Case 11-6 trades with Lessee Ltd. . a company that operates in Britain and uses IFRS. The inquiry in this instance is how to sort a rental that Lessee. Ltd. acquired from Lessor Inc. The accounting criterion that trades with rentals under IFRS is IAS 17. IAS 17 was originally issued in September 1982 and was reissued in December 2003. It classifies leases as either finance rentals or operating rentals. Finance rentals make it so that the leaseholder recognizes an plus and a liability and the lease giver recognizes a receivable. fundamentally reassigning all the hazards and benefits of ownership. Under operating rentals. the lease giver still recognizes the plus and the leaseholder recognizes an disbursal.
The first inquiry in this instance is if the junior accountant’s analysis was right. The junior comptroller classified the rental as an operating rental. The junior comptroller is wrong because under IAS 17. 10 this rental should be classified as a finance rental. IAS 17. 10 lists out 5 state of affairss that would usually ensue in a rental being classified as a finance rental and this lease meets 2 of those state of affairss. The lease term for this rental is for “the major portion of the economic life of the asset” and “at the origin of the rental. the present value of the minimal rental payments sums to at least well all of the just value of the leased asset” . The lease term is 3 old ages. while the economic life of the equipment is 4 old ages and the present value of the rental payments are merely about $ 20. 000 off from the just value of the equipment at rental origin.
The 2nd inquiry in this instance is if the senior accountant’s analysis was right. From the paragraph above. this rental should be classified as a finance rental. The senior comptroller right classified this rental as a finance rental. However. the senior comptroller did non utilize the right price reduction rate for the present value computation of the minimal payments. IAS 17. 20 says that the payments should be “discounted at the involvement rate implicit in the rental. if operable. or else at the entity’s incremental adoption rate. ” The senior chose the lessee’s incremental adoption rate when he should hold used the lessor’s inexplicit rate from the rental.
The 3rd and concluding inquiry from the instance is how would the lease categorization alteration under U. S. GAAP. The FASB codification that trades with rentals is ASC 840. U. S. GAAP classifies leases as operating rentals or capital rentals and it has a subdivision for sale-leaseback minutess as good. Under U. S. GAAP. the rental in this instance would be classified as a capital rental. This is because ASC 840-10-25-29 says. “If at its origin a lease meets any of the four rental categorization standards in paragraph 840-10-25-1. the rental shall be classified by the leaseholder as a capital rental. ” This lease meets two of those standards.
The lease term is equal to 75 % of the economic life of the equipment ( 3 twelvemonth lease term / 4 twelvemonth economic life of equipment = . 75 or 75 % ) and the present value of the minimal rental payments “equals or exceeds 90 per centum of the surplus of the just value of the rental belongings to the lease giver at lease origin over any related investing revenue enhancement recognition retained by the lease giver and expected to be realized by the lessor” ( ASC 840-10-25-1d ) . The present value of the minimal rental payments does in fact equal or exceed 90 per centum of the just value of the equipment ( $ 248. 690 / $ 265. 000 = . 94 or 94 % ) . Under ASC 840-10-25-31. the leaseholder should utilize the inexplicit rate to cipher the present value of the rental payments because the leaseholder already knew it and the inexplicit rate is less than the lessee’s incremental adoption rate.
“IAS 17 – Leases. ” IAS Plus. Web. 25 Mar. 2015. .
“ASC 840. ” Accounting Standards Codification. FASB. Web. 25 Mar. 2015. .