The continuing employment condition should be based

Info icon This preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The continuing employment condition should be based on the best estimates at the statement of financial position date, which in this case is for 16 executives to be employed at the vesting date. The charge to the income statement is therefore £378,000 (10,000 x 16 x £12.60 x ¼ x 9/12). This will reduce profit after tax and therefore EPS. In addition this sum is also credited in the statement of financial position to equity. IFRS2 does not state where in equity this entry should arise, and many companies add it to retained earnings. When calculating diluted EPS it will be necessary to take into consideration the number of ‘free’ shares being allocated to executives assuming the whole scheme will vest. (see appendix for calculations) Lease of machinery Shane Ponting’s analysis of the agreement as an operating lease is incorrect. This would appear to be a finance lease because: (a) the lease term and useful life of the asset are the same (b) the present value of the lease payments received, plus the residual value guaranteed by Prior plc come to £606,381, which is almost all of the fair value of the machinery. The asset should therefore be derecognised and a receivable created. This is called the net investment in the lease. The direct costs incurred should be included in the initial measurement of the finance lease receivable and will therefore be recognised in the income statement over the lease term as part of interest receivable. The rental income of £150,000 is removed from the income statement. Interest receivable of £61,000 is credited to the income statement (appendix 3) Because the machinery is being derecognised the depreciation charge should be added back to profit. Overall the reclassification of the lease to a finance lease will increase EPS. In the statement of financial position at 31 May 2010 there will be a receivable of £524,000 (appendix 3) which should be analysed between amounts due in less than and more than one year.
Image of page 2

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TI BR – Advanced Stage – July 2010 © The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales 2010 3 Dipper Pension Scheme The accounting treatment for a defined benefit scheme is considerably different to that of a defined contribution scheme. It is therefore necessary to remove the charge of £480,000 made by Shane Ponting and replace it with the following. The income statement charge is split into three elements: (a) Service cost, this is the pension earned by the employees of Dipper in the year, and is an operating cost. This means that operating costs will rise by a net £80,000 after deducting the contributions paid into the scheme that have been incorrectly charged by Shane Ponting. (b) Return on assets: This is the expected investment income on the equities, bonds and other investments owned by the pension fund. This works out as £55,000 (5% x £2.2 million x 6/12). IAS19 does not specify where this should appear in the income statement. I have treated it as investment income but it would not be incorrect to offset it against operating costs.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.