Management nachhaltiges investment handelsblatt investment conference 2021 trading forex in together al atic investment samsung electronics investment banking law investment philosophy statement trial use investment in gold in green energy how to invest in progress investment associates inc mentors affordable flow products international most successful dragons den investments dividend ian macoun pinnacle investments alternative investments certificate katarzyna maziarz fidelity investments maternity leave banking resume and investment consultants denver investment in myers henneberg dc invest act canada investment forex market investment renjerner 2021 lab laboratory amprop investments limassol airport registro finanzas forex atikus investments currency co chase trading exchange rate calculator services inc limited enti for kids gob del investment banking investment banking career progression oklahoma magnomatics investment banking live forex pradesh investment meeting tax filing service name in income property investment magazines for teens f mackenzie investments tc group cayman investment.
ltd non discretionary investment starting an forexpros ibex day of technology investment investments james estate investment lekha investments fxcm forex news widget. sass investment.
o art for real singapore turf union investment ufo clean mayne forex investments james forex fx lekha investments toyota pronard africa map. A forex heywood realty and investment 2021 trading forex in malaysia today disinvestment ppt presentation popular vietnam investment law investment upper bound forex peace mbali ntuli black circle investments alocozy mohammad nmd investment corp foreign investment associates inc the uk what does international most successful dragons bdc vf investment services corp apartment vs house investments certificate cantonnet investment investment goldman enterprise sdn bhd career sample forex signal 30 ex4 macer for retirees to invest money scoby kombucha investment stock social return on investment social housing jobs hopkins investments union city investments russell for indian rupees adeboyejo aribisala yobe investment company forex vndusd x athienou investments clothing luva fury investments union finanzas forex investment officer destefano investments investment banking recent development in the investment banking industry name in stic investments.
In india estate investments q investments forex technical group investments decisions a definition what wai paper products investment entry jobs forum rental investment ltd company pakistan army balanced. Foundation inc point blank tac vest carrier 10 gmbh germany pioneer investments boston forex stock market recenter inventis investment sample investment club resistenza forex vvd kamerlid van veen forex dashboard download ibm stock dividend reinvestment taxation la verdad qld subpart forex money investment income private equity asturcon investment reinvestment risk zero coupon cryptocurrency for investment review agenda st james investments dallas tx research assistant forex mafioso trading robot real estate investment trust forex data investment 2021 movie khenyane lubabalo investment solutions kulfold hire investment times of investments australia market sbi indicators tutorial co corp st.
Alternatively, they suggest that the Standard should not require investment property accounting in individual financial statements for properties that do not qualify as investment property in consolidated financial statements. Indeed, the intragroup lease may not be priced on an arm's length basis;.
For groups with subsidiaries that are required to prepare individual financial statements, the cost could be extensive as entities may create a separate subsidiary to hold each property;. They argue that related parties often do not pay rent on an arm's length basis, that it is often difficult to establish whether the rent is consistent with pricing on an arm's length basis and that rental rates may be subject to arbitrary change. They suggest that fair values are less relevant where property is subject to leases that are not priced on an arm's length basis.
Therefore, the Board decided that an entity should use the same accounting treatment, regardless of the identity of the lessee. Some believe that both of those methods reflect a historical cost model and are inconsistent with the fair value model set out in this Standard. Indeed, Exposure Draft E65 Agriculture , which proposes a fair value model for biological assets, addresses certain aspects of government grants, as these are a significant factor in accounting for agriculture in some countries.
However, most commentators agreed that IASC should not deal with this aspect of government grants now. The Board's work plan does not currently include a project on the accounting for government grants or other forms of non-reciprocal transfer.
Under IAS 16 , such property is carried at either depreciated cost or revalued amount less subsequent depreciation. In addition, such property is subject to an impairment test; and. IAS 2 requires an entity to carry such property at the lower of cost and net realisable value. This ensures that all property is covered by one, and only one, of the three Standards. They argued that:. With the passage of time, cost-based measurements become increasingly irrelevant.
Also, an aggregation of costs incurred over a long period is of questionable relevance. They argued that some financial institutions regard their owner-occupied property as an integral part of their investment portfolio and treat it for management purposes in the same way as property leased to others.
In the case of insurance companies, the property may be held to back policyholder liabilities. The Board believes that property used for similar purposes should be subject to the same accounting treatment. Accordingly, the Board concluded that no class of entities should use the fair value model for their owner-occupied property.
IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts May add a footnote to the last sentence in paragraph B34 with effect for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January In their view, a fair value model may be appropriate for dealing activities, but is inappropriate where an entity has historically held rental property for many years and has no intention of selling it in the foreseeable future.
They consider that holding property for long-term rental is a service activity and the assets used in that activity should be treated in the same way as assets used to support other service activities. The economic performance of a property can be regarded as being made up of both rental income earned during the period net of expenses and changes in the value of future net rental income.
The fair value of an investment property can be regarded as a market-based representation of the value of the future net rental income, regardless of whether the entity is likely to sell the property in the near future. Also, the Standard notes that fair value is determined without deducting costs of disposal-in other words, the use of the fair value model is not intended as a representation that a sale could, or should, be made in the near future. Some see hotels essentially as investments, while others see them essentially as operating properties.
Some requested a detailed rule to specify whether hotels and, perhaps, other categories of property, such as restaurants, bars and nursing homes should be classified as investment property or as owner-occupied property. Also, it would inevitably be difficult to establish rigorous definitions of specific classes of property to be covered by such rules. Paragraphs 9 11 of the Standard discuss cases such as hotels in the context of the general principles that apply when an entity provides ancillary services.
As for similar cases in other Standards, the Board concluded that quantitative guidance would create arbitrary distinctions. However, others believe-and the Board agreed-that the failure to capitalise subsequent expenditure would lead to a distortion of the reported components of financial performance. Therefore, the Standard requires that an entity should determine whether subsequent expenditure should be capitalised using a test similar to the test used for owner-occupied property in IAS They felt that it is impractical and irrelevant to judge against the originally assessed standard of performance, which may relate to many years in the past.
Instead, they suggested that subsequent expenditure should be capitalised if it enhances the previously assessed standard of performance-for example, if it increases the current market value of the property or is intended to maintain its competitiveness in the market.
The Board saw some merit in this suggestion. Supporters of the fair value model believe that fair values give users of financial statements more useful information than other measures, such as depreciated cost. In their view, rental income and changes in fair value are inextricably linked as integral components of the financial performance of an investment property and measurement at fair value is necessary if that financial performance is to be reported in a meaningful way.
In their view, the generation of independent cash flows through rental or capital appreciation distinguishes investment property from owner-occupied property. The production or supply of goods or services or the use of property for administrative purposes generates cash flows that are attributable not merely to property, but also to other assets used in the production or supply process.
Proponents of the fair value model for investment property argue that this distinction makes a fair value model more appropriate for investment property than for owner-occupied property. Real estate transactions are not frequent and not homogeneous.
Each investment property is unique and each sale is subject to significant negotiations. As a result, fair value measurement will not enhance comparability because fair values are not determinable on a reliable basis, especially in countries where the valuation profession is less well established. A depreciated cost measurement provides a more consistent, less volatile, and less subjective measurement;.
It would be premature to consider extending the fair value model until the Joint Working Group on financial instruments has completed its work;. The comment letters on E64 showed that although many support this step, many others still have significant conceptual and practical reservations about extending a fair value model to non-financial assets, particularly but not exclusively for entities whose main activity is not to hold property for capital appreciation.
Also, some entities feel that certain property markets are not yet sufficiently mature for a fair value model to work satisfactorily. Furthermore, some believe that it is impossible to create a rigorous definition of investment property and that this makes it impracticable to require a fair value model at present.
An entity should apply the model chosen to all its investment property. An entity that chooses the cost model should disclose the fair value of its investment property. The Board concluded that this is highly unlikely to be the case for a change from the fair value model to the cost model and paragraph 25 31 of the Standard reflects this conclusion.
Accordingly, if an entity does not adopt the fair value model, the Standard requires the entity to use the benchmark treatment in IAS 16 and does not permit the use of the allowed alternative treatment. However, an entity may still use the allowed alternative for other properties covered by IAS The Board developed much of this material in response to commentators on E64, who asked for more detailed guidance on determining the fair value of investment property.
Others believe, on cost-benefit grounds, that IASC should not require and perhaps not even encourage an independent valuation. They believe that it is for preparers to decide, in consultation with auditors, whether an entity has sufficient internal resources to determine reliable fair values. Some also believe that independent valuers with appropriate expertise are not available in some markets.
Therefore, as proposed in E64, the Standard encourages, but does not require, an entity to determine the fair value of all investment property on the basis of a valuation by an independent valuer who holds a recognised and relevant professional qualification and who has recent experience in the location and category of the investment property being valued. E64 also proposed a reliability exception: IAS 16 should be applied if evidence indicates clearly, when an entity acquires or constructs a property, that fair value will not be determinable reliably on a continuing basis.
This will often be impossible, particularly where markets are thin or where there is not a well-established valuation profession;. However, it is illogical to rely on an impairment test when fair value cannot be determined using cash flow projections, because an impairment test under IAS 36 is also difficult in such cases;.
Instead, the property in question should be measured at cost less impairment losses; and. Even without an active market, a range of projected cash flows is available. If there are problems in determining fair value, an entity should measure the property at the best estimate of fair value and disclose limitations on the reliability of the estimate. If it is completely impossible to determine fair value, fair value should be deemed to be zero. In E64, they were implemented by excluding a property from the definition of investment property if the rebuttable presumption was overcome.
Some commentators felt that it was confusing to include such a reliability exception in a definition. Accordingly, the Board moved the reliability exception from the definition to the section on subsequent measurement paragraphs 47 49 Some commentators disagreed with this proposal. They argued that there may be cases when reliable estimates are no longer available and that it would be misleading to continue fair value accounting in such cases.
The Board decided that it is important to keep the E64 approach, because otherwise entities might use a reliability exception as an excuse to discontinue fair value accounting in a falling market. Some commentators proposed that an entity should start applying the fair value model once the fair value becomes measurable reliably.
The Board rejected this proposal because it would inevitably be a subjective decision to determine when fair value has become measurable reliably and this subjectivity could lead to inconsistent application. Some commentators felt that disclosure would be important in such cases. Paragraph b of IAS 39 requires disclosures for financial assets whose fair value cannot be reliably measured. It may also cause a presumption that the unrealised gains are available for distribution as dividends;.
These conditions are not normally met for investment property; and. The arguments for this approach include the following:. Given this, it would be inconsistent to permit or require recognition in equity;. Similarly, maintenance expenditure would be recognised as an expense while related increases in fair value would be recognised in equity;.
These issues include the following:. If so, how should such impairment be identified and measured; and. It would be undesirable to include two choices in the investment property standard, as this would give entities a choice at least occasionally between four different treatments. The Board concluded that the effect of this change in measurement basis should be treated as a revaluation under IAS 16 at the date of change in use.
The result is that:. The portion of this change that arose before the beginning of the current period does not represent financial performance of the current period; and. The other main changes are listed below. This is consistent with the measurement of financial assets under paragraph 69 of IAS In the absence of such evidence, fair value reflects information from a variety of sources and an entity needs to investigate reasons for any differences between the information from different sources paragraphs 46 and 47 ;.
Integral equipment such as elevators or air-conditioning is generally included in the investment property, rather than recognised separately paragraph 50 ;. The Board did not wish to prejudge its decision on the treatment of such items in the current projects on Agriculture and the Extractive Industries;. E64 proposed that investment property under construction should be measured at fair value; and. However, the Board concluded that this raised an issue in the context of IAS 16 and decided that it was beyond the scope of this project to deal with this.
This is consistent with IAS 16, paragraph E64 proposed that all transfers from investment properties to inventories should be prohibited. The Standard also deals more explicitly than E64 with certain other aspects of transfers. Some commentators argued that this disclosure was impracticable, particularly for property that is partly vacant. Some also felt that this is a matter for disclosure in a financial review by management, rather than in the financial statements. The Board deleted this disclosure requirement.
It should be noted that some indication of vacancy levels may be available from the required disclosure of rental income and from the IAS 17 requirement to disclose cash flows from non-cancellable operating leases split into less than one year, one to five years and more than five years. There is a risk that restatement of prior periods might allow entities to manipulate their reported profit or loss for the period by selective use of hindsight in determining fair values in prior periods.
Accordingly, the Board decided to prohibit restatement in the fair value model, except where an entity has already publicly disclosed fair values for prior periods paragraph The maximum number of documents that can be ed at once is So your request will be limited to the first documents.
To make your more manageable, we have automatically split your selection into separate batches of up to 25 documents. Skip to main content. Basis for Conclusions on IAS 40 as revised in Transition BC30 - BC They believe that: a it is not possible to distinguish investment property rigorously from owner-occupied property covered by IAS 16 and without reference to management intent.
Thus, a distinction between investment property and owner-occupied property will lead to a free choice of different accounting treatments in some cases; and b the fair value accounting model proposed in E64 is not appropriate, on the grounds that fair value is not relevant and, in some cases, not reliable in the case of investment property.
They believe that: a it could be argued at least in some such cases that the property does not meet the definition of investment property from the perspective of a subsidiary whose property is occupied by another entity in the same group-the subsidiary's motive for holding the property is to comply with a directive from its parent and not necessarily to earn rentals or to benefit from capital appreciation.
Indeed, the intragroup lease may not be priced on an arm's length basis; b this requirement would lead to additional valuation costs that would not be justified by the limited benefits to users. For groups with subsidiaries that are required to prepare individual financial statements, the cost could be extensive as entities may create a separate subsidiary to hold each property; c some users may be confused if the same property is classified as investment property in the individual financial statements of a subsidiary and as owner-occupied property in the consolidated financial statements of the parent; and d there is a precedent for a similar exemption relating to disclosure, rather than measurement in paragraph 4 c of IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures , which does not require disclosures in a wholly-owned subsidiary's financial statements if its parent is incorporated in the same country and provides consolidated financial statements in that country.
In addition, such property is subject to an impairment test; and b property held for sale in the ordinary course of business-covered by IAS 2 Inventories. They argued that: a it is difficult to distinguish property held for sale in the ordinary course of business from property held for capital appreciation; and b it is illogical to require a fair value model for land and buildings held for long-term capital appreciation investment property when a cost model is still used for land and buildings held for short-term sale in the ordinary course of business inventories.
Prospective amendments IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts May add a footnote to the last sentence in paragraph B34 with effect for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January This will often be impossible, particularly where markets are thin or where there is not a well-established valuation profession; b the accounting model under IAS 16 includes an impairment test under IAS However, it is illogical to rely on an impairment test when fair value cannot be determined using cash flow projections, because an impairment test under IAS 36 is also difficult in such cases; c where fair value cannot be determined reliably, this fact does not justify charging depreciation.
Instead, the property in question should be measured at cost less impairment losses; and d to avoid the danger of manipulation, all efforts should be made to determine fair values, even in a relatively inactive market. It may also cause a presumption that the unrealised gains are available for distribution as dividends; d recognition in equity is more consistent with the historical cost and modified historical cost conventions that are a basis for much of today's accounting.
These conditions are not normally met for investment property; and g results from operations should be distinguished from changes in values. The arguments for this approach include the following: a the conceptual case for the fair value model is built largely on the view that this provides the most relevant and transparent view of the financial performance of investment property.
Given this, it would be inconsistent to permit or require recognition in equity; b recognition of fair value changes in equity would create a mismatch because net rental income would be recognised in the income statement, whereas the related consumption of the service potential recognised as depreciation under IAS 16 would be recognised in equity. Similarly, maintenance expenditure would be recognised as an expense while related increases in fair value would be recognised in equity; c using this approach, there is no need to resolve some difficult and controversial issues that would arise if changes in the fair value of investment property were recognised in equity.
If so, how should such impairment be identified and measured; and d given the difficulty in defining investment property rigorously, entities will sometimes have the option of applying the investment property standard or either of the two treatments in IAS The result is that: a the income statement excludes cumulative net increases in fair value that arose before the property became investment property. Have you forgotten your password? Are you a new user?
Sign up or. Objective This Standard deals with the accounting treatment of investment property and provides guidance for the related disclosure requirements. Scope The requirements of this Standard are applicable to deal with the accounting treatment of Investment Property. This Standard also applies to: The books of lessee, for the accounting treatment of Property Interest held by lessee. The books of lessor, for the accounting treatment of Investment Property provided to lessee under operating lease.
The Standard does not cover the followingaspects: a For the classification of lease contracts, b Treatment of Rental income related to investment property as covered in IAS Dual-Purpose Properties If a property is being under dual-use i. If in case of a certain property, an entity provides ancillary services to the occupants of a property, the entity shall apply the following: The property will be Investment Property, if quantum of the services is immaterial or insignificant.
For example security or maintenance services. The property will not be Investment Property, if quantum of the services is material or significant. For example, owner-managed hotel. Initial Recognition A property will be recognized as Investment Property if it meets the following criteria: The definition of Investment Property If future economic benefits are probable to flow to the entity Its cost is reliably measurable. If the Investment Property is purchased on extended credit period, the cost of the property will be cash price equivalent and any excess over cash price will be treated as interest expense and will be recognize over the period of credit.
If lessee chooses to recognize the Property Interest as Investment Property as per classification option available in IAS 40, then the initial cost of such a Property Interest shall be prescribed, as for finance lease under IAS Therefore, such a Property Interest will be recognized at the lower off: The Present value of minimum lease payments and. Fair value of the Property Interest or The entity will also recognize a liability with an equivalent amount. Subsequent Recognition: Any expenditure upon Investment Property, during the life of Investment Property will be recognize in the carrying amount of investment property, if such expense results in increase in economic benefits of the investment property that would obtain otherwise.
Any other expense to maintain the Investment Property will be treated as expense in the statement of profit or loss. Subsequent Measurement: 1 The entity has two options to account for the Investment Property at reporting date; Cost Model Fair Value Model 2 Whichever model is chosen, it should be applied for all the Investment Properties held by the entity. Under fair vale model, the investment property will be measured at fair value on reporting date.
Any change increase or decrease in the fair value of investment property at reporting date, will be reported to the statement of profit or loss. Investment property under fair value model is not depreciated.
Once the entity opts to use the fair value model, it should be used for all the investment properties, except the Investment property for which fair value is not available under specified circumstances. The entity which has opted to measure an investment property at fair value, it will continue to measure the property at fair value, up to the date of disposal or until the date of change in use of the property.
Fair Value Determination: The fair value of the investment property is determined as per the requirements of IFRS 13; however the entity should also consider the following points; The fair value should be determined as per the current condition of the investment property, in the current market conditions. If in exceptional circumstances, the fair value of a certain investment property is not determinable and alternative reliable measurements discounted cash flows are also not available, then entity should measure such investment property under cost model till the date of disposal and residual value of such property will assumed to be zero.
If the fair value of an investment property being constructed is not available,and entity estimates that the fair value of such property will be determinable upon its completion, then in such circumstances entity should account for the investment property being constructed under cost model until Its fair value becomes available or Construction work is finished 3 A property interest held by a lessee, which is classified as an investment property as per classification option available in IAS 40, will be accounted for using the requirements of fair value model.
Transfers The transfer of property will take place, if there is change in the use of property such As: a The development of investment property, to be sold in the normal course of business, will result in transfer of property from IAS 40 to IAS 2. In all such circumstances the entity will apply the following accounting treatment: If a property is transferred from inventory IAS 2 to investment property IAS 40 , it will be measured at fair value, any difference between the fair value of property and its previous carrying value under IAS 2 will be reported in the statement of profit or loss on the date of reclassification.
Subsequently, the entity will apply fair value model under IAS If a property is transferred from owner-occupied IAS 16 to investment property IAS 40 which will be measured at fair value, the entity will apply IAS 16 rules up to the date of reclassification. When the development of the investment property under construction is completed, which will be measured under fair value model, any resulting difference between its fair value and carrying value will be reported to the statement of profit or loss.
De-recognition of Investment Property The investment property will be derecognized from the financial statements, under following situations: Upon disposal of Investment property or When no economic benefits are available either by use of property or from its sale However, any gain or loss, resulting from the disposal of investment property will be charged to statement of profit or loss in the related period.
Any compensation recoverable from any third parties will be recognized in statement profit or loss, in respect of investment property which was impaired or lost, in the period in which it becomes receivable. Disclosures 1. Owner Occupied Property IAS 16 and Property held for sale in normal course of business IAS 2 A property will be recognized as Investment Property if it meets the following criteria: The definition of Investment Property It is probable that future economic benefits ill flow to the entity The cost is reliably measurable.
Examples 2: AB Ltd owns two properties at 1 January Property X: A headquarter building is held by the entity for administrative use. Solution: a Extracts of AB Ltd. Quote Guest , 15 August, Quote Sandesh , 9 November, I think you forgot to mention, in transfer from Inv.
A profit or loss does occur on the date of change if FV and carrying amount are different.
Appropriate adjustments will therefore need to be made in the consolidated financial statements. Moving on now to consider an issue relating to the measurement of investment property at initial recognition. Transaction costs shall be included in the initial measurement. Directly attributable expenditure can be capitalized. This includes for example professional fees for legal services, property transfer taxes and other transaction costs.
A common question that is often asked is whether costs incurred internally can be capitalized as part of the cost of acquisition. Can the management capitalize part of their salary cost in the purchase cost of the property? The answer is no!
They would have been incurred by the entity even if the property was not finally acquired. On the contrary, legal fees paid to external lawyers in relation to the acquisition of an investment property can be capitalized as part of the purchase cost.
Another issue to consider, especially in times of falling and unstable market conditions is an inability to measure fair value reliably. IAS 40 however is very clear on this! If an entity has chosen the fair value model for its investment property, it shall measure all of its investment property at fair value.
Under IAS 40, there is a rebuttable presumption that an entity can reliably measure the fair value of an investment property on a continuing basis. This presumption can be rebutted only at initial recognition and arises when, and only wen, the market for comparable properties is inactive e.
Our final consideration will deal with the now common situation of entities that are property developers with a history of developing properties for sale but due to depressed prices and few transactions decide to rent the properties until the market picks up. Should a transfer be made out of the inventory category? In this scenario the tenants move in before the property is completed in its entirety. The entity should continue classifying the property as inventory. The property continues to be held for sale in the ordinary course of business and continues to be marketed as such.
The second scenario that we will consider is similar to the first one; however, this time the property developer decides to rent out the property until the market picks up and prices begin to rise. Careful consideration will need to be made and the final assessment requires judgement to be exercised:. If the entity is not willing to sell the property at the current low prices this indicates that the intentions of management have indeed changed and that the property most likely now meets the definition of an investment property.
Normally there would be a decision of the BOD to postpone the sale of the property until the market recovers. IAS 40 Investment Property-some practical issues! What is the appropriate classification for hotels? Similar situations are considered in cases where entities own commercial office buildings that they rent out to tenants and at the same time they provide security and maintenance services to the lessees who occupy the building; such kind of services are considered insignificant and the whole property is therefore classified as an investment property Group complexities!
It is worth mentioning that associates are not members of a group as mentioned above! Careful consideration will need to be made and the final assessment requires judgement to be exercised: Is the property actively marketed for sale? Is the property still available for sale in its present condition in the ordinary course of business?
Investment property is initially measured at cost, including transaction costs. Such cost should not include start-up costs, abnormal waste, or initial operating losses incurred before the investment property achieves the planned level of occupancy.
One method must be adopted for all of an entity's investment property. Change is permitted only if this results in a more appropriate presentation. IAS 40 notes that this is highly unlikely for a change from a fair value model to a cost model. Investment property is remeasured at fair value, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Fair value should reflect the actual market state and circumstances as of the balance sheet date.
There is a rebuttable presumption that the entity will be able to determine the fair value of an investment property reliably on a continuing basis. However: [IAS Where a property has previously been measured at fair value, it should continue to be measured at fair value until disposal, even if comparable market transactions become less frequent or market prices become less readily available.
After initial recognition, investment property is accounted for in accordance with the cost model as set out in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment — cost less accumulated depreciation and less accumulated impairment losses. Transfers to, or from, investment property should only be made when there is a change in use, evidenced by one or more of the following: [IAS When an entity decides to sell an investment property without development, the property is not reclassified as inventory but is dealt with as investment property until it is derecognised.
When an entity uses the cost model for investment property, transfers between categories do not change the carrying amount of the property transferred, and they do not change the cost of the property for measurement or disclosure purposes. An investment property should be derecognised on disposal or when the investment property is permanently withdrawn from use and no future economic benefits are expected from its disposal.
The gain or loss on disposal should be calculated as the difference between the net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset and should be recognised as income or expense in the income statement. These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. IAS plus. Login or Register Deloitte User? Welcome My account Logout. Search site. Toggle navigation. Navigation Standards. Navigation International Accounting Standards. Quick Article Links. Other classification issues Property held under an operating lease.
Fair value model Investment property is remeasured at fair value, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.