Accounting Policies, Estimates and Fair Value Measurement — Practice

Question 1

Classify each of the following as a change in accounting policy, a change in accounting estimate, or a correction of a prior period error, and state the resulting treatment (retrospective or prospective) for each

Accepted Answer

A

Question 2

Explain why Ind AS 8 treats a change in depreciation method as a change in accounting estimate rather than a change in accounting policy, even though 'method of depreciation' sounds like a policy choice.

Accepted Answer

Although the phrase 'depreciation method' sounds like a recognition or measurement policy in the way inventory valuation method clearly is, Ind AS 8 explicitly clarifies that a change in depreciation method reflects a change in the estimated pattern of consumption of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset, not a change in the underlying recognition or measurement principle itself: the asset is, both before and after the change, being depreciated on a systematic basis over its useful life to reflect the consumption of its economic benefits, and switching from straight-line to written-down-value, or vice versa, simply reflects an updated judgement about what that consumption pattern actually looks like. Because the change reflects revised information or judgement about the asset's consumption pattern rather than a genuinely different recognition or measurement principle being adopted, Ind AS 8 requires it to be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate, applied prospectively, rather than as a change in accounting policy requiring retrospective restatement.

Question 3

A company's major customer, which was already experiencing significant financial difficulty at the reporting date, is declared bankrupt three weeks after the reporting date but before the financial statements are approved for issue. Separately, a fire destroys one of the company's warehouses four weeks after the reporting date, with no indication the warehouse had any pre-existing structural weakness. Classify each event and explain the required treatment.

Accepted Answer

The customer's bankruptcy is an adjusting event, because the customer was already experiencing significant financial difficulty at the reporting date, meaning the underlying condition, a genuinely doubtful receivable, already existed at year end, and the bankruptcy declared afterward merely provides confirming evidence of that pre-existing condition; the financial statements must therefore be adjusted to reflect an appropriate impairment of the receivable from this customer as at the reporting date itself, not merely disclosed as a note. The warehouse fire is a non-adjusting event, because there is no indication the warehouse had any pre-existing structural weakness or condition at the reporting date that the fire merely confirmed; the fire and the resulting loss arose from a new event occurring entirely after the reporting date, and the financial statements are not adjusted to reflect this loss, though if the fire and resulting loss are material, the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect must be disclosed, since a material non-adjusting event still requires disclosure even though no adjustment to the recognised figures is made.

Question 4

Explain why a post-reporting-date management decision to liquidate the entity is treated differently from an ordinary adjusting or non-adjusting event under Ind AS 10, and what the practical consequence of this different treatment is.

Accepted Answer

An ordinary adjusting or non-adjusting event affects specific line items or requires specific disclosure within financial statements that are otherwise still prepared on a going concern basis, but a post-reporting-date determination that the entity will be liquidated, or has no realistic alternative but to cease trading, calls into question the fundamental basis on which the entire set of financial statements is prepared, since going concern is the underlying assumption beneath virtually every recognition and measurement decision in the statements, from asset valuation to liability classification. Ind AS 10 therefore requires that where such a determination is made after the reporting date but before the financial statements are approved for issue, the financial statements are not prepared on a going concern basis at all, regardless of how the specific event might otherwise be classified as adjusting or non-adjusting. The practical consequence is a wholesale change in measurement basis, typically to a break-up or realisable value basis reflecting amounts expected to be recovered or settled in a liquidation scenario, rather than merely adjusting or disclosing one or two specific items as an ordinary adjusting or non-adjusting event would require.

Question 5

Explain why Ind AS 113 defines fair value as an exit price rather than an entry price, and what practical difference this makes when an entity has recently paid an unusually high price for an asset due to entity-specific synergies.

Accepted Answer

Fair value under Ind AS 113 is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, an exit price, rather than the price that would be paid to acquire the asset, an entry price, because the standard's objective is to measure what the asset is genuinely worth to market participants generally at the measurement date, not what a specific entity happened to pay for it, which can diverge from general market value for entity-specific reasons. If an entity has recently paid an unusually high price for an asset because of synergies specific to its own particular business, such as the asset fitting uniquely well with its existing operations in a way no other market participant would value equally, that entry price reflects the entity's own specific circumstances rather than what a hypothetical market participant, without those same specific synergies, would pay to acquire, or would receive to sell, the asset in an orderly transaction; fair value measured as an exit price would therefore likely be lower than the price actually paid, since it strips out the entity-specific synergy premium and reflects only the value a general market participant would assign to the asset.

Question 6

A company owns a plot of land currently used as a low-rise storage facility, generating modest rental income. Local zoning laws would permit conversion of the site into a high-rise residential complex, and such a conversion is financially feasible and would be significantly more valuable, and there is clear market demand for such a conversion in the area. Explain how Ind AS 113 requires this land to be measured for fair value purposes, and the three conditions that must be satisfied for this measurement basis to apply.

Accepted Answer

Ind AS 113 requires the fair value of a non-financial asset such as this land to be measured based on its highest and best use by market participants, which may differ from the entity's own current use of the asset, provided the alternative use is physically possible, legally permissible and financially feasible. Here, converting the site to a high-rise residential complex would need to satisfy all three conditions: physical possibility, meaning the site's physical characteristics, such as size and location, can actually accommodate a high-rise structure; legal permissibility, meaning local zoning laws genuinely allow this conversion, which the facts state they do; and financial feasibility, meaning the conversion generates an adequate return to justify the investment required, which the facts also confirm along with clear market demand. Since all three conditions are satisfied, and a market participant would indeed value the land based on this higher-value residential conversion potential rather than its current, lower-value storage use, Ind AS 113 requires the land's fair value to be measured reflecting the higher, alternative highest-and-best-use value, not the value associated with its current storage use, since fair value is deliberately independent of how the reporting entity itself happens to currently use the asset.

Question 7

Classify each of the following fair value measurements by hierarchy level, and briefly justify

Accepted Answer

A

Question 8

Explain what Ind AS 8 permits when retrospective application of a new accounting policy is impracticable for a particular prior period, and why the standard allows this exception at all.

Accepted Answer

Where retrospective application would require the entity to make assumptions about what management's intent would have been in that period, or to make significant estimates using information that cannot now be objectively distinguished from information that became available only later, Ind AS 8 treats retrospective application as impracticable and instead permits the entity to apply the new policy prospectively from the earliest date practicable, rather than restating periods for which retrospective application genuinely cannot be reliably performed. The standard allows this exception because faithful representation would itself be undermined, not served, by a restated figure built on assumptions or hindsight-tainted estimates dressed up as objective retrospective reconstruction; a genuinely impracticable retrospective adjustment would produce numbers no more reliable, and arguably less reliable, than simply applying the new policy going forward from the earliest date it can genuinely be applied with the information actually available at that point.

Question 9

A new Ind AS has been issued but is not yet effective for the current reporting period. Explain what Ind AS 8 requires an entity to disclose in this situation, and why this disclosure matters to users even before the new standard actually applies.

Accepted Answer

Ind AS 8 requires an entity to disclose the fact that a new Ind AS has been issued but is not yet effective, together with known or reasonably estimable information relevant to assessing the possible impact the new standard will have on the entity's financial statements in the period of initial application. This disclosure matters to users even before the standard takes effect because a significant forthcoming change in recognition, measurement or presentation can materially affect how a user should interpret current trends in the entity's reported figures, and an early, informed warning of the expected direction and scale of that impact allows users to adjust their own expectations and analysis in advance, rather than being caught by an unexplained shift in reported figures only in the period the new standard first applies, at which point comparability with the entity's own prior trend would otherwise be disrupted without prior notice.

Question 10

A company discovers, three months after its reporting date but before the financial statements are approved for issue, that a mathematical error was made in computing depreciation for the year just ended, based on data that was fully available at the time the original computation was made. Explain whether this should be treated under Ind AS 10 as an adjusting event or under Ind AS 8 as a correction of an error, and why the distinction matters procedurally even though the financial statements are adjusted in both cases.

Accepted Answer

This should be treated under Ind AS 8 as a correction of an error, not under Ind AS 10 as an adjusting event, because the mistake arose from a computational error using information that was already fully available at the time the original financial statements were being prepared, which is squarely within Ind AS 8's definition of a prior period error, whereas Ind AS 10's adjusting events concern genuinely new information or events arising after the reporting date that provide evidence about conditions existing at that date, not a computational mistake made with data already at hand. The distinction matters procedurally, even though both would result in the financial statements being adjusted before issue in this instance, because the two standards carry different specific disclosure requirements: Ind AS 8 requires disclosure of the nature of the prior period error and, for each period presented, the amount of the correction, whereas Ind AS 10's disclosure requirements for adjusting events are framed differently, around the nature of the event and its financial effect; correctly identifying which standard genuinely governs the situation ensures the correct, standard-specific disclosure is actually made rather than an ill-fitting one borrowed from the wrong standard.

Question 11

A company's board declares a dividend to equity shareholders after the reporting date but before the financial statements are approved for issue. Explain how Ind AS 10 requires this to be treated, and why.

Accepted Answer

Ind AS 10 treats dividends declared after the reporting date as a non-adjusting event: the entity does not recognise the dividend as a liability at the reporting date, because no present obligation to pay the dividend existed at that date, the obligation only arising once the board (or shareholders, depending on the entity's governance requirements) actually declares it after the reporting date. Instead, the amount of the dividend must be disclosed, either on the face of the financial statements or in the notes, as a non-adjusting event, so that users are informed of the board's decision even though it does not affect the recognised liabilities or equity as at the reporting date itself; this treatment follows directly from the same existence-at-the-reporting-date test that governs every other adjusting/non-adjusting classification, since the obligation to pay this specific dividend genuinely did not exist until the declaration occurred, after year end.

Question 12

Explain why Ind AS 113 states that the transaction price is presumed to equal fair value at initial recognition, but that this presumption can be rebutted, giving one circumstance in which it would be.

Accepted Answer

In most ordinary, arm's-length transactions, the transaction price, the price paid or received in exchange for the asset or liability, is presumed to represent fair value at initial recognition, because an orderly transaction between unrelated, willing market participants transacting at arm's length is itself the very kind of transaction fair value is meant to represent, so absent evidence to the contrary, the two are treated as coinciding. This presumption is rebutted, however, where the transaction price does not represent fair value, for instance where the transaction occurs between related parties on non-market terms, where the transaction takes place under duress or where the seller is compelled to sell, such as in a forced liquidation, or where the unit of account represented by the transaction price differs from the unit of account at which the asset or liability is measured for fair value purposes under the relevant Ind AS; in any of these circumstances, the entity must measure fair value using another valuation technique or the fair value hierarchy generally, rather than simply defaulting to the transaction price, since the transaction in question does not reflect the kind of orderly, arm's-length exchange fair value is defined around.

Question 13

Explain why the use of reasonable estimates is described as an essential, not a compromising, part of preparing reliable financial statements under Ind AS 8.

Accepted Answer

Ind AS 8 and the broader Conceptual Framework recognise that financial statements necessarily involve estimation wherever future outcomes or amounts cannot be precisely known with certainty at the reporting date, such as the useful life of an asset, the extent of a warranty obligation, or the recoverability of a receivable, and the use of reasonable estimates, made using the best available information and appropriate judgement, does not undermine the reliability of financial statements; on the contrary, refusing to recognise items simply because their precise amount is uncertain would itself undermine the completeness and relevance of the financial statements, since many genuinely relevant assets, liabilities, income and expenses can only ever be measured through reasonable estimation rather than exact calculation. This is why Ind AS 8 treats a later revision of an estimate, made in light of new information, as a normal, expected part of the accounting process, requiring only prospective adjustment, rather than treating every estimate revision as an admission that the prior financial statements were unreliable or wrong.

Question 14

A significant deterioration in operating results and financial position occurs after the reporting date, and while management has not yet decided to liquidate the entity, the deterioration raises significant doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. Explain how this differs from the straightforward liquidation-decision scenario, and what Ind AS 10 and Ind AS 1 together require in this intermediate situation.

Accepted Answer

This differs from the straightforward liquidation-decision scenario because management has not actually decided to liquidate or cease trading, and has not concluded it has no realistic alternative but to do so; the situation instead involves a material uncertainty about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, which is a materially less definitive conclusion than an actual decision to cease operations. In this intermediate situation, the financial statements continue to be prepared on a going concern basis, since that remains the appropriate basis absent an actual decision or conclusion that the entity has no realistic alternative to ceasing operations, but Ind AS 1 requires disclosure of the material uncertainty that casts significant doubt on the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, so that users are alerted to the risk even though the financial statements themselves are not restated onto a break-up basis; Ind AS 10, in parallel, would treat the post-reporting-date deterioration itself as a non-adjusting event if the deterioration in operating results genuinely arose from conditions and developments occurring after the reporting date, requiring disclosure of its nature and, where estimable, its financial effect, alongside the going concern uncertainty disclosure Ind AS 1 separately requires.

Question 15

An entity measures a fair value using a discounted cash flow model where the discount rate is derived from observable market yields on comparable instruments, but the projected cash flows themselves are based substantially on the entity's own internal, unobservable business projections. Explain why this measurement is classified at the lowest level of the hierarchy that any of its significant inputs falls into, and what level that would be here.

Accepted Answer

Ind AS 113 requires a fair value measurement that uses multiple inputs from different levels of the hierarchy to be categorised, in its entirety, within the level of the lowest-level input that is significant to the measurement as a whole, precisely because a single unobservable, low-reliability input embedded within an otherwise observable-input-based model can materially affect the overall reliability and verifiability of the resulting fair value figure, and categorising the whole measurement by its most reliable input would understate the genuine estimation uncertainty involved. Here, although the discount rate is derived from observable Level 2 market yields, the projected cash flows are based substantially on the entity's own internal, unobservable projections, a Level 3 input, and since these cash flow projections are clearly significant to the overall valuation, the entire fair value measurement must be classified as Level 3, not Level 2, reflecting the fact that its overall reliability is only as strong as its weakest, most judgement-dependent significant input.

Practice — Accounting Policies, Estimates and Fair Value Measurement

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities