Financial Instruments – Other-Than-Temporary Impairment

ASC paragraph 360-10-35-27 states that long-term debt should be adjusted before testing the asset for recoverability”

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

25-7 If a loss cannot be accrued in the period when ti is probable that an asset had been impaired or a liability had been incurred because the amount of loss cannot be reasonable estimated, the loss shall be charged to the income of the period in which the loss can be reasonably estimated and shall not be charged retroactively to an earlier period. All estimated losses for loss contingencies shall be charged to income rather than charging some to income and others to retained earnings as prior period adjustments.”

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.

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.

“Recognition of an impairment loss and the recognition of a gain on the extinguishment of debt are separate events, and each event should be recognized in the period in which it occurs. The Board believes that the recognition of an impairment loss should be based on the measurement of the asset at its fair value and that the existence of nonrecourse debt should not influence that measurement.” (Statement 144, paragraph B34)

ASC 320-10-35-34: “The fair value of the investment would then become the new amortized cost basis of the investment and shall not be adjusted for subsequent recoveries in fair value.”

Because $2.3 million is less than the Carrying Value of the asset group of $4.7 mm, ($2.3 million < $4.7 million), The Impairment loss will be Fair Value of Asset less carrying amount of asset group.

1. Should the information pertaining to actual claims incurred as of the balance sheet date that became available after the balance sheet date be considered in determining management’s best estimate of the medical benefits payable? If so, how does this information impact the amount recognized or disclosed?

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.

Prepare the appropriate adjusting entries for Brooks as of December 31, 2010, to reflect the application of the “fair value” rule for both classes of securities described above.

If these estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value of the asset, an impairment charge is recognized for the excess, if any, of the asset’s carrying value over its estimated fair value.

The major argument used to support the insolvent trading provisions is that they are necessary to protect the interests of creditors. As stated, insolvent trading provisions have generally ensured a conservative approach by directors when the company is experiencing financial difficulties. The potential alternative effects of such a decision are:

After calculating the fair value of Snowy Ridge’s assets it was necessary to test for impairment. Impairment was tested by comparing the carrying value of each asset to its fair value (see table 2). The carrying value of marketable securities as of June 30th was $4,500,000. The current fair value of marketable securities was found to be 4,565,000, a positive difference of$ 65,000. Changes in marketable securities are reported even without impairment, thus an adjustment was made (see table 3). The carrying value of the mountain division as of June 30th was $12,360,000. The current fair

Since the company has a reorganization value of P760,000 but the assets have a market value of only P700,000 (P90,000 + P210,000 + P400,000), and account entitled Reorganization Value in Excess of Amount Allocable to Tangible Assets must be recorded for P60,000.