Ask ACCA Tutor forum.
If you’re happy to continue this unauthorised thread, keep on posting and I’ll keep on answering 🙂
The Candel solution tells you!
‘The unrecoverable legal costs are a liability (the start of the legal action is a past event) and ‘should be provided for in full.’’
Surely the final paragraph is telling us that an accrual / provision / recognition of legal costs (already incurred) is required. But no similar accrual / provision / recognition is appropriate for those potential costs in settling the case because such costs should be noted as merely contingent.
I believe that it’s you that is misreading the information in the question.
So where’s the inconsistency? In both situations there is a need to provide for legal fees whether ‘we’ win or lose the case.
And in both situations there is a contingent liability to be noted to reflect the possibility that ‘we’ may lose the case.
No inconsistency, no hypocrisy!
It cost $12,000 and has a 20 year life. So annual depreciation is $12,000 / 20 = $600
Accumulated depreciation at 1 April is $3,600, so expired life is $3,600 / $600 = 6 years
Revaluation takes place on 1 October, and that’s 6 months into the seventh year
As at 1 April, it has been depreciated for 6 years. Before revaluation there is a further 6 months’ depreciation to charge (so $300 for that half year) and, as at 1 October it has been depreciated for 6 and a half years – thus leaving a remaining useful life of thirteen and a half years over which the revalued amount should be depreciated
And that works out to be $10,800 / 13.5 = $800 for each year and, for the second half year from 1 October 20X4 to the year end that would be $400
That gives a total of $300 + $400 = $700 for the year ended 31 March 20X5 and a figure for the SoFP of $10,800 – $400 = $10,400
Does that make sense – I hope it helps
In answer to your last post, no!
Because £2.5 million dollars worth of 50 cent shares means that there are 5 million shares of 50 cents each = $2.5 million
Sir, I believe that Anygary was asking about the detail of matters that standards require to be disclosed rather than simply the title and number of the Standards.
I have the same problem in trying to memorise the detail of the required disclosures. Are we expected to know these or are they essentially a matter of common sense?
I used to be the same! Until someone from OpenTuition pointed out to me … how will your result be affected by your current mental anguish?
It won’t! Your worrying achieves nothing. That’s wrong, of course. It achieves hours of mental pain, lack of focus, unnecessary distractions, potential adverse affects at work.
WHAT IS THE POINT of this worry? Nothing will change. Your result will not change – that’s all water under the bridge.
Chill! Relax! Anything else is a waste of your time and focus.
I also learned very quickly that it is impossible to predict your results in ACCA exams. Personally I was totally convinced that I had failed my Advanced Taxation exam. Not just convinced. Oh no! I absolutely KNEW that I had failed it. But I hadn’t 🙂
The question is … So what if you have failed it? Would the Earth stop spinning? Would people think less of you? Would you be known as a FAILURE? Are your job prospects ruined? How many people in the future will ask ‘Did you pass your PM exam first time?’
It’s not a life or death situation! When you qualify, do you think anyone – anyone at all – will ask about your exam journey?
No one will. No one!
So, move on, get your result in 20 days’ time. If you’ve passed, well done. FM next
But, if you’ve not satisfied the ACCA with your attempt, then attempt it again in December. Become a master of stoicism and STOP WORRYING!
Hope that helps 🙂
Chris, am I not right that, if a Share Premium Account exists, one of the few allowable uses of the Share Premium Account is to provide for the premium payable on the redemption of shares and / or debentures.
Is that right?
So, was my post wrong? Contingent liability, no double entry. Just a note in financial statements?
Contingent consideration, paid to subsidiary’s former shareholders, not to the subsidiary itself?
Surely, if it’s only contingent, there is no accounting double entry – or am I wrong? Isn’t it just a note in the financial statements
And wouldn’t contingent consideration be paid to the former shareholders of the now-sold subsidiary and not to the subsidiary itself?
Surely b is incorrect because the early delivery pre-empts Barbara being OBLIGED to take 100 bouquets
OK – now give me the references or the sources of these two statements so that a) I can check that you have copied them correctly and b) so that I can read them in the original context
OK?
If we’re talking about the value of the raw material inventory, then the closing inventory valuation is at $5 unless even that purchase price has now been overtaken by a supplier’s price reduction so the retail value of that raw material inventory would be at the new reduced price
If the inventory is finished / processed goods, then cost of those processed goods is $5 + $11 = $16 but realisable value is only $10 per the contract so the value of the closing inventory of processed goods will be $10
It’s possible that your figure of $11 includes the purchase cost of $5 in which case the value of the closing inventory of finished goods would be the lower of nrv of $10 and costs incurred in bringing the inventory to its current location and condition ie $5 + $6 = $11
So, again the value of the closing inventory of finished goods would be $10
I don’t have the question to hand so this is a guess! Is it maybe because the figure in the trial balance is in the credit column? In which case it will be included in current liabilities because it’s an overdraft
