Building not depreciated

Should a building not to be depreciated

Didn't find your answer?

Please is a building not allowed to be depreciated as client believes the residual value will not be less than its carrying value? Therefore has not depreciated the building for years. 

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tosie
25th Sep 2020 08:58

Has the building depreciated ?Companies are supposed to bring in an independent valuer on a regular basis. No need to depreciate unless significant drop in property values. Make sure notes to accounts state policy used.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tosie:
avatar
By Fum
25th Sep 2020 09:28

Thanks, the building has not depreciated, but under section 17 FRS 102 for PPE using cost model, is it not an automatic requirement to depreciate all PPEs?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paul.benny
25th Sep 2020 11:01

Although you've not stated, I'm assuming we're dealing with a building occupied by your client and not an investment property.

Firstly, you need to separate the land and the buildings element, even if they were purchased at the same time (para17.8). It's generally accepted that land is not a depreciable asset.

If using a cost basis, buildings should be depreciated based on the expected useful life and the residual value. The latter is defined in FRS102 as the estimated proceeds on sale from as asset already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. (FRS102 Glossary, paraphrased slightly).

Alternatively, FRS102 (but not FRS105) permits a revaluation method for buildings. The requirements are set out in the standard.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By Fum
25th Sep 2020 22:52

Thanks, Please see my response below it is a mixed used property. In line with frs102 requirements it can either use the cost or fair value model. But if client settles for cost model can client decide to not depreciate because the residual value is less than the carrying value at the reporting date?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Fum:
avatar
By paul.benny
26th Sep 2020 16:47

In the OP, you've said residual value is *not* less than carrying value and in this post you've said it is less than carrying value.

If residual value is less than cost, you should depreciate.

If client believes residual value is *not* less than cost, ask for evidence. Remember the estimated residual value is as at today - it cannot take into account future movement in property values. You refer to 'carrying value' - what do you mean here? Depreciated cost or has the client already been revaluing the property?

FRS102 para 16.4 says that for mixed self-occupied/tenanted property, you account for the parts as PP&E/investment property respectively - or account for the whole lot as PP&E.

And the land? Is that already accounted for separately? If not, who owns it and what is client's tenure. It will surely be either long lease - which does have a value. Or shorter term which could mean that at end of term, client must return a clean level site - and that means residual value is nil or even negative.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Sep 2020 11:10

To avoid what's happened, property's useful life should have been reviewed at least once in a reporting period. To rectify this, property's remaining useful life can be reviewed now.
I am assuming that the building is being used by the client and it's not an investment property.

Thanks (0)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By Fum
25th Sep 2020 22:56

It is actually a mixed used building, partly rented out to an external party to generate rental income and the other Part rented to another group/ related entity with no rent collected. It doesn’t include land.

Is it compliant when using the cost model to decide that since the the residual value is less than the carrying value the building can be allowed not to be depriciated?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Fum:
avatar
By User deleted
26th Sep 2020 19:12

Rental side of the property would be considered to be an investment property (it can't be PPE) hence measured at fair value and gais/losses posted to P&L and retained earnings.

Part that is rented out to a related party would be considered to be PPE and a suitable model for subsequent measurement should be used.

If the useful life (for PPE side of things) is reviewed once a year then there won't be an issue of carrying value being less than the residual value, so question whether it is complaint or not will be removed.
Lower of carrying value and residual value will arise when an asset is held for sale so it's a separate issue.

Now deferred tax. This will need to be taken into account too for both, investment property (because of gain/loss) and PPE (because of tax base difference). Also, expenses related to the use of property by a related party cannot be claimed ad there is no rental income.

Here's a link to an ACCA article which explains FRS 102 Investment property and PPE.

https://www.accaglobal.com/pk/en/member/discover/cpd-articles/corporate-...

Things will be different if using FRS105 instead.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 356B
25th Sep 2020 19:15

Regular valuations will account for any APPRECIATION or Depreciation.

Thanks (0)