The Bare Minimum

Therefore in this agreement the equipment is going to be partially financed by the lessor (Northwest) through a third-party financial institution (Lender) and act as a leveraged lease, wherein the lending company holds the title to the leased asset, while the lessor creates the agreement with the lessee (BNRR) and collects the payment for the use of the equipment. Therefore the lease in this case will be regarded as a financial decision for BNRR

* m. From point 2, we’ve seen than securing the lease would allow the expected value to increase by 3.1725 million. This is therefore the maximum value we’re ready to pay based solely on the main expected value. Nevertheless, if the risk appetite is lower, we could calculate a value that ensures none of the options to have negative return (see tree in appendix 5). This value is equal to 1.3 million.

Agro-Chem, Inc. is a regional producer of agricultural chemicals based in Houston Texas that needs help making a lease versus purchase decision. By understanding the material presented, we will be able to come to a decision. However, after reviewing the information presented, there are a few problems that need to be investigated before finalizing our recommendation. Agro-Chem, Inc. chose to go with the financial manager’s idea of using a discount rate of 14% (average risk) to figure out the present value costs of leasing and purchasing even though the assistant treasure suggested a 12% (low risk) discount rate. Agro-Chem, Inc. brought in the company’s CPA to help settle the debate

ASC 410-20-15-3(e) also states that the lessee’s obligation to perform a retirement activity shall be recorded as ARO unless the payment meets the definition of minimum lease payments or contingent rentals under the lease accounting literature (ASC 840, Leases). Per ASC 840-10-25-5, the minimum leases payment is any costs obligated to make in connection with the leased property. However, the lessee’s obligation to restore the leased asset to the original condition is related to the leasehold improvement, not directly related to the leased asset. Accordingly, the cost of removing the leasehold improvements is not part of the minimum lease payment. In addition, due to the ‘no renewal option’ and ‘no ability to negotiate for the renewal’ under the lease agreement, it is certain that NeedsLease will incur costs to restore the leased property to its original condition in 10 years, which excludes the ‘contingency’. Therefore, the cost of reinstating to the property’s original condition should be accounted as ARO in accordance with ASC 410-20. Per ASC 410-20-25-4, ARO should be recognized at its fair value of reasonably estimated future cash flows and to offset the liability, the lessee capitalize the

According to "Minimum Lease Criterion" 840-10-25-4: "This guidance addresses what constitutes minimum-lease-payments under the minimum-lease-payments criterion in paragraph 840-10-25-1(d) from the perspective of the lessee and the lessor. Lease payments that depend on a factor directly related to the future use of the leased property, such as machine hours of use or sales volume during the lease term, are contingent rentals and, accordingly, are excluded from minimum lease payments in their entirety. (Example 6 [see paragraph 840-10-55-38] illustrates this guidance.) However, lease payments that depend on an existing index or rate, such as the consumer price index or the prime interest rate, shall be included in minimum lease payments based on the index or rate existing at lease inception; any increases or decreases in lease payments that result from subsequent changes in the index or rate are contingent rentals and thus affect the determination of income as accruable."

Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract?

The third and final question from the case is how would the lease classification change under U.S. GAAP. The FASB codification that deals with leases is ASC 840. U.S. GAAP classifies leases as operating leases or capital leases and it has a section for sale-leaseback transactions as well. Under U.S. GAAP, the lease in this case would be classified as a capital lease. This is because ASC 840-10-25-29 says, “If at its inception a lease meets any of the four lease classification criteria in paragraph 840-10-25-1, the lease shall be classified by the lessee as a capital lease.” This lease meets two of those criterions. The lease term is equal to 75% of the economic life of the equipment (3 year lease term / 4 year economic life of equipment = .75 or 75%) and the present value of the minimum lease payments “equals or exceeds 90 percent of the excess of the fair value of the lease property to the lessor at lease inception over any related investment tax credit retained by the lessor and expected to be realized by the lessor” (ASC 840-10-25-1d). The present value of the minimum lease payments does in fact equal or exceed 90 percent of the fair value of the equipment ($248,690 / $265,000 = .94 or 94%). Under ASC 840-10-25-31, the lessee should use the implicit rate to calculate the present value of the lease payments because the lessee already

How realistic is it that the leasehold payment will remain at the same level for the next 10 years?

e. ASC 840-10-25-4 states “lease payments that depend on an existing index or rate, such as the consumer price index or the prime interest rate, shall be included in minimum lease payments based on the index or rate existing at lease inception…” It then goes on to say that any increases in the payments from the previous year are contingent rentals and affects the determination of income accruable. We can conclude that the 4% increase in the Consumer Price Index shall be included.

(Revised and updated 5/2013) Jack leases an office building from Jill. The lease is classified as an operating lease under the guidance of ASC Topic 840, Leases. The lease does not include any renewal options upon the expiration, but Jack is in the process of negotiating an extension of the lease. Jack proposes to make a single up-front payment of $1.2 million to Jill in exchange for an extension of the lease at the current rate for another 10 years. The extension would create a new lease under ASC par. 9 of 840-10-35-4. 1. 2. Should Jack include the $1.2 million in the calculation of the minimum lease payments when classifying the new lease? Assuming the new lease

The risk of own or rent comparison is identified as of minor impact and required no further action in this phase of the project. Moderate and major risks required more detailed analysis. The investment risks are identified as providing the greatest potential risks

The problem was Chuck asked Bruce to not put the fee for the extra equipment on the lease. He told Bruce that because of the strictness of Mid South’s policy about what they would pay for on a company car. He wanted Bruce to spread the cost equivalently over all four units in the lease rate. Bruce has made a mistake since he decided to do this. Bruce tried to make the fairness business dealing by creating a win-win situation for himself and his client. However, his mistake was violating honesty in the concept of business ethics to make profit. He was followed Chuck’s advice to take advantages of the business dealing through dishonest pricing.

This is something you should check on every year when you renew your policy, as the price to build homes changes.

According to Steve Collings (2010), the accounting treatment of leases has presented a lot of problems over the years for the particular profession. Problems are observed in the way some leases are being treated in a business’ income statement and statement of financial position. Although, as we are going to expand more on that, the major problem of accounting for leases according to Collings (2010), is the manipulation of financial statements by incorrectly categorizing ‘finance leases’ as ‘operating leases’. The main purpose of the essay is to discuss why accounting for leases has been so controversial and whether the new standard (IFRS16) will give a more meaningful picture of companies’ financial position for lessees.

Under IFRS, lease classification depends on whether substantially all of the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of a