This article explains if and when a detailed impairment test as set out in IAS 36 is required. The guidance prescribes different requirements for goodwill and indefinite life intangible assets (including those not ready for use) when compared to all other assets. As such, this article will cover Step 3 in the impairment review which is to determine if and when to test for impairment is needed.
For a summary of the steps in applying IAS 36 (including steps 1 and 2), refer to our article ‘Insights into IAS 36 – Overview of the Standard’.
IAS 36 requires an entity to a perform a quantified impairment test (ie to estimate the recoverable amount):
Timing requirements for impairment testing by asset type are as follows:
| Asset | Test if indicator of impairment present during the course of or at the end of the reporting period |
Test at least annually |
|
Yes | Yes |
| All other assets within the scope of IAS 36, but not included above. |
Yes and review the remaining useful life, the depreciation/amortisation method, and the asset’s residual value. |
No |
IAS 36 requires an entity to assess at the end of each reporting period whether there is any indication that an asset or CGU may be impaired. This requirement also applies to goodwill, indefinite life intangible assets, and intangible assets not yet ready for use (although, in practice, an indicator review is necessary only at period ends that do not coincide with the annual test). If any such indication exists, the entity should estimate the recoverable amount of the asset or CGU. The process to estimate the recoverable amount is discussed in our article ‘Insights in IAS 36: Estimating recoverable amount’.
Indicators - IAS 36 provides a non-exhaustive list of external, internal and other indicators that an entity should consider, summarised these are as follows:
External sources of information
Internal sources of information
Other indicators
Generally, internal indicators would provide reasonably direct evidence that a specific asset or CGU may be impaired. For example, internal reports might show:
However, external sources of information will more typically be broader and less clearly linked to a specific asset or CGU (for example, a decline in market capitalisation to less than the carrying value of the entity’s net assets). This then may require the use of judgement to determine which assets or CGUs should be tested in response to an external source of information. The example below illustrates this point.
BioTech Research Company (BTRC) develops and sells a range of diagnostic products. It operates from three manufacturing and distribution hubs. Each hub is considered to be a separate CGU. BTRC is preparing its financial statements for its year-ended 31 December 20X1. Summary financial information for each CGU is as follows:
| CU000s | CGU1 | CGU2 | CGU3 | Total |
| Goodwill | 1,900 | - | - | 1,900 |
| Other intangible assets (amortising) | 1,100 | 500 | 1,000 | 2,600 |
| PPE | 500 | 1,500 | 700 | 2,700 |
| Subtotal | 3,500 | 2,000 | 1,700 | 7,200 |
| Corporate HQ | - | - | - | 1,800 |
| Net debt | - | - | - | (3,500) |
| Other assets and liabilities (net) | - | - | - | (500) |
| Net book value | 5,000 |
The market capitalisation of BTRC as at 31 December 20X1 is CU3,000.
As part of its indicator assessment, management should compare market capitalisation (CU3,000) with net book value (CU5,000). Given the seemingly material ‘market to book’ shortfall of CU2,000, a detailed impairment test is probably required. However, BTRC should consider all facts and circumstances, including:
If, after considering these factors management concludes that detailed impairment testing is required, the question arises as to which CGUs and assets should be tested. CGU 1 needs to be tested for impairment in any event because goodwill has been allocated to it; however determining the relevance of the market to book shortfall for CGU 2 and 3 will require BTRC to make a judgement after considering all facts and circumstances including:
If BTRC is unable to link the shortfall to particular CGUs it may conclude that all CGUS should be tested for impairment.
In practice, an adverse trend might develop over a series of reporting periods (eg a decline in market demand). While an entity may not be able to pinpoint a specific event or moment when an adverse trend becomes an impairment indicator, adverse trends such as this clearly cannot be ignored. Management will need to factor these types of trends into its impairment review and use judgement based on the specific facts and circumstances to decide whether the adverse trend constitutes an impairment indicator.
Review useful life, depreciation/amortisation method, residual value
The existence of an impairment indicator may also suggest that the remaining useful life, depreciation (amortisation) method or the residual value for the asset needs to be adjusted. When an entity identifies an indicator of impairment, the remaining useful life, the depreciation (amortisation) method or the residual value of the asset should be reviewed (and adjusted if necessary) even if no impairment loss is recognised.
The Standard requires an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life, an intangible asset not yet available for use and goodwill to be tested for impairment:
Further, the intangible asset and/or goodwill should be tested for impairment before the end of the current annual period if:
For a related discussion on the provisional allocation of goodwill, see our article ‘Insights into IAS 36 – Allocate goodwill to the cash
generating units’.
The annual impairment test for an asset may be performed anytime during the annual period provided the test is performed at the same time every year. Assets that are subject to annual testing may be tested at different dates provided the date is consistent whenever the test is undertaken. This provides some flexibility to spread the workload while providing a safeguard against manipulation.
Practical insight – Changing the annual impairment testing date
An entity may wish to change its annual impairment testing date, perhaps to align with the budget cycle or to reduce the testing burden in another period. IAS 36 is silent on this. In our view, a change of date is acceptable in reasonable circumstances subject to the entity demonstrating this has not resulted in avoiding an impairment loss. For example, an entity with a 31 December year-end might wish to change its testing date from 30 June to 31 December.
In the current annual period it could conduct tests at both dates, then test only at 31 December in the following annual period (assuming no indicators are identified at other period ends). In our view, paragraph 96 of IAS 36 serves as an anti-abuse provision which will not be breached if this approach is taken and the entity consistently tests at the new date on a go-forward basis. We do not regard moving to a new testing date to be a change in accounting policy. However, entities should consider disclosing the change and the reasons for it.
