Topic 202 - Property plant and equipment

IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment

IFRIC 1 Changes in Existing Decommissioning, Restoration and Similar Liabilities

IFRIC 16 Hedges of a Net Investment in a Foreign Operation

IFRIC 20 Stripping Costs in the Production Phase of a Surface Mine

• 202.1.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision – Accounting for Core inventories

• 202.3.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Cost of testing

• 202.3.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Variable payments for asset purchases

• 202.4.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Depreciation of assets leased under operating leases

• 202.4.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lease Term and Useful Life of Leasehold Improvements

• 202.6.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Disclosure of idle assets and construction in progress

• 202.6.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Disclosure of carrying amounts under the cost model

202.1.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision – Accounting for Core inventories

November 2014 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the accounting for ‘core inventories’. The submitter defined core inventories as a minimum amount of material that:

The issue is whether core inventories should be accounted for under IAS 16 or IAS 2.

The Interpretations Committee discussed the issue at its March 2014 meeting and tentatively decided to develop an Interpretation. The Interpretations Committee further directed the staff to define the scope of what is considered to be core inventories and to analyse the applicability of the concept to a range of industries.

At its July 2014 meeting the Interpretations Committee discussed the feedback received from informal consultations with IASB members, the proposed scope of core inventories and the staff analysis of the applicability of the issue to a range of industries.

The Interpretations Committee observed that what might constitute core inventories, and how they are accounted for, can vary between industries. The Interpretations Committee noted that significant judgement might be needed in determining the appropriate accounting. Disclosure about such judgements might therefore be needed in accordance with paragraph 122 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.

The Interpretations Committee noted that it did not have clear evidence that the differences in accounting were caused by differences in how IAS 2 and IAS 16 were being applied. In the absence of such evidence, the Interpretations Committee decided to remove this item from its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

202.3.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Cost of testing

July 2011 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the accounting for sales proceeds from testing an asset before it is ready for commercial production. The submitted fact pattern is that of an industrial group with several autonomous plants being available for use at different times. This group is subject to regulation that requires it to identify a ‘commercial production date’ for the whole industrial complex. The question asked of the Committee is whether the proceeds from those plants already in operation can be offset against the costs of testing those plants that are not yet available for use.

The Committee noted that paragraph 17(e) of IAS 16 applies separately to each item of property, plant and equipment. It also observed that the ‘commercial production date’ referred to in the submission for the whole complex was a different concept from the ‘available for use’ assessment in paragraph 16(b) of IAS 16. The Committee thinks that the guidance in IAS 16 is sufficient to identify the date at which an item of property, plant and equipment is ‘available for use’ and, therefore, is sufficient to distinguish proceeds that reduce costs of testing an asset from revenue from commercial production.

As a result, the Committee does not expect diversity to arise in practice and therefore decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

202.3.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Variable payments for asset purchases

March 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to address the accounting for variable payments to be made for the purchase of an item of property, plant and equipment or an intangible asset that is not part of a business combination.

The Interpretations Committee observed significant diversity in practice in accounting for these variable payments. It discussed the accounting, both at the date of purchasing the asset and thereafter, for variable payments that depend on the purchaser’s future activity as well as those that do not depend on such future activity.

The Interpretations Committee was unable to reach a consensus on whether an entity (the purchaser) recognises a liability at the date of purchasing the asset for variable payments that depend on its future activity or, instead, recognises such a liability only when the related activity occurs. The Interpretations Committee was also unable to reach a consensus on how the purchaser measures a liability for such variable payments.

In deliberating the accounting for variable payments that depend on the purchaser’s future activity, the Interpretations Committee considered the proposed definition of a liability in the May 2015 Exposure Draft The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting as well as the deliberations of the Board on its project on leases. The Interpretations Committee observed that, during the Board’s deliberations on its project on leases, the Board did not conclude on whether variable payments linked to future performance or use of the underlying asset meet the definition of a liability at commencement of a lease or, instead, meet that definition only at the time that the related performance or use occurs.

In addition, the Interpretations Committee noted that there are questions about the accounting for variable payments subsequent to the purchase of the asset. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the Board should address the accounting for variable payments comprehensively.

The Interpretations Committee determined that this issue is too broad for it to address within the confines of existing IFRS Standards. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

202.4.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Depreciation of assets leased under operating leases

November 2004 - The Agenda Committee considered whether interest methods of depreciation were permissible under IFRSs. Use of such methods would permit an entity to depreciate an asset that is not a receivable in much the same way as if it were a receivable, with the result that the depreciated amount of the asset reflects the present value of future net cash flow expected from it. The Committee recommended that this topic should not be added to the IFRIC’s agenda.

The IFRIC noted that, while deliberating certain issues related to service concessions, it had considered whether it would be appropriate to use an interest method of depreciation. In that discussion, it concluded that using an interest method of depreciation was not appropriate. The IFRIC concluded that there was nothing unique about assets leased under operating leases in service concessions that would cause it to reach a different conclusion about the use of interest methods of depreciation. It noted that the Basis for Conclusions in the future Interpretations on service concessions would include a discussion of its conclusions on interest methods of depreciation. [Now see IFRIC 12 paragraphs BC64 and BC65]

Back to sub-topic index

202.4.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Lease Term and Useful Life of Leasehold Improvements

November 2019 - The Committee received a request about cancellable or renewable leases.

The cancellable lease described in the request is one that does not specify a particular contractual term but continues indefinitely until either party to the contract gives notice to terminate. The contract includes a notice period of, for example, less than 12 months and the contract does not oblige either party to make a payment on termination. The renewable lease described in the request is one that specifies an initial period, and renews indefinitely at the end of the initial period unless terminated by either of the parties to the contract.

The request asked two questions:

...

Useful life of non-removable leasehold improvements

Paragraph 50 of IAS 16 requires an item of property, plant and equipment (asset) to be depreciated over its useful life.

IAS 16 defines the useful life of an asset as (emphasis added) ‘the period over which an asset is expected to be available for use by an entity; or the number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from the asset by an entity’.

Paragraphs 56 and 57 of IAS 16 provide further requirements on the useful life of an asset. In particular, paragraph 56(d) specifies that in determining the useful life of an asset, an entity considers any ‘legal or similar limits on the use of the asset, such as the expiry dates of related leases’. Paragraph 57 specifies that the useful life of an asset ‘is defined in terms of the asset’s expected utility to the entity’, and ‘may be shorter than its economic life’.

An entity applies paragraphs 56⁠–⁠57 of IAS 16 in determining the useful life of non-removable leasehold improvements. If the lease term of the related lease is shorter than the economic life of those leasehold improvements, the entity considers whether it expects to use the leasehold improvements beyond that lease term. If the entity does not expect to use the leasehold improvements beyond the lease term of the related lease then, applying paragraph 57 of IAS 16, it concludes that the useful life of the non-removable leasehold improvements is the same as the lease term. The Committee observed that, applying paragraphs 56⁠–⁠57 of IAS 16, an entity might often reach this conclusion for leasehold improvements that the entity will use and benefit from only for as long as it uses the underlying asset in the lease.

...

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the lease term of cancellable and renewable leases. The Committee also concluded that the principles and requirements in IAS 16 and IFRS 16 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine the useful life of any non-removable leasehold improvements relating to such a lease. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

202.6.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Disclosure of idle assets and construction in progress

May 2009 - The IFRIC received a request for more guidance on the extent of required disclosures relating to property, plant and equipment temporarily idle or assets under construction when additional construction has been postponed. In accordance with paragraph 74(b) of IAS 16, an entity is required to disclose the amount of expenditures recognised in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment in the course of its construction. Paragraph 79(a) encourages an entity to disclose the amount of property, plant and equipment that is temporarily idle.

The IFRIC also noted that paragraph 112(c) of IAS 1 requires an entity to provide in the notes information that is not presented elsewhere in the financial statements that is relevant to their understanding. The IFRIC noted that disclosure regarding idle assets might be particularly relevant in the current economic environment. Consequently, the IFRIC expected that entities would provide information in addition to that specifically required by IAS 16 whenever idle assets or postponed construction projects become significant. 

Given the requirements of IAS 16 and IAS 1, the IFRIC did not expect significant diversity in practice and decided not to add this issue to its agenda. However, the IFRIC recommended that the Board should undertake a review of all disclosures encouraged (but not required) by IFRSs with the objective of either confirming that they are required or eliminating them.

Back to sub-topic index

202.6.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Disclosure of carrying amounts under the cost model

May 2014 - The Interpretations Committee received a request for clarification about IAS 16. The submission relates to whether an entity is required to reflect the capitalisation of borrowing costs to meet the disclosure requirement in paragraph 77(e) of IAS 16 for assets stated at revalued amounts for which borrowing costs are not capitalised in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of IAS 23 Borrowing Costs.

The submitter asserted that the capitalisation of borrowing costs for these assets to meet disclosure requirements is burdensome and suggested that it should not be a requirement of IAS 16 to capitalise these costs. The Interpretations Committee noted that the requirements in paragraph 77(e) of IAS 16 are clear. This paragraph requires an entity to disclose the amount at which assets stated at revalued amounts would have been stated at had those assets been carried under the cost model. The amount to be disclosed includes borrowing costs capitalised in accordance with IAS 23.

The Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index