It's simple because a lot of the logic is similar to the fixed assets that I've learned beforeThe so-called "right-of-use assets" can be considered as "quasi-fixed assets"., with the knowledge of previous fixed assets, you can master seven, seven, eight, eight.
If you purchase multiple fixed assets, you need to confirm them separately; Leasing multiple assets should also be confirmed separately;
The purchase of fixed assets in installments should be measured at present value; Rent paid in installments should also be measured at present value;
Depreciation is provided for fixed assets, and depreciation is also provided for right-of-use assets.
Why are the two like twin brothers, so similar?
Because in essence, there is not much difference.
The asset has always been that asset, and the way it generates economic benefits is the same, but the way it is purchased is different.
One has a lot of money and buys it out directly;
A bag is shy and can only buy the right to use it for a few years.
Well, the impairment I want to talk about today is also very different from the treatment of fixed assets.
According to the indication of impairment, the recoverable amount and the book value are judged to be higher, and the impairment treatment of the right-of-use asset is:
Borrow: Asset impairment loss
Credit: Provision for impairment of right-of-use assets
Moreover, once the impairment is accrued, it cannot be reversed.
Some people asked, why can't the impairment of right-of-use assets be reversed?
In order to prevent manipulation of profits.
If you think about it, if the impairment can be arbitrarily accrued and reversed, then the KPI of profit can no longer limit the executives.
It only takes a fourteen-word proverb to play with profits in the palm of your hand:
I am greedy when others are afraid, and I am afraid when others are greedy.
When the wind is met and the profits take off, the impairment is secretly calculated to make the profits less inflated, and make profit reserves for possible black swan events in the future;
When the tuyere falls and the industry tightens, the impairment that was previously accrued is washed back, and the originally shriveled profits immediately become fat.
Regardless of the ebb and flow of the industry, the profits will always remain unchanged and have been stable and improving.
I don't know how outstanding the management level of the executives is, and they can fly against the wind.
Can the big guy who sets the rules allow you to play like this?
Of course not.
Therefore, it is directly stipulated that the impairment cannot be reversed.
But is this really flawless?
The road is one foot high, and there is a very hidden way:
If the book value of the right-of-use asset is 10 million this year, it should not be impaired, but because of the company's loss this year, the management has also made an impairment provision of 2 million yuan, and the book value of the right-of-use asset has become 8 million;
Then, if the asset is successfully subleased in the second year, and the sublease** is not bad, assuming that the present value of the future cash flow from the sublease is 9 million.
Hehe, do you guess the difference of 1 million is included in **?