• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
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 Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

June 2025 ACCA Exams

How was your exam? Comments & Instant poll >>

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

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

Ghorse

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA SBR Exams › Ghorse

  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by Stephen Widberg.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 9, 2020 at 10:10 am #576413
    WitheringFlower
    Member
    • Topics: 14
    • Replies: 6
    • ☆

    Ghorse identified two manufacturing units, Cee and Gee, which it had decided to dispose of in a single transaction. These units comprised non-current assets only. One of the units, Cee, had been impaired prior to the financial year-end on 30 September 2007 and it had been written down to its recoverable amount of $35 million.
    The criteria in IFRS5, ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’, for classification as held for sale, had been met for Cee and Gee at 30 September 2007. The following information related to the assets of the cash-generating units at 30 September 2007:
    Depreciated Fair value less Carrying value
    historical cost costs to sell under IFRS
    and recoverable amt $m $m $m
    Cee 50 35 35
    Gee 70 90 70
    –––– –––– ––––
    120 125 105
    –––– –––– ––––
    The fair value less costs to sell had risen at the year-end to $40 million for Cee and $95 million for Gee. The increase in the fair value less costs to sell had not been taken into account by Ghorse.

    My question is that :
    when checking for impairment, The impairment comes to $15 for Cee.
    But because at the year-end the recoverable amount of Cee went up to $40 and so now there should be a $10 impairment but instead, the impairment of $15 is being added instead of being deducted from the assets. Why is that? I am really confused.

    July 9, 2020 at 5:18 pm #576442
    Stephen Widberg
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 16
    • Replies: 3408
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    I cannot understand your presentation
    There is no need to copy out the whole question

    Please can you just give me the relevant figures for the CGU about which you are concerned and I will come back to you

    As far and as possible try and separate out what happened in earlier years and in the current year

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • maryrena77 on The nature and structure of organisations – ACCA Paper BT
  • vi234 on MA Chapter 4 Questions Cost Classification and Behaviour
  • vi234 on MA Chapter 4 Questions Cost Classification and Behaviour
  • John Moffat on The financial management environment – ACCA Financial Management (FM)
  • Lekhanaa on IASB Conceptual Framework – Introduction – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)

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