-

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 of 29 September 2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC)   No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Content

-

Measurement

Best estimate

36. The amount recognised as a provision should be the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date.

37. The best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation is the amount that an enterprise would rationally pay to settle the obligation at the balance sheet date or to transfer it to a third party at that time. It will often be impossible or prohibitively expensive to settle or transfer an obligation at the balance sheet date. However, the estimate of the amount that an enterprise would rationally pay to settle or transfer the obligation gives the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date.

38. The estimates of outcome and financial effect are determined by the judgement of the management of the enterprise, supplemented by experience of similar transactions and, in some cases, reports from independent experts. The evidence considered includes any additional evidence provided by events after the balance sheet date.

39. Uncertainties surrounding the amount to be recognised as a provision are dealt with by various means according to the circumstances. Where the provision being measured involves a large population of items, the obligation is estimated by weighting all possible outcomes by their associated probabilities. The name for this statistical method of estimation is "expected value". The provision will therefore be different depending on whether the probability of a loss of a given amount is, for example, 60 % or 90 %. Where there is a continuous range of possible outcomes, and each point in that range is as likely as any other, the mid-point of the range is used.

Example

An enterprise sells goods with a warranty under which customers are covered for the cost of repairs of any manufacturing defects that become apparent within the first six months after purchase. If minor defects were detected in all products sold, repair costs of 1000000 would result. If major defects were detected in all products sold, repair costs of 4 million would result. The enterprise's past experience and future expectations indicate that, for the coming year, 75 % of the goods sold will have no defects, 20 % of the goods sold will have minor defects and 5 % of the goods sold will have major defects. In accordance with paragraph 24, an enterprise assesses the probability of an outflow for the warranty obligations as a whole.

The expected value of the cost of repairs is:

(75 % of nil) + (20 % of 1 000 000) + (5 % of 4 000 000) = 400 000

40. Where a single obligation is being measured, the individual most likely outcome may be the best estimate of the liability. However, even in such a case, the enterprise considers other possible outcomes. Where other possible outcomes are either mostly higher or mostly lower than the most likely outcome, the best estimate will be a higher or lower amount. For example, if an enterprise has to rectify a serious fault in a major plant that it has constructed for a customer, the individual most likely outcome may be for the repair to succeed at the first attempt at a cost of 1000, but a provision for a larger amount is made if there is a significant chance that further attempts will be necessary.

41. The provision is measured before tax, as the tax consequences of the provision, and changes in it, are dealt with under IAS 12, income taxes.

Risks and uncertainties

42. The risks and uncertainties that inevitably surround many events and circumstances should be taken into account in reaching the best estimate of a provision.

43. Risk describes variability of outcome. A risk adjustment may increase the amount at which a liability is measured. Caution is needed in making judgements under conditions of uncertainty, so that income or assets are not overstated and expenses or liabilities are not understated. However, uncertainty does not justify the creation of excessive provisions or a deliberate overstatement of liabilities. For example, if the projected costs of a particularly adverse outcome are estimated on a prudent basis, that outcome is not then deliberately treated as more probable than is realistically the case. Care is needed to avoid duplicating adjustments for risk and uncertainty with consequent overstatement of a provision.

44. Disclosure of the uncertainties surrounding the amount of the expenditure is made under paragraph 85(b).

Present value

45. Where the effect of the time value of money is material, the amount of a provision should be the present value of the expenditure expected to be required to settle the obligation.

46. Because of the time value of money, provisions relating to cash outflows that arise soon after the balance sheet date are more onerous than those where cash outflows of the same amount arise later. Provisions are therefore discounted, where the effect is material.

47. The discount rate (or rates) should be a pre-tax rate (or rates) that reflect(s) current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the liability. The discount rate(s) should not reflect risks for which future cash flow estimates have been adjusted.

Future events

48. Future events that may affect the amount required to settle an obligation should be reflected in the amount of a provision where there is sufficient objective evidence that they will occur.

49. Expected future events may be particularly important in measuring provisions. For example, an enterprise may believe that the cost of cleaning up a site at the end of its life will be reduced by future changes in technology. The amount recognised reflects a reasonable expectation of technically qualified, objective observers, taking account of all available evidence as to the technology that will be available at the time of the clean-up. Thus it is appropriate to include, for example, expected cost reductions associated with increased experience in applying existing technology or the expected cost of applying existing technology to a larger or more complex clean-up operation than has previously been carried out. However, an enterprise does not anticipate the development of a completely new technology for cleaning up unless it is supported by sufficient objective evidence.

50. The effect of possible new legislation is taken into consideration in measuring an existing obligation when sufficient objective evidence exists that the legislation is virtually certain to be enacted. The variety of circumstances that arise in practice makes it impossible to specify a single event that will provide sufficient, objective evidence in every case. Evidence is required both of what legislation will demand and of whether it is virtually certain to be enacted and implemented in due course. In many cases sufficient objective evidence will not exist until the new legislation is enacted.

Expected disposal of assets

51. Gains from the expected disposal of assets should not be taken into account in measuring a provision.

52. Gains on the expected disposal of assets are not taken into account in measuring a provision, even if the expected disposal is closely linked to the event giving rise to the provision. Instead, an enterprise recognises gains on expected disposals of assets at the time specified by the International Accounting Standard dealing with the assets concerned.

Previous | Index | Next