{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

However it can be argued that the standard also

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ropean Union, which did not have specific criteria for recognition of internally developed intangibles. This table calls for several comments. For example, standard IAS 38 states two exclusion criteria: an enterprise should “recognize an intangible asset (at cost) if, and only if: (a) it is probable that the future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the enterprise; and (b) the cost of the asset can be measured reliably”. However, it can be argued that the standard also includes an inclusion criterion (identifiability) in its definition of intangibles: “An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative purposes”. To be “non-monetary” and “without physical substance” is intrinsic to an intangible, while its “identifiability” corresponds to an accounting approach and is not unproblematic, so far as the concept is concerned. Does identifiability mean the existence of a le...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online