Fixed assets in IFRS and Russian accounting. Valuation of fixed assets (Fair value) Fair depreciation

29 An entity shall select either the historical cost model in paragraph 1 or the revalued cost model in paragraph 29 as its accounting policy and apply the selected policy to the entire class of property, plant and equipment.

Historical cost accounting model

30 Once an item of property, plant and equipment is recognized as an asset, it shall be carried at its cost less accumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses.

Revaluation accounting model

31 Once recognized as an asset, an item of property, plant and equipment whose fair value can be measured reliably is carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and any subsequent accumulated impairment losses. Revaluations must be made with sufficient regularity to ensure that the carrying amount does not differ materially from that which would have been determined using fair value at the end of the reporting period.

32 - 33 [Deleted]

34 The frequency of revaluation depends on changes in the fair value of the revalued fixed assets. If the fair value of a revalued asset differs significantly from its carrying amount, an additional revaluation is required. Some items of property, plant and equipment are characterized by significant and volatile changes in fair value, which necessitate annual revaluation. Such frequent revaluations are not required for items of property, plant and equipment whose fair value is subject to only minor changes. In such cases, the need for revaluation may only arise every 3 to 5 years.

35 Following a revaluation of an item of property, plant and equipment, the carrying amount of that asset is adjusted to its revalued amount. At the date of revaluation, the asset is accounted for in one of the following ways:

(a) the gross carrying amount is adjusted according to the result of the revaluation of the carrying amount of the asset. For example, the gross carrying amount may be restated based on observable market data, or it may be restated in proportion to the change in carrying amount. Accumulated depreciation at the date of revaluation is adjusted to equal the difference between the gross carrying amount and the carrying amount of the asset after taking into account any accumulated impairment losses; or
(b) accumulated depreciation is deducted from the gross carrying amount of the asset.

The amount of adjustment to accumulated depreciation of fixed assets is part of the total increase or decrease in book value, which is subject to accounting in accordance with paragraphs and.

36 If any item of fixed assets is revalued, then all assets belonging to the same class of fixed assets as this asset are subject to revaluation.

37 A class of fixed assets is a group of assets that have similar characteristics, including their basic properties and the nature of their use in the organization’s activities. Below are examples of individual classes of fixed assets:

(a) land;
(b) land and buildings;
(c) machinery and equipment;
(d) watercraft;
(e) aircraft;
(f) motor vehicles;
(g) furniture and built-in elements;
(h) office equipment; And
(i) fruit crops.

38 Revaluations of items belonging to the same class of property, plant and equipment are carried out simultaneously to avoid selective revaluation of assets and the presentation in the financial statements of amounts that represent a mixed combination of costs and values determined at different dates. However, assets of a class may be revalued in a particular order, provided that the revaluation of that class of assets is carried out within a short period of time and provided that the results of the revaluation are updated.

39 If, as a result of a revaluation, the carrying amount of an asset increases, the amount of this increase should be recognized in other comprehensive income and recorded cumulatively in equity under the heading “revaluation surplus”. However, the amount of the increase should be recognized in profit or loss to the extent that it reverses the amount of the revaluation decrease on the same asset previously recognized in profit or loss.

40 If, as a result of a revaluation, the carrying amount of an asset is decreased, the amount of the decrease should be recognized in profit or loss. However, the amount of such reduction should be recognized in other comprehensive income in the amount of the credit balance under the item “revaluation surplus” existing in relation to the specified asset. The amount of the decrease recognized in other comprehensive income reduces the amount accumulated in equity under the heading "revaluation surplus".

41 The amount of the increase in the value of an item of property, plant and equipment from its revaluation, included in equity, may be transferred directly to retained earnings at the time the relevant asset is derecognized. This may entail the transfer to retained earnings of the entire amount of the revaluation surplus at the time the relevant asset ceases to be used or is disposed of. At the same time, part of the increase in value from revaluation can be transferred to retained earnings as the organization uses the asset. In this case, the revaluation surplus carried forward is the difference between the depreciation calculated on the basis of the revalued carrying amount of the asset and the depreciation calculated on the basis of the original cost of the asset. Transfers from the revaluation surplus account to the retained earnings account cannot be made through profit or loss.

42 The tax effect (if any) arising from the revaluation of property, plant and equipment is recognized and disclosed in accordance with IAS 12 Income Taxes.

43 Each component of an item of property, plant and equipment whose cost is significant in relation to the total cost of the item must be depreciated separately.

44 An entity allocates the amount initially recognized for an item of property, plant and equipment among its significant components and depreciates each such component separately. For example, it may be advisable to dampen the fuselage and engines of an aircraft separately. Similarly, if an entity acquires an item of property, plant and equipment that is the subject of an operating lease in which the entity is the lessor, it may be appropriate to separately depreciate the amounts recorded in the item's cost that are attributable to the favorable and unfavorable terms of the lease relative to market conditions. conditions.

45 The useful life and depreciation method of one significant component of an item of property, plant and equipment may be exactly the same as the useful life and depreciation method of another significant component of the same item. Such components can be combined into groups when determining the amount of depreciation expense.

46 If an entity separately depreciates certain components of an item of property, plant and equipment, it also separately depreciates the remainder of that item. The remainder of the object consists of those components that are not individually significant. If the organization's expectations regarding the use of these components vary, approximation methods may be required to provide depreciation for the remainder of the asset to provide a true reflection of the consumption patterns and/or useful lives of its constituent components.

47 The organization has the right to charge depreciation separately for components of an object, the initial cost of which is not significant in relation to the original cost of the entire object.

48 The amount of depreciation expense for each period shall be recognized in profit or loss unless it is included in the carrying amount of another asset.

49 The amount of depreciation expense for a period is normally recognized in profit or loss. However, sometimes the future economic benefits embodied in an asset are consumed in the production of other assets. In this case, the amount of depreciation charges is part of the original cost of the other asset and is included in its book value. For example, depreciation amounts for a production building and equipment are included in the materials processing costs of producing inventories (see IAS 2). Similarly, depreciation amounts for property, plant and equipment used in the development process may be included in the cost of an intangible asset recognized in accordance with IAS 38 Intangible Assets.

Depreciable amount and depreciation period

50 The depreciable amount of an asset is subject to systematic distribution over the useful life of the asset.

51 The residual value and useful life of an asset shall be reviewed for possible revision at least at the end of each financial year and, if expectations differ from previous estimates, the corresponding change(s) shall be accounted for as a change in accounting estimates in accordance with with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors.

52 Depreciation is charged even if the fair value of the asset exceeds its book value, provided that the liquidation value of the asset does not exceed its book value. During repairs and routine maintenance of an asset, depreciation does not stop.

53 The depreciable amount of an asset is determined minus its liquidation value. In practice, the salvage value of an asset is often negligible and is therefore immaterial when calculating the depreciable amount.

54 The residual value of an asset may increase to an amount equal to or greater than its carrying amount. If this occurs, then the amount of depreciation on that asset is zero unless and until its residual value subsequently falls below the carrying amount of that asset.

55 Depreciation of an asset begins when it becomes available for use, i.e. when its location and condition allow it to be operated in a manner consistent with management's intentions. Depreciation of an asset ceases on the date the asset is classified as held for sale (or included in a disposal group that is classified as held for sale) in accordance with IFRS 5 or the date the asset is derecognized, whichever them comes earlier. Consequently, depreciation does not stop when an asset is idle or removed from service, unless the asset is fully depreciated. However, when using output-based depreciation methods, the depreciation charge may be zero during the time when there is no production.

56 The future economic benefits embodied in an asset are consumed by the entity primarily through its use. However, other factors, such as obsolescence, commercial obsolescence and physical wear and tear when an asset is idle, often reduce the economic benefits that could be obtained from the asset. Therefore, when determining the useful life of an asset, all of the following factors must be taken into account:

(a) the intended use of the asset; utilization is estimated based on the design capacity or physical productivity of the asset;
(b) expected physical depreciation, which depends on operational factors such as the number of shifts using the asset, the repair and routine maintenance plan, and the conditions under which the asset is stored and maintained during downtime;
(c) obsolescence or commercial obsolescence resulting from changes or improvements in the production process or from changes in market demand for the products or services produced by the asset. An expected future decrease in the selling price of products produced using an asset may indicate expected obsolescence or commercial obsolescence of the asset, which in turn may indicate a decrease in the future economic benefits embodied in the asset;
(d) legal or similar restrictions on the use of the asset, such as the expiration of relevant leases.

57 The useful life of an asset is determined based on the expected usefulness of the asset to the organization. An organization's asset management policy may provide for the disposal of assets after a specified time or after a certain proportion of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset have been consumed. Thus, the useful life of the asset may be shorter than its economic life. The estimated useful life of an asset is made using professional judgment based on the organization's experience with similar assets.

58 Land and buildings are separable assets and are accounted for separately, even if acquired together. With some exceptions, such as quarries and landfill sites, land has an indefinite useful life and is therefore not depreciated. Buildings have a limited useful life and are thus depreciable assets. An increase in the value of the land on which the building is located does not affect the determination of the depreciable value of this building.

59 If the initial cost of a piece of land includes the costs of dismantling, removing fixed assets and restoring the environment to that site, then that portion of the cost of the land asset is depreciated over the period of benefit from those costs. In some cases, the land itself may have a limited useful life, in which case it is depreciated using a method that reflects the benefits derived from it.

60 The depreciation method used should reflect the entity's expected consumption patterns of the future economic benefits of the asset.

61 The depreciation method applied to an asset shall be reviewed for possible revision at least at the end of each accounting year and, if there is a significant change in the expected consumption patterns of the future economic benefits flowing from the asset, the method shall be changed to reflect the changed expectations. Such a change should be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with IAS 8.

62 Various depreciation methods may be used to allocate the depreciable amount of an asset over its useful life. These include the straight-line method, the declining balance method and the write-off method in proportion to the volume of production. The straight-line depreciation method calculates a constant amount of depreciation over the useful life of the asset, provided that the asset's salvage value does not change. As a result of applying the declining balance method, the amount of depreciation charged over the useful life of the asset is reduced. The volumetric write-down method is to charge depreciation based on expected use or expected level of productivity. The entity chooses the method that most accurately reflects the expected consumption patterns of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. The method chosen is applied consistently from one reporting period to the next, unless expectations regarding the patterns of consumption of those future economic benefits change.

62A A depreciation method based on revenue generated by the activities in which the asset is engaged is not permitted. Revenue generated by the activities in which the asset is engaged generally reflects factors other than the consumption of the economic benefits embodied in the asset. For example, revenue is affected by other resources and processes used, sales activities, and changes in sales volumes and prices. The price component of revenue may be affected by inflation, which has no bearing on how the asset is consumed.

Impairment

63 To determine whether an item of property, plant and equipment is impaired, an entity applies IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. This standard clarifies how an entity analyzes the carrying amount of its assets, how it determines the recoverable amount of an asset, and when it recognizes or reverses an impairment loss.

64 [Deleted]

Impairment compensation

65 Compensation provided by third parties in connection with the impairment, loss or transfer of items of property, plant and equipment is included in profit or loss when the right to receive such compensation arises.

66 The impairment or loss of items of property, plant and equipment, related claims for compensation or payments of compensation by third parties, and any subsequent acquisition or construction of replacement assets constitute separate economic events and shall be accounted for separately as follows:

(a) impairment of items of property, plant and equipment is recognized in accordance with IAS 36;
(b) derecognition of items of property, plant and equipment that are no longer in active use or are to be disposed of is determined in accordance with this Standard;
(c) compensation provided by third parties in connection with the impairment, loss or transfer of items of property, plant and equipment is included in the calculation of profit or loss when the right to receive it arises; And
(d) the cost of items of property, plant and equipment restored, acquired or constructed for replacement purposes is determined in accordance with this Standard.

Document overview

IAS 16 “Property, Plant and Equipment” has been prepared. It determines the accounting procedure for fixed assets. The standard does not apply to operating systems intended for sale; biological assets associated with agricultural activities; recognition and measurement of assets in connection with the exploration and evaluation of mineral reserves; rights to use such reserves and subsoil.

The cost of an asset is recognized as an asset when it can be measured reliably and it is probable that future economic benefits will flow from the item. If the property meets these criteria, it is valued at its original cost. Its elements are defined.

The initial cost of an asset is the equivalent of the price subject to immediate cash payment on the recognition date. Once an item is recognized as an asset, it must be accounted for at historical or revalued cost. It depends on which accounting model the organization chooses as its accounting policy.

The procedure for recognizing depreciation charges and impairment losses is prescribed.

The information that needs to be disclosed for each OS class is provided.

In the context of large-scale integration of world markets, an increasing number of Russian companies need to present financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The goal of reforming the accounting system is to bring the national accounting system into line with the requirements of a market economy and international financial reporting standards (IFRS). Today, many enterprises need additional investments that can be obtained from funds from foreign investors, so accounting data must fully disclose information to all users. To do this, enterprises that plan to enter international markets should bring the existing accounting methodology into compliance with the requirements of international financial reporting standards.

Thanks to the efforts of the Ministry of Finance, Russian accounting made a sharp leap towards IFRS, that is, regulatory documents were prepared that bring domestic accounting closer to international standards.

For example, for Russian companies, which may include hundreds of branches, maintaining parallel accounting according to Russian and international accounting standards is very labor-intensive. Thus, it is more rational to transform consolidated financial statements, but there are also some nuances here. Differences in the accounting rules for certain assets, including fixed assets under RAS and IFRS, inevitably lead to problems when transforming company reporting into compliance with international standards.

Therefore, the transformation of Russian financial statements into an international format is a rather complex process that requires high professionalism from accounting personnel.

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING FOR FIXED ASSETS ACCORDING TO RAS AND IFRS

1.1. Accounting for fixed assets PBU 6/01

The procedure for maintaining accounting records of fixed assets is established by the following documents:

PBU 6/01 "Accounting for fixed assets";
Methodological guidelines for accounting of fixed assets, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 13, 2003 N 91n.

Property can be qualified as a fixed asset if:

the asset is “intended for use in the production of products, when performing work or providing services, for the management needs of the organization, or to be provided by the organization for a fee”;
its service life is more than one year;
the organization does not intend to resell this property;
the asset can generate income.

An organization can acquire property as a fixed asset in several ways. For example, she can buy it, receive it as a contribution to the authorized capital, or as a gift. In addition, an organization can manufacture a fixed asset item on its own.
The generated initial cost of fixed assets is written off from account 08 to the debit of accounts 01 “Fixed assets” or 03 “Income-generating investments in tangible assets”. The balance of account 08 reflects the amount of capital investments of the organization in unfinished operations for the acquisition of fixed assets. Equipment requiring installation is accounted for on account 07 “Equipment for installation”.

The procedure for calculating depreciation on fixed assets is regulated by PBU 6/01. In accounting, depreciation is understood as the process of monthly transfer of part of the cost of a fixed asset to the costs of the current period (clause 17 of PBU 6/01).

There are four ways to calculate depreciation in accounting (clause 18 of PBU 6/01):

linear;
reducing balance method;
method of writing off value by the sum of the numbers of years of useful life;
method of writing off cost in proportion to the volume of products (works).

According to PBU 6/01, revaluation is not the obligation of the organization, but its right. The revaluation procedure is prescribed in clause 15 of PBU 6/01, clauses 43 - 48 of the Methodological Instructions. In addition, it is reflected in the accounting policies of the organization.

As a rule, organizations liquidate fixed assets for two reasons: the property has served its intended life or it is hopelessly outdated.

1.2. Accounting for fixed assets IFRS No. 16

Accounting for fixed assets according to international standards is regulated by IFRS 16 “Property, plant and equipment”. It should be noted that some property, plant and equipment are not subject to the provisions of IFRS 16, these include biological assets accounted for in accordance with IFRS 41 Agriculture and mineral rights (regulated by IFRS 6 Mineral Exploration and Evaluation). .
However, the requirements of IFRS 16 apply to the accounting of property, plant and equipment used to develop and support agriculture and mineral exploration.

In accordance with IFRS 16, assets can be taken into account as fixed assets if three main conditions are met:

There is confidence that the company will receive future economic benefits associated with the asset. It should be noted that future economic benefits do not necessarily have to be valued in monetary terms. For example, fixed assets may be purchased to ensure company safety or environmental protection. The benefit from the use of such assets can be considered the right of the company to continue its activities.
The value of the asset can be reliably estimated.
Fixed assets are not consumed during the production process, but transfer their value to the cost of finished products through depreciation. In practice, fixed assets in accordance with IFRS most often include assets used in the operation of an enterprise for more than one year.

IFRS 16 does not define a separate item of property, plant and equipment. Thus, in specific situations, when deciding to recognize an asset as an object of fixed assets, professional judgment plays a large role.

Fixed assets in accordance with IFRS 16 are valued at actual cost at the time of acquisition or construction. The actual cost of acquired fixed assets consists of the purchase price plus import duties, non-refundable taxes and costs necessary to bring the asset into working condition.

The actual cost of fixed assets created by the company is determined taking into account all costs of design, construction (assembly), installation and delivery. The attribution of costs to the cost of created fixed assets ceases when the fixed asset is installed at the planned place of work and is used for its intended purpose. Therefore, costs associated with using or moving an item should not be included in the item's carrying amount.

Depreciation of an asset is determined based on its original cost minus its salvage value - the amount of proceeds that the company plans to receive for the asset at the time of its disposal. Depreciation is accrued starting from the month when it became possible to use the asset for its intended purpose, and stops at the time of disposal or complete depreciation of the asset.

Depreciation in accordance with IFRS 16 can be calculated using one of the following methods:

linear depreciation - if the value of the object is consumed evenly over its entire service life. Typically used for buildings and structures;
the declining balance method - for fixed assets that are largely susceptible to obsolescence and are especially actively used in the first years of service;
depreciation calculation depending on production volumes. As a rule, the use of this depreciation method is justified for production equipment, the use of which directly affects the company's production volumes.

Fixed assets cease to be reflected in the company's financial statements in the event of disposal of assets (sale, leasing, gratuitous transfer, write-off) or the cessation of receipt of economic benefits from use. Gains (losses) arising on derecognition of an asset are reflected in the income statement. The amount of gain or loss on disposal of an asset is calculated as the difference between the cost of selling the asset less costs to sell and its carrying amount.

IAS 17 Leases;
IAS 23 Borrowing Costs;

CHAPTER 2. PRACTICE OF APPLYING IFRS No. 16 IN RUSSIA

2.1. Differences between PBU 6/01 and IFRS No. 16

At the present stage of development and harmonization of accounting and reporting in the global economic community, IFRS is acquiring official status in many countries of the world. They serve as a criterion for the admission of companies to domestic and international capital markets.
Russian accountant until the 90s. XX century was a highly qualified official who provided, through strictly regulated procedures, information needed by the government for national statistics and management, which was never intended to be used by financial markets, for the purposes of corporate governance or the protection of investor interests.

In the context of the development of the new market economy of Russia, both users of information and their needs are radically changing, which forces the financial reporting of companies to develop in order to correspond to these changes.
One of the specific problems that many business entities face when switching to IFRS is accounting for fixed assets.

In accordance with IFRS 16 “Property, buildings and equipment”, company management is allowed to independently determine the service life of fixed assets depending on the period of time over which the enterprise intends to receive economic benefits from their use.

Although PBU 6/01, dedicated to the accounting of fixed assets, also states that the organization itself determines their useful life, in practice, for accounting purposes, they continue to apply the depreciation rates prescribed in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 1, 2002 No. 1. And these terms are not always the real terms of economic use of fixed assets. Most often they are used much longer.
IFRS does not have the concept of fully depreciated fixed assets. That is, if a fixed asset is depreciated, but continues to be used in the production process, its service life must be revised and profit recalculated.
The opposite situation is also possible - the operation of the object is completed, but it is not depreciated. In this case, the profit of previous periods is also corrected.
There is no such approach in Russian practice. In accordance with PBU 6/01, depreciation can be charged in one of four ways: linear, declining balance, write-off based on the sum of the number of years of the useful life or in proportion to the volume of production. IFRS 16 provides three methods, although their names sound slightly different: straight-line accrual, reducing balance and the sum of items (or units of production) method.
It is worth noting that in order to bring accounting and tax accounting closer together, Russian enterprises mainly use the linear method. It is also most popular when preparing financial statements under IFRS, since it is easiest to use when preparing periodic (for example, monthly) reports intended for internal use.
An important difference between IFRS and Russian standards is that the chosen depreciation method can be changed. For example, with an increase in the volume and range of products. In this case, the decision to change the depreciation method must be justified in the explanatory note to the financial statements. PBU 6/01 does not provide for this possibility.

2.2. Possible ways to bring RAS and IFRS closer together

In accordance with Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 24, 2010 N 186n, a number of changes were made to PBU 6/01 “Accounting for fixed assets”, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 30, 2001 N 26n, which eliminated certain inconsistencies with IFRS requirements. In particular, the source of reflection of revaluation in the event of a decrease in the value of a fixed asset has been changed. According to the new rules, the loss from revaluation in this case is included in the financial result as other expenses. In addition, according to the new rules, revaluations must be reflected at the end of the reporting year.

Meanwhile, the most important changes in the accounting of fixed assets are affected in the draft regulations on the accounting of fixed assets, which are under consideration by the Ministry of Finance. At the moment, the biggest difference with IFRS in accounting for fixed assets is the order in which the results of revaluation are reflected in accounting and financial statements. PBU 6/01 illustrates the methodology, which consists in the fact that the original cost of objects is revalued to the current (replacement) value, which must then be reduced by depreciation adjusted with a similar coefficient. According to IFRS rules, the residual value of fixed assets is revalued. Technically, this leads to the fact that in the accounting (financial) statements, assets are reflected at their real value, which corresponds to the information received from appraisal companies. The procedure for reflecting revaluation proposed in the draft PBU fully complies with international requirements and consists of bringing the value of fixed assets reflected in the financial statements to their current market value. The draft standard “Accounting for fixed assets” also provides for new criteria for the recognition of fixed assets, in particular, the cost criterion is excluded from them - more than 40,000 rubles. for a unit. Convergence with IFRS will also be facilitated by the provision of the draft PBU on the inclusion in the initial cost of fixed assets of the costs of dismantling and liquidation of fixed assets and restoration of the environment on the occupied land plot. At the same time, the corresponding estimated liability (reserve) must be recognized in accounting.

A new step towards convergence with IFRS is the possibility of impairment of fixed assets. But unlike IFRS, the draft PBU proposes to give companies the right to conduct an impairment test (in the manner prescribed by international financial reporting standards) and subsequently reflect the impairment in their financial statements.
Using the example of conditional enterprises, we will consider the differences in accounting for fixed assets according to PBU 6/01 and IFRS No. 16.

The Oasis company sells equipment to the Ocean company. The selling price of the equipment is 500 thousand rubles, the book value is 490 thousand, depreciation accrued over the period of operation of the equipment is 10 thousand rubles. The market value of similar equipment on the date of sale is 580 thousand rubles. The terms of the purchase and sale agreement provide that over the next year the Oasis company has the right at any time to buy the equipment back at the same price at which the equipment was sold by it with the payment of a commission, which is set in the amount of the market interest rate on ruble loans, equal to 16%. How will this transaction be reflected in the Russian accounting of the Oasis company and its financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS requirements?
In accounting, the basis for records are primary documents.

Formally, in the example under consideration, a purchase and sale agreement was concluded between the Oasis and Ocean companies, and the equipment was sold to the Ocean company. Consequently, in the Russian accounting of the Oasis company, the above equipment will be deregistered and in connection with this the following entries will be made:

1) Debit 01-1 "Disposal of fixed assets" Credit 01 "Fixed assets"
- 500 thousand rubles. - the initial cost of the equipment is written off;

2) Debit 02 “Depreciation of fixed assets” Credit 01-1 “Disposal of fixed assets”
- 10 thousand rubles. - depreciation of equipment written off;

3) Debit 76 “Settlements with various debtors and creditors” Credit 91-1-1 “Other income”
- 500 thousand rubles. - income from the sale of equipment is reflected;

4) Debit 91-2-1 “Other operating expenses” Credit 01-1 “Disposal of fixed assets”
- 490 thousand rubles. - the residual value of the equipment is written off;

5) Debit 91-9 “Balance of other income and expenses” Credit 99 “Profits and losses”
- 10 thousand rubles. - the financial result from the sale of equipment is written off.

When preparing financial statements in accordance with IFRS requirements, this transaction will be reflected in the financial statements of the Oasis company in a completely different way, namely based on its content, and not on its form.

In terms of economic content, the transaction is not a purchase and sale agreement with a mandatory repurchase, but an agreement to obtain financing for a year in the amount of 500 thousand rubles. secured by equipment with interest payment in the amount of 80 thousand rubles. per annum (580 thousand rubles - 500 thousand rubles). The amount of interest is 80 thousand rubles. This is precisely the financing fee, taking into account the market interest rate of 16% (500 thousand rubles x 16%: 100%). At the same time, Oasis essentially retained control over the use of the asset, and it has the right to repurchase it. At the time of the conclusion of the agreement, both parties apparently expected that the right of repurchase would be exercised, otherwise Oasis would hardly have sold the equipment at a price below the market price. Moreover, the buyback price is agreed upon in advance.
Thus, when preparing financial statements under IFRS, the equipment will continue to be listed as an asset on the balance sheet of the Oasis company at a book value of 490 thousand rubles. (500 thousand rubles - 10 thousand rubles). The liability side of the balance sheet of the Oasis company will show accounts payable for the loan received in the amount of 500 thousand rubles. At the end of a year after signing the contract, before the exercise of the right of redemption, accounts payable will be increased by interest in the amount of 80 thousand rubles. The profit and loss statement of the Oasis company will not show the financial result from the sale of equipment in the amount of 10 thousand rubles, however, the interest paid for the loan received in the amount of 80 thousand rubles will be reflected.

CONCLUSION

The concept of fixed assets in IFRS is narrower than in Russian accounting. In fact, fixed assets in IFRS are divided depending on the purpose of the assets and the method of obtaining economic benefits into investment property, non-current assets intended for sale, and fixed assets themselves.
Accounting for fixed assets in IFRS is governed by the standard IAS 16 “Fixed Assets”. According to the definition given in IAS 16, fixed assets should be considered items used in the production and supply of goods, works, services or for administrative purposes and which are expected to be used for more than one reporting period.

In addition to IAS 16, other Standards should be taken into account when accounting for fixed assets:

IAS 17 Leases;
IAS 20 "Accounting for government subsidies";
IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Exchange Rates;
IAS 23 Borrowing Costs;
IAS 36 “Impairment of assets”, as well as Explanation IFRIC 1 “Changes in obligations for dismantling and liquidation of property, plant and equipment, environmental restoration and other similar obligations”, etc.

IAS 16 does not limit fixed assets to any minimum value, in contrast to PBU 6/01, which allows organizations to set a cost limit in their accounting policies (no more than 40,000 rubles per unit), within which assets can be reflected in accounting and financial statements as part of inventories (clause 5 of PBU 6/01).

It should be noted that in IFRS, the criterion of economic benefit when classifying assets is applied more strictly: assets that are unable to bring economic benefit, directly or indirectly, should be recognized as current expenses of the reporting period. PBU 6/01 also defines future economic benefit as one of the criteria for fixed assets, however, Russian companies do not practice writing off objects on this basis.
The concept of “fixed assets” in Russian accounting is broader. Real estate objects subject to rent are classified in RAS as profitable investments in tangible assets. At the same time, the rules for their accounting are similar to the rules for accounting for production fixed assets.

Increases in the value of property, plant and equipment on revaluation are reflected in equity, and changes in the fair value of investment property are reflected in the income statement.
IFRS is not based on compliance with laws and primarily has an educational mission, unlike Russian accounting. IFRS in its significance rises above all national accounting standards, since it aims to create uniform universal accounting rules that allow creating the most complete and reliable accounting (financial) statements.

Perhaps the most fundamental differences between IFRS and PBU, in terms of accounting for fixed assets, lie in their valuation. This chapter will examine the extent and nature of differences in the cost of fixed assets, as it is determined by Russian standards and Russian enterprises, and international standards and foreign partners, and principles are given.

3.1 Fair value

The concept “c” has not yet become equal among alternative estimates in the domestic theory of accounting, despite the fact that the method of valuing assets at fair value is increasingly recognized in countries whose accounting is guided by IFRS. This method is mentioned in IFRS 16 - 22, 25, 32, 33,38, 39. In particular, in IFRS 16, fair value is mentioned in paragraphs 6, 24-26, 31-34, 52, 72, 77, 79 (here and further links to paragraphs are provided to the electronic version of the translation of international financial reporting standards, ASKERI-ASSA CJSC).

The question arises: who and when needs the real value of fixed assets valued at fair value?

To study the attitude towards the principle of fair assessment of users of financial statements, we will identify target groups of users of financial statements who are, to one degree or another, interested in its application.

The organization's management is interested in obtaining information for making management decisions on the following issues: strategic and tactical planning, budgeting, financial management in the short and long term. The principle of fair assessment is used by the organization's management to reduce the risks of making management decisions.

Employees of an organization need information that allows them to predict the stability and profitability of the employer’s organization, the ability to pay wages on time, and ensure stable work. Since the level of wages and bonuses often depends on the profitability of the organization, employees are not interested in applying the principle of fair valuation in accounting practices in cases where it understates profits. But in cases where wage arrears have greatly depreciated as a result of inflation and caused direct material and moral damage to the employee, the application of the principle of fair assessment is the basis of social guarantees for the employees of the enterprise.

Shareholders are showing increased interest in the organization's ability to generate returns on invested capital, as well as the possibility of increasing share price. Therefore, they treat the principle of fair valuation in two ways: on the one hand, there is a clear interest, since the principle of fair valuation helps to increase the capitalization of shares.

On the other hand, following the principle leads to an increase in depreciation charges and, as a consequence, to a decrease in profits and dividend payments per share. The influence of the principle of fair assessment on shareholders is especially noticeable if the value of the net assets of a joint-stock company is less than its authorized capital and reserve fund, or becomes less than their size as a result of paying dividends, the joint-stock company does not have the right to declare and pay dividends (clause 3 of Article 102 Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Clients and buyers depend on the organization as a supplier of the goods (works, services) they need and are interested in the stability of supplies. The more clients depend on a supplier, the more interested they are in the stability of its financial position, hence their interest in complying with the principle of fair pricing. However, constant revaluation of inventories can lead to strong fluctuations in the selling prices of the enterprise, which can have a dual impact on the interests of buyers.

Suppliers and creditors who provide organizations with their commodity and financial resources are interested in information that allows them to determine the reliability of the counterparty, the likelihood of timely payment, and the security of the loans provided. The more dependent a supplier is on an organization as a client, the more closely it monitors its financial position and performance to assess the reliability and timeliness of payment receipt. This group of users is the most interested in using the principle of fair assessment.

The state in most cases is opposed to the application of the principle of fair assessment, since following it leads to a decrease in accounting profit and understatement of taxable items. However, the relationship between the principle of fair assessment and fiscal interests is also ambiguous here, since its application in some cases, while reducing the taxation of profits, increases the taxation of property.

So, the principle of fair assessment, influencing the value of financial indicators, has a different impact on the interests of participants in business processes and users of financial statements, since each group pursues its own goals and solves its own problems. The interests of users of financial statements regarding the use of the fair valuation principle are not only different, but sometimes even opposite.

It is also needed when selling an organization or when assessing the financial condition of an organization to determine its creditworthiness.

The main consumers of financial statements under IFRS are transnational companies that require comparability of financial statements of subsidiaries located in different countries. It is also needed to establish the fair value of shares of open joint stock companies, especially those whose shares are listed on international exchanges.

Thus, N. Morina is sure that today there is a colossal difference between Russian and international standards for accounting for fixed assets. This difference is primarily associated by the author with a fair assessment of the value of fixed assets during the transition to IFRS. The author believes that these two groups of standards represent different concepts of value; accordingly, the transition to IFRS does not just lead to an adjustment of the amounts of one of the main balance sheet items, it changes its essence.

A. S. Bakaev is also confident that international standards require the valuation of fixed assets at the so-called fair value, and not at all at the original cost.

A.V. Sazhin believes that the status of a fair assessment in the hierarchy of elements of the conceptual framework of accounting has not been determined. Its relationship with accounting principles and the impact of the use of fair valuation on the methodology and organization of accounting have not been studied. The feasibility of using a fair assessment to meet the information needs of users of financial statements has not been disclosed.

L. S. Stukov, believes that the main principles of international financial reporting are the provision of data on the real value of the enterprise at the reporting date and the departure from the cost method of valuation, which leads to the conclusion that the application of IFRS in Russia therefore seems very problematic, including in connection with the application of “fair value accounting”, which in turn is the basis for the conclusion that differences between Russian and international standards will always remain.

Maria Sukonkina, Head of the Department of Internal Control, Methodology and IFRS Reporting of JSC AK Transnefteproduct, believes that companies should be prepared for the fact that when switching to IFRS, the cost of fixed assets may differ significantly from their value according to Russian reporting.

Valuation of fixed assets at fair value is part of the complex and is a requirement of IFRS, says O. M. Ostrovsky.

Based on the foregoing, in this section we will try to determine the scope of application of “fair value”, the impact of the use of a fair valuation on the accounting methodology, the advisability of using a fair valuation to meet the information needs of users of financial statements.

First of all, let's look at the definition of fair value given in IFRS 16:

As defined in the standard, fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm's length transaction.

Reference to fair value in IFRS 16 occurs in the assessment of the initial cost of fixed assets acquired by exchange (clause 24-26), in the subsequent assessment at revalued value (clause 31-34), in the order of depreciation (clause 52), in requirements for disclosure of information in reporting (clauses 77, 79).

The problem of fair value, within the framework of IFRS 16, is associated by most specialists with the model of subsequent valuation of fixed assets at a revalued value, while fair value is often understood as market value.

That is, as an accounting policy, the company must choose one of the models for valuing a fixed asset after recognition, either the historical cost model, less subsequent accumulated depreciation and impairment losses, or the revalued cost model, which is the fair value of the fixed asset. at the date of revaluation, less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

Market price is the most reasonable (but not the only) measure of fair value. Confirmation of this can be found in clauses 32,33 of IFRS 16 “Fixed Assets”, according to which the fair value of land, buildings, machinery and equipment is usually their market value.”

L. Shneidman believes that when applying fair value, various methods are used. The best evidence of a property's fair value is usually current market prices in an active market for the same property in the same area under the same conditions.

In cases of valuation of specialized property that is rarely or not sold on the open market except as part of an ongoing business and therefore cannot be valued in accordance with the concept of market value, the cost of restoration (replacement) less depreciation, or cost, is determined replacement minus depreciation.

Replacement cost is defined as the amount of money required to simultaneously replace a fixed asset with a new one, using the most modern technologies and materials, labor, production equipment at the current level of overhead costs, contractor profits and other remunerations.

In the absence of market indicators of fair value, due to the specific nature of an item of property, plant and equipment, and because such assets are rarely sold separately from the entire going concern, valuation based on income or depreciated replacement cost is possible.

The market value of fixed assets is determined by professional appraisers, while market value means the amount that can be received from the sale of an investment in an active market (paragraph 32 of IFRS 16 “Fixed Assets”).

Based on the above, it is clear that there are simply no problems in applying the issue of “fair value” within the framework of IFRS 16. There is only a question of the need to revaluate fixed assets when switching to IFRS, in connection with such features of Russian practice of accounting for fixed assets as:

non-market pricing during the historical period of formation of the value of most fixed assets, until 1991;
hyperinflation in the economy after the introduction of market pricing mechanisms in 1991;
abandonment after 1997.

Today we can say with confidence that the features of the Russian accounting system are such that the residual value does not in any way reflect the market (fair) value of fixed assets.

Two-thirds of the fixed assets of the largest enterprises were created during the Soviet economy - a period of planned non-inflationary pricing, strict budgeting and resource allocation, that is, non-market tariffs and costs.

The time structure of the historical cost of fixed assets of the largest Russian enterprises, today, has the following form:

in the last 10 years (90s) 27% were formed;
from 10 to 20 years ago (80s) - 31%;
from 20 to 30 years ago (70s) - 25%;
more than 30 years ago - 17%.

In the last decade, the historical value of one third of fixed assets was formed; it was this period that was characterized by hyperinflationary growth in domestic prices and the depreciation of the ruble, which made the cost indicators of these years unreliable.

From 1991 to 2004, costs for the construction of buildings and structures increased more than 20 times (taking into account denomination), and since 1970 - more than 40 times. During this period, we experienced four revaluations of fixed assets - in 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1997. As a result, the book value of fixed assets at the beginning of 1997 was increased by 12.5 times and remains at this level by most enterprises to this day.

Since 1998, many enterprises have abandoned, so the book value of fixed assets corresponds to the price level as of January 1, 1997.

Due to inflation, inadequate revaluations and other factors, fair value, or replacement cost, turns out to be higher than the original carrying amount. According to calculations by ZAO Otsenka-Consulting, for different companies they differ from 2 to 10 times. It can be assumed that the size of depreciation charges is similarly distorted, which seriously affects the financial performance of enterprises and their ability to accumulate capital investment reserves.

However, as a result of revaluation, not all organizations in the country will experience an increase in capitalization as a result of the application of “fair value”. For example, in the Ministry of Railways, fixed assets are heavily worn out and their revaluation will reduce the capitalization of industry organizations, which can lead to bankruptcy.

Let’s look at how experts view “fair value”: a fair assessment is a subjective assessment.

The oldest member of the IASB, the most prominent expert in asset valuation, D. Damant, argues that in accordance with the “Principles of Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements”, assets should be reflected on the balance sheet at cost (in fact, at replacement cost), and not based on the amount of income received as a result of use these assets. D. Damant draws this conclusion from the following circumstance: if the purpose of the balance sheet is to present information for forecasting cash flows, then if assets were reflected at the discounted value of cash flows, a vicious circle would result. Future economic benefits cannot be assets used to obtain the same economic benefits.

A.P. Rudanovsky (1863-1934) denies any revaluation, believing that inflation affects the enterprise’s turnover, and not the balance sheet.

However, other defenders of the principle made serious deviations from the defining idea. In the West, these are, first of all, G. Limperg (1879-1961) and F. Schmidt (1882-1950). They believed it was possible to bring purchase prices to current purchase prices, since only in this case is it possible to ensure the preservation of the enterprise's capital.

V.V. Kovalev, noting that “fair value” is a revolution in accounting, interprets it as an assessment based on accounting for future income.

The principle of accounting at cost is the rationale for the most complex and controversial problem in accounting. According to this principle, the purpose of accounting is not to find a value that may change after a business transaction, but to determine the cost (the cost at the time of the business transaction).

We will try, based on the criteria of relevance, objectivity and feasibility, to logically justify the priority of the position of accounting for fixed assets cost.

If there were only one criterion of appropriateness, then the issue of initial cost should be removed from the agenda. and property of the organization at the current market value for users of accounting information (owners, current and prospective lenders, suppliers, etc.) is most appropriate and will benefit them: the value of property at the current moment is more indicative than the assessment of the same property at prices in force several periods ago (original cost).

However, two other criteria also apply: objectivity and feasibility.

The reliability of the initial value is evidenced by the fact that at the time of acquisition of the accounting object, it was formed under the influence of supply and demand and developed as their equilibrium. It is verifiable, as it is confirmed by transaction documents (supply agreement, paid supplier invoices, invoices). In contrast to the original value, the current market value cannot be considered objective, since it does not characterize the completed bilateral purchase and sale transaction, but the subjective assessment of the seller.

According to the criterion of feasibility, preference is indisputably given to the original cost. It is also called actual cost, which in the English version corresponds to historical cost. It is the actual cost of the acquisition that is entered into the “history” of the accounting object, follows it throughout the entire life cycle of use or consumption and does not require any additional costs for accounting, while when organizing the accounting process at the current market value, additional personnel will be required for carrying out constant revaluations of accounting objects.

The attitude towards the introduction of the concept of “fair value” into Russian accounting is ambiguous, as Y. V. Sokolov believes that the introduction of this concept is tantamount to liquidation in our understanding of accounting. Fair value should arise, according to the authors of IFRS 16, only when: (1) there is a free transaction (parties to the contract act without coercion); (2) they have access to and have sufficient information about the market for the valuables that constitute the subject of purchase and sale; (3) act without intermediaries.

As Ya. V. Sokolov points out, many experts who became more familiar with the specific conditions that have developed in the CIS came to the conclusion that these conditions do not exist in Eastern Europe. They became convinced that the introduction of fair value in the CIS would only sharply increase the risk of management decisions. This risk is, first of all, great in resolving issues related to the protection of enterprise property.

Refusal to document the facts of economic life and giving the accountant not even the right, but the obligation to account for assets at a fair, but, in fact, at an arbitrary price, only opens the green light for embezzlement and theft. It seems that many foreign entrepreneurs who have worked in Russia have begun to understand this.

A. S. Bakaev believes that the mandatory use of the fair value principle in Russia will lead to the fact that the cost of fixed assets will increase many times compared to their value assessed according to the current rules. Accordingly, the share of depreciation of fixed assets in the cost price will increase. Further, tariffs and prices will rise, and wages will increase. And all this concerns not only large companies, such as RAO ES or Gazprom, but absolutely all enterprises, in particular, organizations of the housing and communal services complex.

If all fixed assets of housing and communal services are assessed at fair value, every Russian will feel in his pocket the difference between the consequences of applying Russian and international standards. On the other hand, the use of the fair value principle provides excellent grounds for analytical work.

It is also obvious that with the introduction of the fair value principle, the cost of accounting for fixed assets will increase at least twice, and if currently the labor intensity of accounting for fixed assets is no more than 10%, then with the transition to IFRS it can exceed 20%. fixed assets will require enormous costs for hiring appraisers.

The position of the Institute of Professional Accountants of Russia on this issue is that it is necessary to allow organizations in the country that need it to independently decide on the revaluation of fixed assets at fair value and reflect this in their accounting policies.

Despite certain practical difficulties, L. Shneidman believes, the use of fair value in the preparation of financial statements has no doubt among most specialists that this valuation method has a number of undeniable advantages and provides greater usefulness of information for users.

It should also be noted that parallel projects are currently underway to measure fair value by the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) of the United States. As Edge said, “The International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC) welcomes these initiatives and is committed to assisting both financial standards boards in identifying practical issues that may impact fair value in a particular context and then providing clarity on what assumptions must be done to achieve the required accounting objectives.” The outcome of these projects may involve further revisions of IFRS and IVS in the future.

As noted earlier, the concept of “fair value” does not exist in Russian legislation. Domestic legislation (Clause 1, Article 11 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of November 21, 1996 No. 129-FZ) provides for the following types of property valuation:

purchased for a fee - by summing up the actual expenses incurred for its purchase;
received free of charge - at market value on the date of capitalization;
produced in the organization itself - at the cost of its production.

The accounting regulations also approve valuation methods:

at the value of property contributed as a contribution to the authorized capital agreed upon by the founders (PBU 5/01 and 6/01),
at the cost of the property being exchanged (or the cost of acquiring similar objects), property paid for in kind (PBU 5/01, 6/01, 9/99 and 10/99).

According to PBU 6/01, a commercial organization can do so no more than once a year (at the beginning of the reporting year) at the current (replacement) cost.

According to PBU 6/01, it is done by recalculating its original cost or current (replacement) cost, if this object was revalued earlier, and the amount of depreciation accrued for the entire period of use of the object.

Paragraph 41 of the Guidelines for Accounting of Fixed Assets establishes that the revaluation of fixed assets is carried out in order to determine the real value of fixed assets by bringing the original cost of fixed assets in line with their market prices and reproduction conditions on the date of revaluation.

For the purposes of these Guidelines, the current (replacement) cost of fixed assets is understood as the amount of money that must be paid by the organization on the date of revaluation if it is necessary to replace any object.

When determining the current (replacement) cost, the following can be used: data on similar products received from manufacturing organizations; information on price levels available from state statistics bodies, trade inspectorates and organizations; information on price levels published in the media and specialized literature; technical inventory bureau assessment; expert opinions on the current (replacement) cost of fixed assets.

In this connection, today it can be argued that there is still an analogue of “fair value” in Russian accounting. Another question is that paragraph 41 of the Methodological Guidelines for the Accounting of Fixed Assets requires bringing the original (and not the balance sheet) value of fixed assets into line with their market prices. At the same time, depreciation is indexed in proportion to the change in the original (replacement) cost and does not in any way reflect the actual physical, economic and moral depreciation of assets.

If an enterprise engages professional appraisers, “extraordinary” situations also arise. Having received an Asset Valuation Report in which the market price of the asset is indicated, accountants are faced with the following dilemma - on the one hand, appraisers, due to current valuation standards, take into account all types of depreciation of the asset when calculating (which is contrary to accounting legislation), on the other hand, having received the market value in the report asset, it remains a mystery for accountants what to do with the amount of depreciation on the appraised object reflected in the accounting accounts, since the market value indicated by the appraisers is already indicated taking into account depreciation.

The problem of “revaluation in Russian” lies precisely in the fact that the very concept of “”, as interpreted by PBU 6/01, differs from the concept of “revaluation” as interpreted by IFRS 16, and differs from the concept of “valuation” as interpreted by Law No. 135 - Federal Law “On Valuation Activities”. In particular, the methods and methods of their implementation differ.

If we compare the concept of “fair value” according to IFRS with the concept of “market value”, as interpreted by Law No. 135-FZ “On Valuation Activities”, we will see that these definitions are practically no different from each other. But this is only formal, if fair value for the purposes of IFRS 16, depending on specific circumstances, is understood as either the value of real transactions, or replacement cost, or value based on discounted income, then for the purposes of Law No. 135-FZ and valuation standards, market value determined based on a combination of comparative, income and cost approaches (clause 18 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 6, 2001 No. 519 “On approval of valuation standards”).

From all of the above it is clear that, on the one hand, if the historical cost accounting model is chosen, the transfer of fixed asset accounting to the principles set out in IFRS is carried out without reducing the value of assets to “fair” value.

On the other hand, an enterprise’s choice of a model for accounting for fixed assets at a revalued cost will bring it additional costs for the mandatory annual revaluation of fixed assets, and in any case will oblige it to calculate the cost of fixed assets using the basic approach (historical cost minus accumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses ). Therefore, the alternative approach does not seem attractive to Russian enterprises.

In this regard, for the first application of IFRS, it is proposed to use one of the six optional exceptions contained in the IFRS 1 standard “Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards for the first time”.

According to this exception, if there is a reliable revaluation that gives the value of property, plant and equipment that is close to its carrying value under the “historical” approach, as well as to the fair value of these property, plant and equipment, such value can be taken as assumed at the date of revaluation.

After this, you can “start a new life” for such fixed assets in accounting according to IFRS - determine the remaining useful life, and therefore depreciation charges, and then take such fixed assets into account according to the “historical” scheme, i.e., accept the resulting estimated value for the original cost of fixed assets, and then in the balance sheet this fixed asset is accounted for according to the principle: original cost minus depreciation minus impairment losses.

Carrying out a one-time revaluation at the first application of IFRS will allow the enterprise to reduce the costs of the annual revaluation of fixed assets, and also, which is typical for Russian “undervalued” assets, to show fixed assets at a value closer to the truth, increasing its net assets.

Summarizing all of the above, the following key points can be highlighted:

IFRS 16 provides two models for subsequent accounting of property, plant and equipment, the historical cost model and the revalued cost model. These two models, with the exception of the impairment principle, correspond to the models enshrined in PBU 6/01.
IFRS 16 does not, as many experts believe, require a mandatory adjustment of the book value to fair value, since when applying the historical cost accounting model, revaluation of fixed assets is not necessary.

The model of accounting for fixed assets at historical cost is less labor-intensive and requires less financial costs, in addition, “historical cost” is more objective, since it is based on facts of economic activity that have documentary evidence. US GAAP denies accounting at revalued amounts, which is one of their fundamental differences from IFRS. Currently, the “revalued cost” model is an alternative method of accounting for fixed assets under IFRS 16, while the “historical cost” model is the main method.

At the same time, the cost of fixed assets of most Russian enterprises in no way reflects their fair (market value). If, nevertheless, when switching to IFRS, an enterprise wishes to reflect the cost of fixed assets at fair value, it has this opportunity thanks to IFRS 1 “First-time application of IFRS”. This standard allows for a one-time revaluation with subsequent accounting of fixed assets at historical cost.

Russian legislation has an analogue to “fair” value. It is applied if the model of accounting for fixed assets at revalued value is chosen.

There are differences between and their “fair” value according to IFRS, but they are technical differences and are not of a fundamental nature.

The method of revaluation of fixed assets according to IFRS is more economically justified, and there are no reasons that would prevent the introduction of these methods into Russian practice, and therefore PBU 6/01 and the Methodological Instructions to them require modification in terms of the procedure for carrying out revaluation to the current (restorative) cost and revaluation of accumulated depreciation of fixed assets.

3.2 Impairment losses

The significant difference between the Russian rules for the subsequent valuation of fixed assets and the rules established by international standards lies precisely in the application of IFRS 16, to both models of subsequent valuation, of losses from their impairment.

Before the adoption of IFRS 36 Impairment of Assets, almost every standard governing the accounting of various assets contained provisions that provided for procedures for accounting for their impairment. However, there were no detailed guidelines or uniform principles. Such principles are formulated in IFRS 36, approved by the International Accounting Standards Board in 1998 and effective from 1 January 1999. The standard was last updated on March 31, 2004.

Let's analyze the main provisions of IFRS 36 “Impairment of Assets”.

If there is a suspicion of impairment of fixed assets, then in order to comply with the principle of conservatism, IFRS 36 “Impairment of Assets” requires a special procedure - an impairment test.

Carrying out an impairment test is primarily related to the prudence principle set out in the IFRS Principles for the Preparation and Compilation of Financial Reporting. This principle states: “...Prudence is the introduction of a degree of caution into the process of making the judgments necessary in making the calculations required under conditions of uncertainty so that assets... are not overstated.

Carrying out an impairment test is characteristic not only of IFRS; the requirement to conduct an appropriate test is also included in US GAAP.

According to IAS 36, an impairment loss must be recognized whenever the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount. Recoverable amount is the greater of net selling price and value in use.

Net selling price is the amount that could be received from the sale of an asset in a transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties on general terms, less any direct costs of disposal.

Value in use is the present value of the estimated future cash flows expected to arise from the continuing use of the asset and from its disposal at the end of its useful life. Typically, this value is estimated in two steps: first, future cash inflows and outflows from the use of the asset and its disposal are estimated, then an appropriate discount rate is applied to these future cash flows. The pre-tax discount rate should reflect current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the asset. The discount rate should not reflect risks for which estimates of future cash flows have been adjusted.

IFRS and US GAAP differ in the way they reflect impairment of assets, which is related to the methodology for determining the current value of an asset, as well as the reflection of impairment of goodwill.

Thus, under US GAAP, an asset is considered impaired if its carrying amount exceeds its expected undiscounted future cash flows from use. To identify impairment, IFRS compares the carrying amount of an asset with two values:

present value of future cash flows from its use
net realizable value.

If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds the lower of the two specified values, then it is recognized as impaired.

An impairment loss, according to IAS 36, is the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount.

At each balance sheet date, an entity must assess whether there are any indications that assets may be impaired. If any such indication is identified, the entity must estimate the asset's recoverable amount.

An impairment loss is recognized in the income statement for assets carried at cost or treated as a revaluation decrease for assets carried at a revalued amount.

At each reporting date, an entity is required to determine whether or not there is any indication that an impairment loss recognized in prior periods for an asset other than goodwill may no longer exist or may have decreased. If any such indication is detected, the entity must estimate the recoverable amount of that asset (IAS 36 paragraph 110).

The indicators of a potential decrease in an impairment loss mirror the indicators of a potential impairment loss listed in paragraph 12 of IAS 36.

Based on paragraph 114 of IAS 36, an impairment loss recognized in prior periods in respect of an asset other than goodwill is reversed if, and only if, there has been a change in the estimates used in determining the recoverable amount of that asset since the last loss was recognised. impairment. In such a case, the carrying amount of the asset, except as required by paragraph 117 of IAS 36, shall be increased to its recoverable amount. This increase is a reversal of the impairment loss.

The carrying amount of an asset, excluding goodwill, increased by reversing an impairment loss must not exceed the carrying amount that would have been determined (less depreciation) if no impairment loss had been recognized for the asset in previous years (paragraph 117 of IAS 36 ).

Based on paragraph 118 of IAS 36, any increase in the carrying amount of an asset other than goodwill above the carrying amount that would have been determined (less depreciation) if no impairment loss had been recognized for the asset in prior years is a revaluation. To account for such a revaluation, the entity applies the relevant International Financial Reporting Standard to the asset.

A reversal of an impairment loss on an asset other than goodwill is recognized directly in the income statement unless the asset is accounted for at a revalued amount in accordance with another Standard (for example, under the revaluation model in IFRS 16 Fundamentals). facilities"). Any reversal of an impairment loss on a revalued asset shall be accounted for as a revaluation increase in accordance with that other Standard (paragraph 119 of IAS 36).

The reversal of an impairment loss on a revalued asset is credited directly to equity under the heading “Revaluation Amount”. However, if an impairment loss on the same revalued asset was previously recognized in the income statement, then the reversal of such loss is also recognized in the income statement (paragraph 120 of IAS 36).

Once a reversal of an impairment loss has been recognised, the depreciation charge for an asset must be adjusted forward to allocate the asset's revised carrying amount, less its residual value (if any), on a systematic basis over its remaining useful life (IFRS 121). 36).

The reversal of an impairment loss in respect of a cash-generating unit is allocated to the unit's assets, other than goodwill, in proportion to the carrying amounts of those assets. These increases in carrying amounts are accounted for as reversals of impairment losses on individual assets and recognized in accordance with paragraph 119 (paragraph 122 of IAS 36).

It should be noted that, unlike IFRS, US GAAP does not allow for the reversal of any impairment losses (for example, losses from impairment of property, plant and equipment). According to IFRS, in cases where there has been a change in the assumptions previously used in calculating the recoverable amount, a reversal of previously recognized losses is necessary.

Supporters of the introduction of IFRS in Russia are clearly naive if they believe that, in contrast to the Russian accounting system, this standard is an example of perfection. IFRS 36, which is designed to reflect the fair value of assets, can be used by a company to either embellish its reporting or hide profits.

As noted earlier, the recoverable amount of an asset is determined as the higher of the asset's net selling price and its value in use (clause 18 of IAS 36). The best evidence of the net selling price of an asset is its market price minus the costs of disposal, or, in other words, the costs of its sale (clause 25 of IAS 36). If the current price is not available as a basis for estimating the net selling price, then, in accordance with paragraph 27 of IAS 36, the most recent transaction price may be used.

But sometimes the situation is such that the net selling price of an asset cannot be determined for various reasons, for example, due to the lack of a basis for a reliable valuation. In such cases, according to IAS 36, value in use can be taken as the asset's recoverable amount.

Determining the value in use of an asset is based on assessing future cash inflows and outflows from the use of that asset (clause 26 of IAS 36) and applying an appropriate discount rate to future cash flows.

Estimates of future inflows and outflows are based on financial forecasts of the company's budget approved by management (clause 27 of IFRS). Thus, cash flow forecasts influence the estimated net selling price of an asset, and companies can vary these forecasts as they see fit to make their own estimate of that price.

For clarity, we give the following example of how impairment can be used to regulate the financial performance of a company.

Let's assume that certain companies A and B are engaged in trading; for a more convenient comparison, let's assume that all financial indicators of these companies are equal. Both companies have the same specialized equipment purchased several years ago for which potential impairment needs to be assessed. The book value of specialized equipment is $300 thousand.

Company A at the end of this year purchased similar equipment from Company C, the transaction price is 280 thousand dollars. In accordance with IFRS 36, company A determined the net selling price of the old asset to be equal to the price of the new transaction ($220 thousand) concluded with company C.

The company did not purchase similar equipment this year, it was not able to find out the market price for it (intentionally), and, in accordance with IFRS 36, decided to count its value in use as the recoverable amount of the asset.

Before the impairment results were included in the current year's Income Statement, Companies A and B had a profit of $60,000. The management of company B plans to end the year with a profit; accordingly, its impairment loss should not exceed 60 thousand dollars.

Company B, having assessed the current situation, decides that the value in use of the equipment should be $280 thousand. In order to obtain such results, the company's management approves a financial budget, in which forecasts of cash flow from the use of this equipment provide the result necessary for annual reporting.

The next step is to determine the impairment loss and calculate the net income of Companies A and B. The impairment loss is defined as the difference between the carrying amount and the recoverable amount (net realizable value or value in use).

As a result, companies will receive the following impairment losses:

for company A it is 300,000 - 220,000 = 80,000 dollars,
Company B has 300,000 - 280,000 = $20,000.

And in the income statement it will look like this (Table 3).

Table 3. Understatement of impairment loss to overstate profit (USD)

In accordance with paragraph 119 of IAS 36, the reversal of an impairment loss must be recognized immediately in the income statement as profit, unless the asset is carried at revaluation amount under another standard (for example, the revaluation model in IAS 16). This paragraph of IAS 36 again allows companies to adjust their profits by reversing impairment losses where the assessment of an asset's value in use is based, in accordance with IAS 36, on cash flow forecasts that the company may make at its discretion. Let's give an example.

As in the previous example, let companies A and B engage in trading. Suppose they have the same specialized equipment purchased previously for which possible impairment needs to be determined in accordance with IAS 36.

For a more convenient comparison, let us again assume that all financial indicators of these companies are equal.

Let's assume that initially the book value of specialized equipment for companies A and B was the same - $300 thousand. In the previous year, the companies assessed the impact of impairment as follows: Company A had an impairment loss of $80 thousand, and Company B had an impairment loss of $20 thousand (results of the first example). Next year, companies need to re-assess the depreciation of this equipment, that is, determine its replacement cost.

This year, companies A and B did not purchase new similar equipment. They were unable to find out the market price for it, and, in accordance with IAS 36, both companies decided to take into account its value in use as the asset's recoverable amount.

The value in use of the equipment of Companies A and B is based on cash flow forecasts based on financial budgets approved by management.

As in the previous example, let’s assume that for the current year, companies A and B before including the impairment results, as in the previous year, received the same profit in the amount of $40 thousand.

This time, the management of company A is interested in ending the year with maximum profit and decides to show additional profit in the annual report by returning the loss from asset impairment. To do this, company A, having assessed the situation, decides that the value of using the equipment this year should be $280 thousand. For this purpose, the management of the company, A, approves the financial budget, in which forecasts of cash flow from the use of this equipment provide the result necessary for annual reporting.

The management of company B plans to end the year with a profit, but does not want to increase it by returning the impairment loss, but, on the contrary, wants to reduce its profit by a small amount, as in the first example. In this regard, her impairment loss should not exceed $40 thousand. After analyzing the current situation, Company B decides that the value in use of the equipment this year should be $250,000. In order to achieve these results, the management of Company B approves the next financial budget, adjusting the cash flow forecasts from the use of this equipment accordingly.

Now let’s determine the result of impairment and the amount of net profit of companies A and B.

Company A has a recoverable amount (value in use) of equipment greater than its book value, and in the current year Company A receives a return of an impairment loss equal to the difference:

reversal of impairment loss = recoverable amount - carrying amount = 280,000 - 220,000 = $60,000.

The recoverable amount of the asset for company B turned out to be less than its book value and, accordingly, the company receives an impairment loss in the current year, as in the past:

impairment loss = 250,000 – 280,000 = -$30,000.

So, other things being equal, company A makes a profit of $100 thousand, and company B makes a profit of $10 thousand. In the Profit and Loss Statement it will look like this (Table 4)

Based on the above example, it can be seen that the management of the company, A, by predicting future cash flows, recovered the impairment loss and thereby increased the company’s net profit in the current year. Company B, using the same methodology, on the contrary, reduced its net profit for the year.

If an entity does not want to show either a gain or an impairment loss on the Income Statement, it will need to “create” a revaluation of the asset, which is recorded as an increase in the company's equity. Then the impairment loss will be reflected not as an expense, but as a decrease in the company’s capital (section “Results of revaluation”), that is, it will not appear in the Profit and Loss Statement. In this regard, an interesting example is given on the website of the Berator-Press Publishing House:

“Let's say a company has a fixed asset with a residual value of $100 that has not been revalued. As of the reporting date, its fair value is $80. Therefore, the company needs to recognize an impairment loss expense of $20. A simple revaluation to $120 will do nothing, since in this case the impairment loss will be $40. Therefore, it is necessary to “identify” the revaluation relating to previous periods. That is, the book value of the asset must also be $100. Moreover, 20 of them must be taken into account as a result of revaluation carried out in previous periods. Then the decrease in the value of the asset to $80 will be reflected as a decrease in the company’s capital, and not an expense, that is, the profit of the reporting year will increase by $20.”

International financial reporting standards were created to provide interested users with objective and reliable information. However, as can be seen from the examples given, in IFRS, it is quite possible to find the necessary ways to both increase and decrease the profit indicator.

The need to show the profitability of an enterprise is connected, first of all, with the fact that the stock market is gradually developing in Russia; accordingly, investors are trying to invest money in potentially more profitable companies. Thus, the higher the profit, the higher the share price. High profitability indicators are also necessary for enterprises to attract borrowed funds.

As Western experience shows, firms may be interested not only in maximizing, but also in minimizing profits. One of these methods is called the “big bath” accounting method. For example, a “big bathhouse” is organized at the time of business reorganization or a complete change of management. In this case, the annual reports reflect particularly large losses, which are associated with the failures of the previous management. In subsequent years, the company shows good results. Naturally, this is assessed by analysts, shareholders and investors as an unconditional success of the new management team.

The use in Russian practice of assessing asset impairment by the present value of future cash flows from its use seems problematic for another reason.

Theoretically, very profitable companies are often unprofitable, which is associated with the use of tax evasion schemes through the artificial movement of commodity flows through a number of dependent organizations that act as owners registered in territories with preferential tax regimes.

At the same time, the transfer of goods within the holding is carried out at minimal prices. Indicative in this regard may be the tax optimization schemes used by YUKOS and its owners. These schemes are widely used in Russia by other companies - from giant holdings to small companies. It is obvious that the calculated depreciation of YUKOS assets, while minimizing cash flows, will in no way correspond to reality.

In accordance with IAS 36, an impairment test must be performed at each reporting date. Moreover, even in small companies the number of assets on the balance sheet can be several tens or even hundreds. In such a situation, testing for impairment of each asset will require a lot of labor. At the same time, there is a possibility that most of the work done will be useless, since there was no impairment or it is insignificant.

The procedure for assessing the impairment of assets is quite complex, as it requires determining the possible realizable value and calculating discounted estimates of the estimated future cash flows expected from the use of the asset and from its disposal at the end of its useful life (to calculate value in use). In this regard, the test for impairment of assets, as well as (if there is impairment) assessment of asset impairment must be carried out with the involvement of independent appraisers.

This is also due to the fact that, despite the fact that IFRS 36 is an accounting standard, in content it relates more to valuation activities, operates with concepts inherent in valuation activities, and describes procedures that are essentially the prerogative of appraisers. The vocabulary of a Russian accountant simply does not include such concepts as “cash-generating unit”, “value in use of an asset”, “corporate assets” and “testing an asset for impairment”.

Clause 5 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 6, 2001 No. 519 “On approval of assessment standards” defines the following approaches to assessment:

cost approach - a set of methods for assessing the value of an appraised object, based on determining the costs necessary to restore or replace the appraised object, taking into account its wear and tear;
comparative approach - a set of methods for assessing the value of an appraised object, based on comparison of the appraised object with similar objects for which information is available on the prices of transactions with them;
income approach - a set of methods for estimating the value of the valuation object, based on determining the expected income from the valuation object.

Accordingly, the net realizable value of an asset under IFRS can be calculated using the comparative approach used in valuation activities. The value of the present value of future cash flows from the use of an asset according to IFRS can be quite successfully calculated by appraisers using the income approach.

IAS 36 Impairment of Assets applies to a large number of assets recognized on the balance sheet. The main objective of this standard is to ensure that assets are measured fairly in financial statements by recognizing an impairment loss when the net carrying amount exceeds the recoverable amount.

In order to be able to assess the impact of IFRS 36 on the indicators of reporting prepared under IFRS, we will give a real example.

Thus, according to the reports of OJSC Rostelecom according to IFRS for 2005, published on July 3, the net profit of OJSC Rostelecom, calculated according to IFRS, decreased in 2005 by 4.3 times - to 978 million rubles. (at the end of 2004, net profit amounted to 4.266 billion rubles).

Rostelecom's weak financial results were partly due to the fact that the company recognized in its 2005 financial statements a loss from the impairment of non-current assets in the amount of 4.97 billion rubles. (without taking into account the loss from impairment of non-current assets, operating profit at the end of 2005 would have been not 400.0 million rubles, but 5.37 billion rubles).

At the same time, the net profit of OJSC Rostelecom for 2005 according to Russian accounting standards increased by 25% compared to the same period in 2004 and amounted to 9.027 billion rubles.

Russian rules do not provide for the recognition of such losses. The rules that exist for individual assets, for example, the revaluation of fixed assets, do not aim to recognize losses from impairment of property.

When considering the possibility of applying asset impairment in Russian practice, it is necessary to take into account the following facts:

1. The impairment test must be carried out annually, in contrast to the revaluation of fixed assets, for which IFRS 16 established periods of 3-5 years. If an enterprise accounts for fixed assets using the “historical” cost model, conducting an impairment test makes sense.

When property, plant and equipment are accounted for at a revalued amount, if the costs of disposal are negligible, then the recoverable amount of the revalued asset is clearly close to or greater than its revalued amount (ie fair value). In this case, after applying the revaluation requirements, it is unlikely that the amount of the revalued asset will decrease, so there is no need to estimate the recoverable amount (clause 5 of IAS 36).

2. As noted in previous sections, today the book value of fixed assets of most Russian enterprises is underestimated, and significantly underestimated. Revaluation of fixed assets is carried out by units of enterprises. Based on paragraph 19 of IAS 36, it is not always necessary to determine both an asset's fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. If any of these amounts exceeds the carrying amount of the asset, it means that the value of the asset has not decreased and no other amount needs to be measured. It is obvious that the fair value (where it can be determined) of most Russian enterprises exceeds the book value of fixed assets. The justification can be given by the data of the StOF program1, intended for the revaluation of fixed assets both by the index method and by the direct recalculation method. According to the program data, for specific types of fixed assets since 1997, the value of fixed assets has not decreased, but increased. Exception consists only of computer equipment and mobile phones.

Summarizing all of the above, we can highlight the following main points regarding the introduction of the practice of asset impairment into the Russian accounting system:

Ignoring asset impairment by domestic accounting standards has (in some cases) a negative impact on the reliability of reporting items.

IFRS 36 “Impairment of Assets” is one of the most complex international standards. Its application requires specific knowledge and a significant amount of free time. Accounting services will not be able to independently calculate asset impairment. This standard is most likely intended for use by professional appraisers.

The prudence principle embedded in IFRS requires that assets are not overstated. Today, we can confidently say that the book value of fixed assets of most Russian enterprises is not overstated, but understated.

The introduction of an analogue of IFRS 36 into Russian practice must be carried out with a certain degree of caution, since IFRS 36 allows the value of its use to be taken as the recoverable amount of an asset, which in turn can be used by a company to embellish reporting or to hide profits received. This fact once again indicates that the implementation of impairment procedures requires the participation of independent appraisers.

3.3 Initial valuation of fixed assets

As noted earlier, a significant part of the assets and value of companies in the sphere of material production consists of fixed assets. They account for up to 80% or more of the cost, and the share of depreciation in costs can exceed 20% (Table 5). It becomes clear that the value of the accounting value of fixed assets directly affects the financial well-being of the company.

According to paragraph 15 of IFRS 16, an item of property, plant and equipment that can be recognized as an asset must be measured at cost.

The initial valuation of property, plant and equipment, according to IFRS 16, includes:

purchase price including import duties and non-refundable purchase tax less trade discounts and rebates.
Any cost directly attributable to bringing an asset to its desired location and condition so that it functions in accordance with the intentions of the organization's management.
an initial estimate of the costs of dismantling and removing an item of property, plant and equipment and restoring the natural resources on the site it occupies, a responsibility for which the entity assumes either upon acquisition of the item or by operating it for a specified period of time for purposes other than the production of inventories during this period.

According to PBU 6/01, fixed assets are also accepted for accounting at their original cost.

In particular, the initial cost of fixed assets acquired for a fee is recognized as the amount of the organization’s actual costs for acquisition, construction and production, with the exception of value added tax and other refundable taxes (except for cases provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation)” (clause 8 of PBU 6 /01).

From the above it is clear that Russian regulatory documents do not provide for the inclusion in the initial cost of a fixed asset of the estimated cost of dismantling and removing the asset (decommissioning costs) and restoring the site. There is no analogue of IFRS 37 “Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets” in Russian legislation.

The specificity of the application of IFRS 37 in relation to fixed assets is such that it can affect the reliability of reporting to a greater extent at enterprises in the mining and energy industries, that is, at those enterprises where there are significant costs for decommissioning assets. In other industries, the absence of PBUs similar in content to IFRS 37 does not have a significant impact on the reliability of financial statements.

The list of costs not attributable to the cost of a fixed asset item, given in paragraph 19 of IFRS 16, is much broader than the list given in PBU 6/01. Thus, administrative and other general overhead costs are clearly not included in the cost of fixed assets under IFRS 16. At the same time, paragraph 8 of PBU 6/01 provides for a reservation in relation to such costs - general and other similar expenses are not included in the actual costs of acquisition, construction or production of fixed assets, except in cases where they are directly related to the acquisition, construction or production of fixed assets funds.

That is, PBU 6/01 presents the option of writing off general business expenses either as expenses of the current period, when it is impossible to prove their direct connection with the acquisition of an asset, or mandatory capitalization - if there is a direct connection with their acquisition, construction or production.

With this approach, reporting prepared according to Russian accounting rules will differ from reporting prepared under IFRS, because IFRS recognizes such costs in the income statement in the entire period of occurrence. In addition, the amount of depreciation charges for the object will also differ; according to IFRS rules, depreciation charges will be less, since the initial cost of the object will be less and, accordingly, the depreciable cost will be less.

According to Russian legislation (clause 12 of PBU 15/01), borrowing costs necessarily increase the cost of a fixed asset. Inclusion in the cost of an object of interest on borrowed funds taken for their acquisition according to IFRS “Borrowing Costs” is an alternative method of accounting, while the main method of accounting involves taking into account such expenses in the period of their occurrence.

That is, in principle, the differences between IFRS and PBU in terms of recognizing interest on borrowed funds taken for the acquisition of fixed assets are minimal. The method used by PBU for assessing the initial cost of fixed assets corresponds to the alternative method of IFRS.

Another difference between IFRS and PBU is associated with excess costs of raw materials, labor or other resources incurred when creating an asset on its own (clause 22 of IFRS 16). IFRS 16 prohibits the inclusion of these costs in the initial cost of assets; there is no such prohibition in the practice of Russian accounting of fixed assets.

In accordance with Art. 31 of the Federal Law of October 29, 1998 N 164-FZ “On financial lease (leasing)” (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law), the leased asset transferred to the lessee under a leasing agreement is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessor or lessee by mutual agreement of the parties. The book value of leased property is determined as the total amount of lease payments (less non-refundable taxes) and additional costs to bring the leased property to a condition suitable for use.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of IFRS 17 Leases, at the beginning of the lease term, lessees are required to recognize finance leases as assets and liabilities on their balance sheet in amounts equal to the fair value of the leased property, or, if these amounts are lower, the present value of the minimum lease payments, the amount of each of which is determined at the conclusion of the lease agreement.

Based on the data presented, two conclusions arise:

IFRS 17 “Lease” obliges the recognition of financial leases as assets; according to Russian legislation, the leased asset is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessor or lessee by mutual agreement of the parties.
The assessment of fixed assets leased in Russian accounting is carried out in the amount of leasing payments, taking into account the additional costs of bringing the leased property to a condition suitable for use. International standards require the lessee to recognize in its balance sheet, at the commencement date of the lease term, the leased asset as an asset and a liability at the lower of the fair value of the leased property or the present value of the minimum lease payments.

PBU 6/01 does not contain special instructions regarding the valuation of fixed assets purchased on credit, and therefore they are valued at the purchase price. IFRS 17 clearly prescribes two methods for valuing property, plant and equipment purchased on credit. The first is at fair value. The second method is based on the discounted value of minimum rental payments, which is based on the concept of the time value of money, which simply does not exist in Russian legislation.

In order to see the difference between PBU and IFRS in this matter, we will give an example of calculating the current cost of payments.

The organization purchased a car on lease for 120,000 rubles. The fair (market) value of a similar car at the time of concluding the contract was 110,000 rubles. The supply agreement stipulates that payment for the property is made in equal installments over three years. The concept of time value of money is based on the idea that the amount of money currently available will be worth more in the future. Based on the fact that after the first payment in the amount of 30,000 rubles. (at the beginning of the contract) remaining funds in the amount of 90,000, 60,000, 30,000 rubles. (the first, second and third years, respectively) can be deposited in the bank at interest (let’s say 12% per annum), let’s calculate the book value of the car:

1. First, let's calculate the amount of interest:

2. Let's calculate the discounted value of the minimum lease payments:

RUB 120,000—RUB 19,286 = 100,714 rub.

It is obvious that for the purposes of IFRS 17, of the two values (fair value in the amount of 110,000 rubles and the discounted value of the minimum lease payments in the amount of 100,714 rubles), the smaller one will be applied as the initial cost of the fixed asset - 100,714 rubles. It is also obvious that according to PBU 6/01, the cost of a fixed asset purchased on lease will be equal to 120,000 rubles. Again, we see that the assessment when recognizing assets under finance lease according to the rules of IFRS differs significantly from the assessment under the rules of Russian legislation.

The difference between the book value of the acquired asset and the amount paid to the supplier will be attributed, according to IFRS, to the financial result as interest expenses; according to the rules of Russian accounting, the amount of interest will be included in the cost of the fixed asset and will be expensed in the form of depreciation charges.

Valuation of fixed assets received in exchange for other assets is one of the significant issues of the initial valuation. There is an opinion that Russian standards in this matter are fully consistent with IFRS

According to IFRS 16, the following methods are possible for valuing objects acquired in exchange for a non-monetary asset or assets, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary assets:

at the fair value of the assets received,
at the fair value of the transferred assets,
or, if fair value cannot be determined, at the carrying amount of the transferred asset.

The choice between methods depends on which one gives a more objective assessment, but the first method is preferable.

According to Russian legislation (clause 11 of PBU 6/01), fixed assets acquired in exchange for other property other than cash are reflected in the statements at the value of the exchanged property, which in comparable circumstances is usually used by the organization to determine the value of similar assets. If it is impossible to determine the value in this way, the value is determined based on comparable circumstances of the acquisition of similar fixed assets.

It is obvious that the assessment of fixed assets received in exchange for other property according to PBU and IFRS has some differences. Let's give an example.

The metallurgical plant produced rolled metal. The cost of production was 100,000 rubles. The cost of rolled metal at market prices is 80,000 rubles. The plant exchanges metal for a tractor. The market price of the tractor is 70,000 rubles, the negotiated (barter) price of the tractor is 90,000 rubles.

Reflection in the reporting of the value of the received asset according to PBU and IFRS will look like this (arranged in descending order of preference for valuation options):

№			PBU 6/01
№	Evaluation method		Evaluation method	Book value of fixed asset
1	at the fair value of the assets received	70,000 rub.	at the value of the property being exchanged, at which, in comparable circumstances, the organization usually determines the value of similar assets	80000 rub.
2	at the fair value of the transferred assets	80,000 rub.	at cost based on comparable circumstances of the acquisition of similar fixed assets	70,000 rub.
3	at the book value of the transferred asset	100,000 rub.

As can be seen from the table, in accordance with IFRS 16, the book value of the received fixed assets will be equal to either 70,000 rubles (the market value of the fixed assets received), or, in the absence of data on the market price of the tractor, 80,000 rubles (the market value of the exchanged property). In the absence of information about the market value of the received fixed assets and transferred assets, the assessment will be carried out based on the book value of the transferred assets, that is, 100,000 rubles. These assessments do not fully comply with the requirements of PBU 6/01.

The specificity of the application of IFRS is such that when acquiring fixed assets in exchange for similar fixed assets, their initial cost will be the fair value of the assets received (must be equal to the book value of the assets given up, adjusted for impairment), there is no financial result from the transaction in this case. The practice of Russian accounting prescribes the formation of the financial result from the transaction.

When exchanged for other (non-similar) assets, the fair value of the assets received, taking into account additional payments, must be equal to the fair value of the assets given up, adjusted for impairment. In this case, according to IFRS, the financial result of the exchange is determined.

As can be seen from this example, the cost of fixed assets received through exchange and assessed according to PBU and IFRS still has some differences, which cannot but affect the quality and comparability of statements compiled according to the rules of these accounting systems.

On the one hand, the only necessary and sufficient condition for including incurred costs in the initial cost of fixed assets, in both accounting systems, is their direct connection with the acquisition of the object. On the other hand, there are still discrepancies in the initial assessment of fixed assets according to PBU 6/01 and IFRS 16. There are no fundamental reasons preventing the application of international accounting practice in Russian practice, and therefore it is not entirely clear why it was necessary to issue, from the moment the accounting reform began, two regulations on accounting for fixed assets and two editions to them, if Today, a large number of discrepancies remain between IFRS 16 and PBU 6/01, even in the initial valuation of assets.

3.4 Revaluation model

According to IFRS 16, a company can choose one of the subsequent valuation models:

The accounting model is at historical cost less subsequent accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.
The accounting model is at a revalued amount, which is the fair value of an item of property, plant and equipment at the date of revaluation, less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

According to IFRS, if a company chooses a subsequent valuation model at a revalued amount, at the date of revaluation the accumulated depreciation may:

Revalued in proportion to the change in the asset's carrying amount before depreciation, so that after revaluation the carrying amount equals its revalued amount.
Write off from the carrying amount of the asset, after which the asset is revalued.

Let us recall that according to Russian accounting standards, the cost of fixed assets is formed in the sum of the costs of their acquisition, or the initial cost, minus depreciation. The original cost is determined historically or by revaluation. Schematically, the formation of the cost of fixed assets in Russian financial statements is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scheme of formation of the cost of fixed assets in Russian accounting

In comparison with the Russian rules for revaluation of depreciation on fixed assets, international standards offer two options, while in Russian accounting there is an analogue of the first method.

Let us conduct a comparative analysis of the revaluation methods proposed by IFRS and the method prescribed in PBU 6/01 using an example.

Let’s assume that an enterprise has decided to revaluate a building, the initial cost of the building was $1,000, depreciation was $250. The market value of a similar building on the day of revaluation is $2,000. We will carry out the revaluation in two ways, proposed by IFRS and the method provided for by PBU 6/01:

As can be seen from the tables above, the procedure for revaluation under IFRS and PBU 6/01 differs significantly. This is due to the fact that the revaluation of an object of fixed assets, according to PBU 6/01, is carried out by recalculating its original cost or current (replacement) cost, if this object was revalued earlier, and the amount of depreciation accrued for the entire period of use of the object. That is, when revaluing fixed assets using the direct recalculation method, the amount of depreciation listed in the accounting records is indexed by a conversion factor calculated by the ratio of replacement cost to book value.

Paragraph 41 of the Methodological Guidelines for the Accounting of Fixed Assets requires that the original (and not the balance sheet) value of fixed assets be brought into line with their market prices. At the same time, depreciation is indexed in proportion to the change in the original (replacement) cost and does not in any way reflect the actual physical, economic and moral depreciation of assets.

The established revaluation periods also differ, so according to paragraph 34 of IFRS 16, the fair value of some objects may be subject to significant and arbitrary fluctuations, so they require annual revaluation. Such frequent revaluations are not required for items of property, plant and equipment whose fair value has undergone insignificant changes. The need to revaluate such objects may arise once every 3-5 years. The requirements of PBU 6/01 regarding revaluation periods are more vague - “they are subsequently revalued regularly so that the value of fixed assets at which they are reflected in accounting and reporting does not differ significantly from the current (replacement) cost.”

Another difference associated with the revaluation of assets is associated with the difference in its reflection in accounting and reporting according to the rules of IFRS 16 and PBU 6/01. The schematic procedure for reflecting revaluation and depreciation of fixed assets according to the rules of IFRS 16 is given below.

Based on paragraph 15 of PBU 6/01, the amount of revaluation of an item of fixed assets as a result of revaluation is credited to the organization’s additional capital. The amount of revaluation of an item of fixed assets, equal to the amount of its depreciation carried out in previous reporting periods and attributed to the account for accounting for retained earnings (uncovered loss), is credited to the account for accounting for retained earnings (uncovered loss).

The amount of depreciation of an item of fixed assets as a result of revaluation is credited to the account of retained earnings (uncovered loss). The amount of depreciation of an object of fixed assets is included in the reduction of the organization’s additional capital formed from the amounts of the additional valuation of this object carried out in previous reporting periods. The excess of the amount of depreciation of an object over the amount of its revaluation, credited to the organization's additional capital as a result of revaluation carried out in previous reporting periods, is charged to the account of retained earnings (uncovered loss). The amount attributed to the account of retained earnings (uncovered loss) must be disclosed in the financial statements of the organization.

The obvious difference when reflecting the results of revaluation in accounting and reporting is that according to PBU 6/01, all revaluations are reflected in capital accounting items (retained earnings (uncovered loss), or additional capital), while IFRS 16 reversible amounts allocated to income and expense items, which leads to the reflection of reversing amounts of revaluation and depreciation in the Profit and Loss Statement.

Paragraph 41 of IFRS 16 states that when an asset is derecognised, any revaluation surplus included in equity in relation to an item of property, plant and equipment can be transferred directly to retained earnings. When an asset is taken out of use or disposed of, the transfer may include the entire increase. However, if the asset is used by the organization, only part of the revaluation surplus may be carried forward. In this case, the amount of surplus carried forward will be the difference between the amount of depreciation calculated on the basis of the revalued carrying amount of the asset and the amount of depreciation calculated on the basis of its original cost. Transfers of revaluation surplus to retained earnings are not made through profit or loss.

Paragraph 15 of PBU 6/01 establishes that when an item of fixed assets is disposed of, the amount of its revaluation is transferred from the organization’s additional capital to the organization’s retained earnings.

If IFRS 16 gives the right, upon derecognition of an asset, to transfer the gain from its revaluation, included in capital in relation to an item of fixed assets, directly to retained earnings, then PBU 6/01 directly obliges the write-off of amounts of additional capital to retained earnings upon disposal of an item of fixed assets.

In addition, if an asset is used by an organization, then according to IFRS 16, only part of the increase from revaluation can be transferred; PBU 6/01 does not provide such an opportunity.

Summarizing the results of the analysis of the accounting model at revalued value according to IFRS 16 and PBU 6/01, we can again come to the conclusion that the method of revaluing fixed assets according to IFRS is more economically justified, and there are no fundamental reasons that would prevent the introduction of these methods into Russian practice.

LLC AK "Eidi Audit" © 2010 Use of materials is possible only if the source is indicated and a link to it.

D. V. Pshichenko

Useful life

According to IFRS 16, the useful life is determined based on:

The expected (estimated) period of use of the company's assets;

The quantity of products that the company expects to produce using the asset.

This standard also pays attention to other factors, such as obsolescence and physical depreciation, which often lead to a decrease in the economic benefits expected from the use of a given asset, even if the fixed asset is not in use (is being mothballed). Therefore, the following factors must be considered when determining the useful life of an asset:

The expected volume of use of the asset by the company;

Estimated physical deterioration, depending on production factors such as the number of shifts, repair and maintenance programs, as well as storage conditions and maintenance of the asset during periods of inactivity;

Obsolescence as a result of improvements in the production process, changes in the volume of demand in the market for these products (services) produced (provided) using the asset;

Legal or similar restrictions on the use of an asset, such as lease terms. When determining the useful life of an asset, its expected usefulness to the company must be taken into account. Thus, the useful life of an asset may be shorter than its economic useful life. Therefore, usually the useful life of an item of fixed assets is determined by estimation based on the company's experience with similar assets. In accordance with IFRS 16, the useful life of an item of property, plant and equipment must be reviewed periodically, and if the resulting change in life is materially different from previous estimates, the amount of depreciation expense for the current and future periods must be adjusted.

For example, the useful life may be extended as a result of subsequent expenditures that improve the condition of the fixed asset beyond the originally calculated standards. Conversely, technological changes or changes in the product market may result in a reduction in useful life. In such cases, the useful life (and therefore the depreciation rate) is adjusted for the current and future periods.

Excerpt from the IFRS accounting policies of the Alfa LLC group of companies

Depreciation of fixed assets is charged from the moment when the group begins to receive economic benefits from the use of the fixed asset. Depreciation of fixed assets is calculated using the straight-line method over their useful life. The Group has established the following periods for the economically useful use of fixed assets (Table 2).

table 2

Accepted useful lives by classes of fixed assets

PBU 6/01. According to the provision, the useful life of an item of fixed assets is determined by the organization when accepting the item for accounting.

Paragraph 4 of the PBU says that the useful life is the period during which the use of an item of fixed assets brings economic benefits (income) to the organization. For certain groups of fixed assets, the useful life is determined based on the quantity of products (volume of work in physical terms) expected to be received as a result of the use of this object.

Paragraph 20 of the regulation states that when determining the useful life of an item of fixed assets, it is necessary to proceed from:

The expected useful life of this facility in accordance with the expected productivity or capacity;

Expected physical wear and tear, depending on the operating mode (number of shifts), natural conditions and the influence of an aggressive environment, the repair system;

Regulatory and other restrictions on the use of this object (for example, rental period). Also, according to this paragraph, in cases of improvement (increase) of the initially adopted standard indicators of the functioning of a fixed asset object as a result of reconstruction or modernization, the organization revises the useful life of this object.

Thus, similar to IFRS, Russian legislation allows organizations to independently determine the useful life of fixed assets. Both Russian legislation and IFRS 16 provide for a group of factors that must be taken into account when establishing the useful life of fixed assets. At the same time, it should be noted that such a factor as obsolescence of an object, provided for by the international standard, is not directly stipulated in the text of PBU 6/01. The international standard provides for a more flexible policy than Russian accounting legislation regarding changes in the useful life of an item of fixed assets.

Depreciation

IFRS 16. The standard defines depreciation as the systematic reduction in the depreciable cost of an asset over its useful life. In this case, depreciable cost means the cost of an asset or other amount reflected in the financial statements instead of cost, minus its liquidation value.

Salvage value, on the other hand, is defined as the net amount a company expects to receive for an asset at the end of its useful life less expected disposal costs. According to the standard, only land is not subject to depreciation because it generally has an indefinite useful life. PBBU 6/01. Except for the cases established by this provision, the cost of fixed assets is repaid through depreciation.

According to clause 17, depreciation is not accrued:

For the objects of fixed assets used for the implementation of the legislation of the Russian Federation on mobilization preparation and mobilization, which are mothballed and not used in the production of products, when performing work or providing services, for the management needs of the organization or for provision by the organization for a fee for temporary possession and use or for temporary use, depreciation is not charged;

Depreciation is not charged for fixed assets of non-profit organizations. Based on them, information on the amounts of depreciation accrued in a straight-line manner in relation to the procedure given in clause 19 of these Regulations is summarized on the off-balance sheet account;

For housing assets that are accounted for as part of profitable investments in material assets, depreciation is calculated in accordance with the generally established procedure. Objects of fixed assets whose consumer properties do not change over time are not subject to depreciation (land plots; environmental management facilities; objects classified as museum objects and museum collections, etc.).

For these objects, in accordance with this provision, depreciation is calculated off-balance sheet at the end of the reporting year according to established depreciation rates. Also, depreciation is not accrued for fixed assets whose consumer properties do not change over time (land plots and environmental management facilities; objects classified as museum objects and museum collections, etc.). Thus, Russian legislation, unlike IFRS, contains an extensive list of fixed assets that are not subject to depreciation (the international standard provides for the non-accrual of depreciation only for land), and also provides for the suspension of the accrual of depreciation charges.

Depreciation methods

IFRS 16. According to the standard, the depreciation method used must reflect the pattern in which the entity consumes the economic benefits derived from the asset.

International standards distinguish the following depreciation methods:

Straight-line accrual method;

Reducing balance method;

Sum of items method.

The method is selected on the basis of the expected pattern of economic benefits from the use of the asset and is applied consistently from period to period unless the expected pattern of economic benefits from the use of the asset changes.

According to paragraph 52 of IFRS 16, the depreciation method applied to property, plant and equipment must be reviewed periodically and, if there are significant changes in the expected pattern of economic benefits from those assets, the method must be changed to reflect those changes. If such a change in the depreciation method is necessary, it must be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate, and the depreciation charges for the current and future periods must be adjusted.

PBU 6/01. The regulation provides for the following methods of calculating depreciation:

Linear method;

Reducing balance method;

The method of writing off value by the sum of the numbers of years of useful life;

The method of writing off the cost is proportional to the volume of products (works).

The use of one of the methods of calculating depreciation for a group of homogeneous fixed assets is carried out throughout the entire useful life of the objects included in this group.

Thus, when calculating depreciation, Russian legislation allows the use of the method of writing off the cost of fixed assets based on the sum of the number of years of their useful life, which is not provided for by IFRS.

Unlike international standards, which provide for changing the method of calculating depreciation during the useful life of an asset, Russian legislation does not provide organizations with such an opportunity.