Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA SBR Exams › contingent liability
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
Stephen Widberg.
- AuthorPosts
- December 2, 2022 at 7:47 pm #673148
Dear Tutor,
In BPP revision kit mock exam 1 section A (1) Joey, there is a contingent liability which makes me confused with a basic rule about remeasurement value within a year of first recognition. eg: 01/12/2003 first recognition £6m, a later within 12 months since 01/12/2003, at 03/2004, there was a revision of the estimate of the liability $5m. based on my studying relevant chapter (I can’t remember which chapter), $5m revision estimate is right one. but the answer chooses $6m.
Would you please help me to verify it? the accepting revision measurement within 12 months is which chapter content? do I mention the same principle or different one?
Many thanks
December 5, 2022 at 7:00 am #673429Assume you buy a sub on 1/4/22.
The FV of assets and liabilities acquired can be remeasured until 31/3/23, if evidence comes to light that the original FV was wrong.
December 5, 2022 at 11:59 am #673464Many thanks, but why the answer is $6m?
December 5, 2022 at 12:11 pm #673465The answer said that Contingent liabilities after initial recognition must be measured at the higher of the amount that would be recognised under IAS 37 provision, contingent liabilities and contingent assets and the amount initially recognised under IFRS3, I am confused it.
accordingly the answer choose $6m.However later in the end of calculation goodwill, there is last row item shown as : Contingent liability: $6m-$5m (1).
basically based on answer logical like these: when calculating net asset of entity at acquisition date, choose $6m; while when calculating goodwill especially in the last row minus $1m. I don’t understand what theory it included.
would you please explain a bit further?
Many thanks
December 6, 2022 at 6:14 am #673605Goodwill should be calculated using 5.
The BPP calculation shows a 6 and 1 on separate lines – why? – I don’t know but it makes it look over-complicated to me. 🙂
I would not have written the explanation in Note 3.
Keep it simple – the answer is 5.
- AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘contingent liability’ is closed to new replies.