• 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

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

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

IFRS 5 – Recognition

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA SBR Exams › IFRS 5 – Recognition

  • This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by MikeLittle.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 15, 2015 at 1:59 pm #282546
    Sheryar
    Member
    • Topics: 33
    • Replies: 18
    • ☆☆

    In May 2013, Havanna decided to sell one of its regional business divisions through a mixed asset and share deal. The decision to sell the division at a price of $40 million was made public in November 2013 and gained shareholder approval in December 2013. It was decided that the payment of any agreed sale price could be deferred until 30 November 2015. The business division was presented as a disposal group in the statement of financial position as at 30 November 2013. At the initial classification of the division as held for sale, its net carrying amount was $90 million. In writing down the disposal group’s carrying amount, Havanna accounted for an impairment loss of $30 million which represented the difference between the carrying amount and value of
    the assets measured in accordance with applicable International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

    In the financial statements at 30 November 2013, Havanna showed the following costs as provisions relating to
    the continuing operations. These costs were related to the business division being sold and were as follows:

    (i) A loss relating to a potential write-off of a trade receivable which had gone into liquidation. The trade receivable had sold the goods to a third party and the division had guaranteed the receipt of the sale proceeds;

    (ii) An expense relating to the discounting of the long-term receivable on the fixed amount of the sale price of the disposal group;

    (iii) A provision was charged which related to the expected transaction costs of the sale including legal advice and lawyer fees.

    Are we going to classify it as an asset held for sale at the year end , as havnna did not gain shareholder approval before the year end , so the asset was not available for sale in its present condition at year end.

    and how are we going to account for prvisions stated above????

    November 15, 2015 at 3:46 pm #282572
    MikeLittle
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 27
    • Replies: 23327
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    It’s not normally necessary to gain shareholder approval for an executive decision like the disposal of a business decision. The idea behind the appointment of a board of directors is so that they will run your company with the intention of providing you with a return on your investment

    This isn’t clear: “and the division had guaranteed the receipt of the sale proceeds;”

    This looks like a further possible expense facing Havanna. The receivable should have been individually assessed for impairment at the time of reclassification and the possibility of having to honour the guarantee should have been accounted for immediately before the reclassification

    This discounting should also be brought into account when determining the net proceeds / net realisable value so $40m discounted less selling costs should be the figure given to the asset held for sale

    Upon reclassification as held for sale, the asset should have been impaired down to its fair value which I can only assume is the $40m asking price. From the wording of point number 3, these costs of realisation should also be deducted to arrive at NET realisable value so that particular provision is not necessary if the asset were to be correctly valued as $40 million less realisation costs

    The difference between carrying value of $90 million and discounted net realisable value of $40 million together with estimated selling costs (discounted if appropriate) should be expensed this year.

    That’s my take on this issue

    OK?

    November 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm #282718
    Sheryar
    Member
    • Topics: 33
    • Replies: 18
    • ☆☆

    yeah got it .

    Thank you so much for quick replies.(and good ones) :-p

    November 16, 2015 at 8:06 am #282754
    MikeLittle
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 27
    • Replies: 23327
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    You’re welcome – tell your friends how wonderful opentuition is …. and, of course, it’s FREE!!

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 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

  • RashidMh on MA Chapter 1 Questions Accounting for Management
  • John Moffat on Relevant Cash Flows for DCF Relevant Costs (example 1) – ACCA Financial Management (FM)
  • John Moffat on Accounting for Management – ACCA Management Accounting (MA)
  • Hsaini on Accounting for Management – ACCA Management Accounting (MA)
  • kennedyavege@2023 on Relevant Cash Flows for DCF Relevant Costs (example 1) – ACCA Financial Management (FM)

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