- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
from what i know, regarding to the reversal of impairment, the increased Carrying amount due to reversal should not be more than what the depreciated historical cost would have been if the impairment had not been recognised
however, from june 2013 Q1(a)
the reversal of impairment is recognised fully, consequently the fair value equals to $105m even though the depreciated historical cost should have been $84m (90 – 6) why is that so??thanks in advance
Hi,
No, you can revalue above this but the extra revaluation above this will have to go through OCI. The first element of the revaluation will go through profit or loss as this is where the original impairment would have been charged.
So here the asset would have been at $84m as you correctly state and so the extra $21m above this to take it to $105m would go through OCI.
Thanks
got it.
but when does “increased Carrying amount due to reversal should not be more than what the depreciated historical cost would have been if the impairment had not been recognised” rule apply?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.