Aircruising Australia Limited's Annual Report

Goodwill is considered impaired when the implied fair value of goodwill in a reporting unit of a company is less than its carrying amount, or book value, including any deferred income taxes. By qualitative factors, if the fair value is less than its book value (likelihood more than 50%), two step of the goodwill impairment test is necessary. According to ASC 350-20-35-2 and 3(A&B&D), if the company determines that it is not more likely than not that fair value is less than the book value, it does

Goodwill is not amortised. Instead, goodwill is tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that it might be impaired, and is carried at cost less accumulated impairment losses. Gains and losses on the disposal of an entity include the carrying amount of goodwill relating to the entity sold.For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to each of the Group 's cash-generating units (CGUs), or groups of CGUs, expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. CGUs (or groups of CGUs) to which goodwill has been allocated are tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that goodwill might be impaired.If the recoverable amount of the CGU (or groups of CGUs) is less than the carrying amount of the CGU (or groups of CGUs), the impairment loss is allocated first to reduce the carrying amount of any goodwill allocated to the CGU (or groups

9. If Six Flags’ goodwill has no economic value, the amount reported on the balance sheet is an example of what type of measurement error (gaap-based measurement error, unintentional measurement error, or intentional measurement error).

Where explain the concept of Intangible asset, which represents assets that absence of physical substance. Moreover, Goodwill represents an asset from which is expected future economic benefits, emerge from the acquisition of other assets or business combination. Another important point would be the impartments testing as refers ASC 350-20-35-28 where indicates that Goodwill of reporting unit must be tested for impairment annually. The test can be accomplished at any time in the fiscal year. In the case of different reporting unit, the impairment test could be at different times. This citation in the memorandum was provided incorrect (ASC 305-20-35-1 and 28) this encoding does not exist in FASB.

The qualified opinion report is similar in arrangement to the unqualified report with an additional paragraph dictating the reason the audit report is not unqualified. The third report although rare is an adverse opinion. An adverse opinion report is required when in the auditor’s opinion the financial statements as a whole do not conform to GAAP and are grossly misrepresented. The fourth and final report is a disclaimer of opinion. A disclaimer report is issued when the auditor is unable to gather sufficient information pertaining to the financial reports that an opinion cannot be determined. The auditor’s report has a direct impact on a company’s ability to obtain financing from a bank as the report lowers the cost of capital. The audit report also provides commercial value, meaning it’s an assurance the financial data is true and correct. The independent auditor for Verizon indicates an unqualified opinion in that Verizon’s

We will discuss whether the Company’s approach for testing goodwill for impairment after recognizing an impairment charge related to a long-lived asset group classified as held-and-used is appropriate. This issue pertains to whether it is feasible to have a long-lived asset impairment without goodwill impairment.

Goodwill Impairment is the Goodwill that has become or is considered to be of lower value than at the time or purchase. From an accounting perspective, when the carrying value of the goodwill exceeds the fair value, then it is considered to be impaired. Negative publicity about a firm can create goodwill impairment, as can the reduction of brand-name recognition. Since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) first introduced its standards update on testing for goodwill impairment (ASU 2011-08), entities with goodwill on their balance sheet have had the option when testing goodwill for impairment to first assess qualitative factors as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the traditional two-step approach described in ASC Topic 350. The optional qualitative assessment is commonly referred to as “step zero.”

IAS 36-2 states the Impairment of Assets rule shall be applied in accounting for the impairment of all

) There was a lack of adequate cut-off procedures to ensure the timely recording of certain period-end accruals. This resulted in an audit adjustment of $3,578,000. The benchmark for overall materiality is $3,508,000, I would consider the audit adjustment of $3,578,000 a material misstatement. Control environment, principle 2 the board of directors and management exercise oversight of development and performance of internal controls. Due to the severity and material weakness of lack of adequate cutoff procedures to ensure timely recording of period end accruals. Management and the board of directors should evaluate performance of internal control activities including adherence to standards of conduct and expected levels of competence. In

Evaluating the Reasonableness of the Accounting Estimates, and Determining Misstatements: the auditor shall evaluate, based on the audit evidence, whether the accounting estimates in the financial statements are either

al, 2012, p. 214). Therefore, a material misstatement may not be detected during the audit. In addition, the audit may not detect errors under the materiality level, whether resulting from error, fraud, or misappropriation of assets. Anderson, Olds, and Watershed may decline to express an opinion or issue a report if the firm is unable to complete the audit for any reason.

The authoritative guidance for asset impairment is to ensure that impairment is recorded and dealt with as depreciation. The scope of the standard is writing off of assets and depreciation. According to the guidance of 360-10-35, it address how long-lived assets that are intended to be held and used in an entity’s business shall be reviewed for impairment. The impairment loss can only be recognized if the carrying amount of a long-lived assets is not recoverable and

If representations are made and said representations are unsubstantiated by management, the auditor should express a qualified opinion.

Intangible assets are one of the most significant items in Myers financial statement. It consists of goodwill, brand names and trademarks, software and leases. AASB 136 Impairment of Assets requires Goodwill and some of the brand names that are indefinite useful life to test for the impairment. In Myer, there is no impairment loss. Furthermore, the accumulated amortisations of the other intangible assets are shown in the table X have a total value of $73585 thousand. According to AASB 117 Leases, the total rentals leases over the leases term are being expensed on a straight-line basis. In contrast, Myer’s competitor David Jones has only two intangible assets goodwill and software. The accumulated amortisation for software is $28808 thousand which is shown in the table X and it is the total value of accumulated amortisation.

The chief executive of the company was closely working with the vendors whose confirmations were vital in the auditing work and hence they could have submitted false confirmations. The auditing firm established a national risk management program for its clients and so national reviews were done to identify the high risk items in the financial statement. The vendor allowances were particularly high but they were not documented. As such, the auditors were supposed to demand for the documentations and compare them with the real figures. It is however noted that most of the documentations received were non-standard and this could have led to a different audit report given that vendor allowances were earlier identified as a high risk area. Inventory management was found to be poor especially in the allowances for inventory reserves. The audit firm was therefore obliged to carry out a thorough evaluation of the inventory reserves and determine whether it was reasonable. The valuation was also supposed to include all classes of inventory but for the case of the company, the evaluation excluded instances where no sales had been made. Hence, this evaluation could not accurately represent the position of the inventory reserve in the company. (Waters,2003)