4 Ryder, a public limited company, is reviewing certain events which have occurred since i

Question

4 Ryder, a public limited company, is reviewing certain events which have occurred since its year end of 31 October

2005. The financial statements were authorised on 12 December 2005. The following events are relevant to the

financial statements for the year ended 31 October 2005:

(i) Ryder has a good record of ordinary dividend payments and has adopted a recent strategy of increasing its

dividend per share annually. For the last three years the dividend per share has increased by 5% per annum.

On 20 November 2005, the board of directors proposed a dividend of 10c per share for the year ended

31 October 2005. The shareholders are expected to approve it at a meeting on 10 January 2006, and a

dividend amount of $20 million will be paid on 20 February 2006 having been provided for in the financial

statements at 31 October 2005. The directors feel that a provision should be made because a ‘valid expectation’

has been created through the company’s dividend record. (3 marks)

(ii) Ryder disposed of a wholly owned subsidiary, Krup, a public limited company, on 10 December 2005 and made

a loss of $9 million on the transaction in the group financial statements. As at 31 October 2005, Ryder had no

intention of selling the subsidiary which was material to the group. The directors of Ryder have stated that there

were no significant events which have occurred since 31 October 2005 which could have resulted in a reduction

in the value of Krup. The carrying value of the net assets and purchased goodwill of Krup at 31 October 2005

were $20 million and $12 million respectively. Krup had made a loss of $2 million in the period 1 November

2005 to 10 December 2005. (5 marks)

(iii) Ryder acquired a wholly owned subsidiary, Metalic, a public limited company, on 21 January 2004. The

consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of Metalic was 2 million ordinary shares of $1 of Ryder plus

a further 300,000 ordinary shares if the profit of Metalic exceeded $6 million for the year ended 31 October

2005. The profit for the year of Metalic was $7 million and the ordinary shares were issued on 12 November

2005. The annual profits of Metalic had averaged $7 million over the last few years and, therefore, Ryder had

included an estimate of the contingent consideration in the cost of the acquisition at 21 January 2004. The fair

value used for the ordinary shares of Ryder at this date including the contingent consideration was $10 per share.

The fair value of the ordinary shares on 12 November 2005 was $11 per share. Ryder also made a one for four

bonus issue on 13 November 2005 which was applicable to the contingent shares issued. The directors are

unsure of the impact of the above on earnings per share and the accounting for the acquisition. (7 marks)

(iv) The company acquired a property on 1 November 2004 which it intended to sell. The property was obtained

as a result of a default on a loan agreement by a third party and was valued at $20 million on that date for

accounting purposes which exactly offset the defaulted loan. The property is in a state of disrepair and Ryder

intends to complete the repairs before it sells the property. The repairs were completed on 30 November 2005.

The property was sold after costs for $27 million on 9 December 2005. The property was classified as ‘held for

sale’ at the year end under IFRS5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ but shown at

the net sale proceeds of $27 million. Property is depreciated at 5% per annum on the straight-line basis and no

depreciation has been charged in the year. (5 marks)

(v) The company granted share appreciation rights (SARs) to its employees on 1 November 2003 based on ten

million shares. The SARs provide employees at the date the rights are exercised with the right to receive cash

equal to the appreciation in the company’s share price since the grant date. The rights vested on 31 October

2005 and payment was made on schedule on 1 December 2005. The fair value of the SARs per share at

31 October 2004 was $6, at 31 October 2005 was $8 and at 1 December 2005 was $9. The company has

recognised a liability for the SARs as at 31 October 2004 based upon IFRS2 ‘Share-based Payment’ but the

liability was stated at the same amount at 31 October 2005. (5 marks)

Required:

Discuss the accounting treatment of the above events in the financial statements of the Ryder Group for the year

ended 31 October 2005, taking into account the implications of events occurring after the balance sheet date.

(The mark allocations are set out after each paragraph above.)

(25 marks)

Answer 1

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.