A brief description of the major points covered in each case and problem. CASES
Case 1 In this case, students are introduced to the difference in accounting for R&D costs between IFRS and U.S. GAAP and asked to comment on whether one method is better than the other, as well as whether any part of R&D should be capitalized. Case 2 (prepared by Peter Secord, Saint Mary’s University) In this real life case, students are asked to discuss the merits of historical costs vs. replacement costs. Actual note disclosure from a company’s financial statements is provided as background material. Case 3 (adapted from a case prepared by Peter Secord, Saint Mary’s University) A Canadian company prepares two sets of financial statement: one based on Canadian GAAP, and the other on U.S. GAAP. investigated. Case 4 This case is based on Homburg Invest Inc.’s 2006 financial statements. A reconciliation of differences between two sets of financial statements is required along with a brief note explaining why differences exist. Case 5 This case is adapted from a CICA case. It provides details regarding a company`s activities as well as financial details that were revealed as part of planning and interim work performed in the context of an audit of the financial statements. It places the student in the role of CA, reporting to the audit partner, and asks for a memo on the results of the interim audit work as well as any issues that should be raised in an upcoming meeting between the partner and the client. The reasons for some of the differences in numbers are
PROBLEMS
Problem 1 (40 min.) A single asset is acquired, and students are asked to prepare and compare financial statement numbers during the life of the asset using both a historical cost and a current value model.
Problem 2
(40 min.)
Details of a European company that reports using IFRS are given along with specific details relating to certain account balances. Students are asked to show how these balances should be reported under 1) U.S. GAAP, and 2) IFRS using the facts provided. Students are also asked to reconcile Net Income and Shareholders` Equity to from IFRS to U.S. GAAP.
Problem 5 The student compares the 2006 and most recent financial statements of Philips Electronics, a Dutch company, and answers a series of questions aimed at highlighting the differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP.
upon and that companies must comply with. In countries where capital markets are not fully developed, there are fewer suppliers of capital and these suppliers demand and receive whatever information they require from companies. As a result there is less need for standardized accounting principles. 5. The assumption underlying many countries' accounting policies is that the monetary unit is stable. When this is the case, historical costs have meaning and there is no need for price level adjustments. When the inflation level is sufficiently high in a country to make historical costs meaningless, accounting adjustments that provide for the impact of inflation have been made in order to provide information that is useful. In these countries we have seen price level adjustments and/or current value accounting as part of the generally accepted accounting practices being used. 6. In Canada items are usually listed from current to non-current, whereas in some countries, long-term assets are listed before current assets, and owners’ equity is listed before liabilities. 7. Some of the differences between Canadian and U.S. GAAP are: • • Canadians capitalize and amortize development costs (under certain More U.S. companies use the LIFO method to calculate ending inventory and circumstances) while they are expensed immediately in the U.S. cost of goods sold, as it is allowable for tax purposes if used in the financial statements. Canadian companies favour weighted average and FIFO, as LIFO is not an acceptable alternative under GAAP. • There are also some differences in the accounting for post-retirement benefits.
14. There are a few reasons why a private company would want to comply with IFRSs even though it is not required to do so. It may have plans to become publicly listed at some point in the future and will then be required to comply with IFRS after January 1, 2011 as a publicly accountable enterprise. In this case it would make sense to prepare IFRS compliant statements in anticipation of the public transaction since the company would have to provide multiple years of comparative financial statements that comply with IFRS. A private company may have users of their financial statements that find IFRS statements more useful for their purposes (e.g. creditors, customers, partners, and other stakeholders that may receive the company’s financial statements). Given the global economy and the increased number of countries that have converted to IFRS, this is more likely than it once might have been. 15. It is true that financial statements are complicated by accounting methods, such as the method of accounting for deferred income taxes, foreign currency translation, and so on. However, some of these complexities cannot be avoided. The business environment and business transactions are themselves more complex. Since the financial statements try to reflect these business events, it is inevitable that the financial statements will be more complex. Thus, it is not accounting methods per se that make financial statements difficult to understand. Financial statements are not directed at the average person, so they cannot be criticized on the grounds that they are beyond the comprehension of the “average person”. Instead, they are intended for users with a reasonable understanding of financial statements. The question then becomes should additional explanations be provided for users who have a reasonable understanding of the financial statements? The answer depends on what type of information the “explanations” will contain. Additional explanations might be of three types: They could provide more detail on information that is already contained in financial statements. For example, certain dollar amounts reported in the financial statements might be broken down into more detail, or the significance of certain amounts might be discussed;
They could make information that is currently in the financial statements easier to understand by explaining technical accounting terms and concepts used in the statements; or
-
They could provide entirely new information not included in financial statements that might help users better understand the significance of the information that appears in the financial statements.
In all three cases, the information provided might concern the future or the past. It is important to note that for publicly accountable enterprises, there is already a considerable amount of supplemental information provided in a company’s MD&A. This document provides supplementary discussion of financial results and in many cases explanations of accounting treatments used in a company’s financial statements for the period. Further, it is important to note that at some point additional information may “overload” the user. Too much information may achieve the undesired result of making financial statements more difficult to understand. This must be taken into account when considering supplemental information and explanations.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. d 2. d 3. d 4. b 5. a 6. b 7. a 8. d 9. b 10. c 11. b 12. d 13. b 14. a 15. c
CASES
Case 1
Students often assume that U.S. GAAP is superior and that all reporting issues can (or should) be resolved by following U.S. rules. However, the reporting of research and development costs is a good example of a rule where many different approaches can be justified and the U.S. rule might be nothing more than an easy method to apply. In the United States, all such costs are expensed as incurred because of the difficulty of assessing the future value of these projects. IFRS, as well as countries such as Canada, Brazil, Japan, and Korea, allow capitalization of development costs when certain criteria are met. The issue is not whether costs that will have future benefits should be capitalized. Most
amount of research and development costs capitalized tended to vary as a company Conversely, under IFRS, development costs must be recognized as an intangible asset when an enterprise can show that the six criteria mentioned in
benefits of consistency and comparability (each company expenses all costs each year) outweigh the cost of producing financial statements that might omit valuable assets from the balance sheet? No definitive answer exists for that question. However, the reader of financial statements needs to be aware of the fundamental differences in approach that exist in accounting for research and development costs before making comparisons between companies from different countries.
reported profits must be reinvested in the business to maintain the productive capacity and not all profits are available for distribution. If all profits are distributed, the business will not have the capacity to replace the items that have been consumed in the process of earning income. Replacement cost accounting will alleviate this problem by charging to expense the replacement cost of all items consumed. With replacement cost charged to expense, the income remaining is a true income, potentially available for distribution without impairment of the productive capacity of the enterprise. A further important point is that both the preparer and the user of financial statements should understand the basis of preparation of the statements, and the strengths and weaknesses of the approach employed.
Given the higher asset values in the Canadian financial statements, the Canadian entity may be using the revaluation option under IFRS. What items, if any, have been deferred and are being amortized for Canadian purposes that are directly expensed in the U.S. statements? (R&D comes to mind) Does this account for the difference in intangibles?
•
A variety of other specific points could be raised, including, for example, policies associated with tax allocation.
Although the differences represent a dilemma to the Board of Directors in this case, neither set of financial statements may be said to be unequivocally superior to the other for the purpose of making investment decisions. This is the general dilemma of international comparisons, and a principal reason why accounting harmonization is so important.
CASE 4
(a) Net Income – Canadian GAAP Unrealized valuation changes Revenue less operating expenses and COS Goodwill impairment loss Depreciation and amortization Income taxes Net income – IFRS (b) The major difference between the two net income numbers is contained in the accounting for the company’s development properties and investment properties. Under Canadian GAAP, these properties are valued at the lower of depreciated cost and market, whereas under IFRS, these properties are valued on a yearly basis at fair market value with the unrealized gains reported in income. The properties are not depreciated under IFRS. The difference in income tax is represented entirely by the future taxes that will be paid when (and if) these gains are actually realized. $ (96,083) (286,060) (8,306) 14,862 62,860 36,074 $ (276,653)
Given that Roman Systems Inc. (RSI) plans to go public within the next year, it should probably follow IFRS. This will avoid retrospective restatement of the financial statements at a later date. RSI’s bias is to maximize revenue, net income and shareholder’s equity in order to attract potential investors. The major financial reporting issues arising from our planning and interim work are: I. Accounting for the costs of the new accounting system II. Revenue recognition a. Maintenance and contract revenue b. Product revenue c. ABM revenue III. Convertible debentures IV. Receivable from Mountain Bank Accounting for new accounting system costs During fiscal Year 12, RSI implemented a new general ledger package. It was required because the old general ledger package would no longer be compatible with other software modules such as inventory, payroll and purchasing. The new package has been functioning in parallel with the old system since April 1, Year 12, and will no longer be used in parallel effective July 1, Year 12. The new package has been used to generate RSI’s financial results since April. RSI has incurred $720,000 in third-party costs associated with the new general ledger package, together with $70,000 of internal salary costs. These costs have all been capitalized in Year 12. IAS 38 offers guidance as to the costs that may be capitalized when internally developing intangible assets. In particular:
The cost of an internally generated intangible asset comprises all directly attributable costs necessary to create, produce, and prepare the asset to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. Examples of directly attributable costs are: (a) costs of materials and services used or consumed in generating the intangible asset; (b) costs of employee benefits (as defined in IAS 19) arising from the generation of the intangible asset; (c) fees to register a legal right; and (d) amortization of patents and licenses that are used to generate the intangible asset. IAS 23 specifies criteria for the recognition of interest as an element of the cost of an internally generated intangible asset. The following are not components of the cost of an internally generated intangible asset: (a) selling, administrative and other general overhead expenditure unless this expenditure can be directly attributed to preparing the asset for use; (b) identified inefficiencies and initial operating losses incurred before the asset achieves planned performance; and (c) expenditures on training staff to operate the asset. Based on the above: Costs of $110,000 related to initial review and recommendations would be considered business process re-engineering activities and not directly related to the creation of the new system. These costs should be expensed. Costs of $320,000 for new software and implementation costs represent a betterment, as they extend the life of the accounting system and enhance the service capacity. They should be capitalized. Training costs of $225,000 should be expensed, as the costs are not directly attributable to the development, betterment, or acquisition of the software. The monthly support fee of $25,000 (and all future monthly fees) is an operational cost of the system and should be expensed.
The other consulting fees of $40,000 should be reviewed in more detail, but they appear to be part of the ongoing costs of the new system with no specific value added, and should likely be expensed.
-
RSI has capitalized $70,000 of salaries related to employees involved with the implementation of the new system. These salaries could be capitalized if they are directly attributable to the implementation of the new software package. Since only two additional individuals were hired to handle the work previously done by the four employees, it is questionable whether the four employees were 100% dedicated to the task of implementing the new software. Only the costs related to the implementation should be capitalized.
amounts were written off/forgiven. In the absence of either, it would appear supportable that the accounts receivable related to this sale are collectible and do not need to written down/off. Overall Impact The affects of my recommendations on the key financial metrics are presented in Exhibit I. As indicated therein, revenue, net income and shareholder’s equity will decrease. RSI will not like these adjustments because they worsen the key financial metrics. The adjustments are appropriate as they better reflect the results of operations and financial position of RSI in accordance with GAAP. Exhibit I Impact of Recommendations on Key Financial Metrics Issue Software costs Revenue recognition for maintenance contracts products ABM business Transaction fees split between debt & equity amortize discount on debt - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - 2,547 +??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? - ??? Revenue Income - 350 Equity - 350
Convertible debentures
Mountain Bank Overall impact
PROBLEMS
Problem 1
Historical Cost (U.S. GAAP) Jan 1 /1 Asset cost 10,000,000 Current Value (IAS 16) 10,000,000
500,000 9,500,000 500,000 9,000,000 500,000 8,500,000 500,000 8,000,000 Year 2 500,000 500,000 Jan 2/3 666,667 500,000 Dec 31/3 11,333,333 8,500,000 Year 3 666,667 500,000 Dec 31/4 10,666,666 8,000,000 Year 4
Dec 31/3 Balance Dec 31/4 Balance (a) 1. IAS 16 2. U.S. GAAP (b) 1. IAS 16 2. U.S. GAAP (c) IAS 16
12,000,000 9,000,000
total depreciation over 20 years Years 1 & 2 Next 18 years 1,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 10,000,000 3,000,000
U.S. GAAP Profit
total depreciation over 20 years
U.S. GAAP > IAS 16
There would be no difference in shareholders’ equity at the end of 20 years During the first two years the reduction in shareholders’ equity is the same under the two alternatives (2 x 500,000 = 1,000,000) During the last 18 years depreciation IAS 16 > U.S. GAAP Offset by appraisal surplus Difference in shareholders’ equity (18 x 166,667) 3,000,000 3,000,000 0
Under IFRS (IAS 2), inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market. Net realizable value is
used as the market value. Thus, inventory should be stated at the lower of $100,000, and $98,000, which is the net realizable value (market value).
2
Under U.S. GAAP, inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market. However, under U.S.
GAAP the market value is the midpoint between replacement cost ($95,000), net realizable value ($98,000) and net realizable value less normal profit margin ($98,000 - .20 x $100,000 = $78,000). (ii) R&D @ Dec 31, Yr 2
3
IFRS3 $135,000
U.S. GAAP4 $0
$500,000 - ($500,000*.30)/10 = $135,000 – only development costs are capitalized. (IAS 38) R&D costs are expensed under U.S. GAAP. IFRS5 $0 U.S. GAAP6 $30,000
4
(iii) Deferred gain on lease @ Dec 31, Yr 2
5
Under IFRS (IAS 17), a gain on sale-leaseback is recognized immediately in income if the
lease qualifies as an operating lease.
6
Under U.S. GAAP, if the lessee does not relinquish more than a minor part of the right to use the asset, the gain is deferred and amortized over the lease term. ($50,000 - $50,000/5*2 = $30,000)
(iv) Equipment @ Dec 31, Yr 2
IFRS7 $56,250
U.S. GAAP8 $60,000
7
Under IFRS (IAS 36), an asset is impaired if the carrying amount exceeds the higher of assets
($72,000). If impaired, the asset is written down to its value in use. The balance at Dec 31, Yr 2 is therefore determined using the $75,000 value in use at Dec 31, Yr 1 less one year of depreciation ($75,000/4 = $18,750).
8
Under U.S. GAAP, there is no indicator of impairment if the undiscounted cash flows from its use ($85,000) are greater than the carrying amount ($80,000 = $100,000 - $20,000 at Dec 31, Yr 1). ($50,000 - $50,000/5*2 = $30,000). The balance under U.S. GAAP at Dec 31, Yr 2 is therefore $100,000 less two years of depreciation ($20,000 per year).
(b) Net Income Year 2 under IFRS Less: additional write-down of inv ($98,000-$95,000) lease gain amort not recognized under IFRS additional depreciation under U.S. GAAP ($20,000 - $18,750) Add: development cost amort, not recognized under U.S. GAAP Net Income Year 2 under U.S. GAAP S/E Dec 31 Year 2 under IFRS Less: additional write-down of inv ($98,000-$95,000) development cost amort, not recognized under U.S. GAAP additional depreciation under U.S. GAAP ($20,000 - $18,750) Add: lease gain deferred under U.S. GAAP S/E @ Dec 31, Year 2 under U.S. GAAP $2,000,000 ($3,000) ($10,000) ($1,250) $15,000 $2,000,750 $16,000,000 ($3,000) ($135,000) ($1,250) $30,000 $15,890,750
WEB-BASED PROBLEMS
Problem 1
To illustrate the response to this problem, the 2008 Form 20-F (Annual Financial Statements and MD&A) was selected for China Mobile Limited, a mobile services provider headquartered in China. (a) The financial statements are presented in Rinminbi (Chinese Yuan). This is disclosed on the face of the financial statements;
(b) The financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards. This is disclosed in the statement of compliance in Note 1 on page F-11. (c) There is no reconciliation provided between IFRS and U.S. GAAP as recently the SEC approved the use of IFRS without reconciliation for all foreign companies listed on U.S. exchanges. (d) Current ratio 2008 = 240,170 / 180,573 = 1.33:1, 2007 = 207,635 / 154,953 = 1.34:1. Although the current ratio would seem to indicate that the liquidity position of the company slightly weakened during the year, the working capital position (current assets minus current liabilities) has actually increased (WC = 2008 – 59,597, 2007 – 52,682). On this basis, the liquidity of the company has slightly increased year over year. (e) Debt/equity 2008 = (180,573 + 34,217)/442,907 = .485:1, 2007 = (154,953 + 34,401)/374,239 = .506:1. The solvency of the company improved slightly from 2007 to 2008. (f) Net income improved from 87,179 in 2007 to 112,954 in 2008. The biggest item affecting net income was usage fees, which increased by approximately 34,000 year over year.
note 4, the company provides a reconciliation of profit for 2008, the prior year. The three major differences related to impairment of intangibles, share based payment and amortization of intangibles. (d) Current ratio 2009 = 39,010 / 26,553 = 1.47:1, 2008 = 33,988 / 19,601 = 1.73:1. Since the current ratio and the working capital position declined during the year, the liquidity position of the company weakened during the year. (e) Debt/equity 2009 = 41,747 / 42,045 = .99:1, 2008 = 38,284 / 47,350 = .81:1. The solvency of the company weakened during the year. (f) Net income decreased from a profit of 3,836 in 2008 to a loss of 5,168 in 2009. The biggest item affecting the change in net income was a goodwill impairment loss of 10,856 in 2009 compared to 90 in 2008.
(e) Debt/equity 2009 = (10,589 + 7,872) / (539 + 10,061) = 1.74:1, 2008 = (11,941 + 7,991) / (657 + 11,870) = 1.59:1. The debt to equity ratio increased. Therefore, the solvency of the company weakened during the year. (f) Net income decreased from a profit of 1,717 in 2008 to a loss of 437 in 2009. The biggest item affecting the change in net income was a decline in sales, which reduced the gross margin from 4,368 in 2008 to 1,705 in 2009.
Problem 4
(a) The financial statements are presented in British Pounds for 2006 and 2008. This is disclosed on the face of the financial statements. (b) The financial statements for 2006 and 2008 were prepared in accordance with IFRSs as endorsed and adopted for use in the EU and IFRSs as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. (c) Profit for 2006 under IFRS was 1,165 million British Pounds. Under U.S. GAAP, profit for 2006 would have been 1,034 million British Pounds. This represents an 11% difference. This is disclosed in Note 40 to the financial statements on page F-73 of the 2006 Form 20-F filing. In 2008, the company did not prepare a reconciliation between IFRS and U.S. GAAP because the SEC recently approved the use of IFRS without reconciliation for all foreign companies listed on U.S. exchanges. (d) The largest difference between the profits under each set of standards was the treatment of gain/losses on cumulative translation adjustments upon the sale of a subsidiary. This is discussed on page F-81 of the 2006 Form 20-F filing. The following two largest differences were the treatment of retirement benefits (40(h)) and the amortization of intangible assets (50(b)(g)). (e) If a reconciliation of to U.S. GAAP were not provided, a financial analyst would have to read and understand the significant accounting policies of the company under IFRS, and compare accounting policy selections to what treatments would be allowable under U.S. GAAP in order to determine what the potential differences might be. In some cases, quantifying the difference may be difficult to the extent that specific figures are not presented that would be necessary to reconcile to U.S. GAAP treatments. This highlights the benefit of having a
consistent set of standards that is followed by all publicly accountable entities as it greatly improves comparability.
Problem 5
(a) The financial statements are presented in euros for 2006 and 2009. This is disclosed on the face of the financial statements. (b) The financial statements for 2006 were prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The financial statements for 2009 were prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adopted by the European Union (EU). (c) In 2006, the company did not prepare a reconciliation between IFRS and U.S. GAAP because it reported under U.S. GAAP. In 2009, the company did not prepare a reconciliation between IFRS and U.S. GAAP the SEC recently approved the use of IFRS without reconciliation for all foreign companies listed on U.S. exchanges. (d) This is not applicable since they did not provide a reconciliation for the reasons mentioned in (c). (e) If a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP were not provided, a financial analyst would have to read and understand the significant accounting policies of the company under IFRS, and compare accounting policy selections to what treatments would be allowable under U.S. GAAP in order to determine what the potential differences might be. In some cases, quantifying the difference may be difficult to the extent that specific figures are not presented that would be necessary to reconcile to U.S. GAAP treatments. This highlights the benefit of having a consistent set of standards that is followed by all publicly accountable entities as it greatly improves comparability.