FASB Accounting Standards Codification Case

4. ASC 360-10-35-23 provides that “[f]or purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment loss, a long-lived asset or assets shall be grouped with other assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and liabilities…”

The following are the required steps to identify, recognize and measure the impairment of a long-lived asset (group) to be held and used:

The following are the required steps to identify, recognize and measure the impairment of a long-lived asset (group) to be held and used:

* Test for recoverability — If indicators are present, perform a recoverability test by comparing the sum of the estimated undiscounted future cash flows attributable to the asset (group) in question to their carrying amounts (as a reminder, entities cannot record an impairment for a held and used asset unless the asset first fails this recoverability test).

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.”

If their stock price dropped to ZERO, an impairment would not be required because they are comparing the market price of their stock to their carrying amount of stockholder’s equity, which in a deficit. Also, the Company is anticipating those assets to produce future benefits that exceed its costs.

Based on ASC 320-10-35-34 I mentioned above, the other-than-temporary impairment should be recoded as $28 ($100-$72) as of December 31, 20X1. On January 31, 20X2, when the price of the stock went up to $75, the other-than-temporary impairment should be recoded as $25 ($100-$75). If the share price was $95 instead of $75 on January 31, 20X2, I think no other-than-temporary impairment needs to be recorded, because there is no material decrease occurred.

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

In accordance with the ASC 360-10-35-21, several changes should be evaluated in testing for the recoverability of long-lived assets: decline in market value, adverse changes in way asset is used or physical change in asset, adverse changes in legal factors or business climate, accumulated costs in excess of the original expected acquisition or construction price, current period losses with history of operating or cash flow losses associated with asset, and sales or disposal before the end of useful life.

For purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment loss, a long-lived asset or assets shall be grouped with other assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and liabilities. However, an impairment loss, if any, that results from applying this Statement shall reduce only the carrying amount of a long-lived asset or assets of the group in accordance with paragraph 14.

According to Section 360-10-35-21, examples of events that would cause an asset to be tested for impairment include a significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset, or a asset group, a significant adverse change in the extent or manner in which a long-lived asset or asset group is being used or in its physical condition, a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate that could affect the value of a long-lived asset, or asset group, and a current period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow losses or a projection or forecast that demonstrates continuing losses associated with the use of a long-lived asset or asset group.

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

The subsequent valuations are consistent with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards no. 157, defined as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.”

The fair value of an asset is defined as ‘the price that would be received to sell an asset paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date” (Kieso, Weygandt, & Warfield, 2012). It is a market based measure (Averkamp, 2014). Over the past few years, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles has called for the use of fair value measurement in a company’s financial statements. This is what is referred to as the fair value principle (Kieso, Weygandt, & Warfield, 2012). The fair value of an asset or liability is based on an estimate of what the asset should be worth at the time of sale. This gives rise to some conflict among accounting professionals. It is believed that fair value may not be as accurate