Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
It does bring another light to all of the discussions here on dividends...
From what I can see it was just a typical group structure [***]-up - the subsidiaries had profits but had not distributed them to the parent. Sloppy.
Realised Profits Need Legal Definition not IASB Discretion
Without knowing the details of this case, it is quite possible that these payments were made out of realised profits as determined by the Companies Act while not being distributable profits as defined by ICAEW guidance.
Realised profits are not defined. Sec 853(4) CA 2006 simply states that realised profits or losses are whatever accounting standards determine them to be. That is no definition at all: a discretion abused by standard setters such that we now see some holding gains recognised as realised profits. There can be nothing truthful about that.
As for the ICAEW guidance on distributable profits, although commendable this professional guidance does not have the same reach as the law and of course has less authority. For the sake of the public interest, our legislators need to align a company's reported profit with its distributable profit. This is, after all, one of the figures most relevant to the members collectively as regards the decisions they are legally required to take as a body. The present focus on individual stakeholders / stakeholder groups obscures this distinction necessary for long-term stability in the public interest.