MFRS 137 Examples
MFRS 137 Examples
MFRS 137 Examples
C Examples: recognition
All the entities in the examples have 31 December year-ends. In all cases, it is assumed that a reliable
estimate can be made of any outflows expected. In some examples the circumstances described may have
resulted in impairment of the assets—this aspect is not dealt with in the examples.
The cross-references provided in the examples indicate paragraphs of the Standard that are particularly
relevant.
References to ‘best estimate’ are to the present value amount, where the effect of the time value of money
is material.
Example 1 Warranties
A manufacturer gives warranties at the time of sale to purchasers of its product. Under the
terms of the contract for sale the manufacturer undertakes to make good, by repair or
replacement, manufacturing defects that become apparent within three years from the date
of sale. On past experience, it is probable (ie more likely than not) that there will be some
claims under the warranties.
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The obligating event is the
sale of the product with a warranty, which gives rise to a legal obligation.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of the costs of making good
under the warranty products sold before the end of the reporting period (see paragraphs 14
and 24).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The obligating event is the
contamination of the land because of the virtual certainty of legislation requiring cleaning
up.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of the costs of the clean-up
(see paragraphs 14 and 22).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The obligating event is the
contamination of the land, which gives rise to a constructive obligation because the
conduct of the entity has created a valid expectation on the part of those affected by it that
the entity will clean up contamination.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of the costs of clean-up
(see paragraphs 10 (the definition of a constructive obligation), 14 and 17).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The construction of the oil
rig creates a legal obligation under the terms of the licence to remove the rig and restore
the seabed and is thus an obligating event. At the end of the reporting period, however,
there is no obligation to rectify the damage that will be caused by extraction of the oil.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of ninety per cent of the
eventual costs that relate to the removal of the oil rig and restoration of damage caused by
building it (see paragraph 14). These costs are included as part of the cost of the oil rig.
The 10 per cent of costs that arise through the extraction of oil are recognised as a liability
when the oil is extracted.
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The obligating event is the
sale of the product, which gives rise to a constructive obligation because the conduct of the
store has created a valid expectation on the part of its customers that the store will refund
purchases.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of the costs of refunds
(see paragraphs 10 (the definition of a constructive obligation), 14, 17 and 24).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – There has been no obligating
event and so there is no obligation.
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – The obligating event is the
communication of the decision to the customers and employees, which gives rise to a
constructive obligation from that date, because it creates a valid expectation that the
division will be closed.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised at 31 December 20X0 for the best estimate of the
costs of closing the division (see paragraphs 14 and 72).
Conclusion – No provision is recognised for the cost of fitting the smoke filters
(see paragraphs 14 and 17–19).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – There is still no obligation for
the costs of fitting smoke filters because no obligating event has occurred (the fitting of the
filters). However, an obligation might arise to pay fines or penalties under the legislation
because the obligating event has occurred (the non-compliant operation of the factory).
Conclusion – No provision is recognised for the costs of fitting smoke filters. However,
a provision is recognised for the best estimate of any fines and penalties that are more likely
than not to be imposed (see paragraphs 14 and 17–19).
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – On the basis of the evidence
available when the financial statements were approved, there is no obligation as a result of
past events.
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event – On the basis of the evidence
available, there is a present obligation.
Conclusion – A provision is recognised for the best estimate of the amount to settle the
obligation (paragraphs 14–16).
The cost of replacing the lining is not recognised because, at the end of the reporting
period, no obligation to replace the lining exists independently of the company’s future
actions—even the intention to incur the expenditure depends on the company deciding to
continue operating the furnace or to replace the lining. Instead of a provision being
recognised, the depreciation of the lining takes account of its consumption, ie it is
depreciated over five years. The re-lining costs then incurred are capitalised with the
consumption of each new lining shown by depreciation over the subsequent five years.
The costs of overhauling aircraft are not recognised as a provision for the same reasons as
the cost of replacing the lining is not recognised as a provision in example 11A. Even a legal
requirement to overhaul does not make the costs of overhaul a liability, because no
obligation exists to overhaul the aircraft independently of the entity’s future actions—the
entity could avoid the future expenditure by its future actions, for example by selling the
aircraft. Instead of a provision being recognised, the depreciation of the aircraft takes
account of the future incidence of maintenance costs, ie an amount equivalent to the
expected maintenance costs is depreciated over three years.
D Examples: disclosures
Two examples of the disclosures required by paragraph 85 are provided below.
Example 1 Warranties
A manufacturer gives warranties at the time of sale to purchasers of its three product
lines. Under the terms of the warranty, the manufacturer undertakes to repair or
replace items that fail to perform satisfactorily for two years from the date of sale.
At the end of the reporting period, a provision of 60,000 has been recognised. The
provision has not been discounted as the effect of discounting is not material. The
following information is disclosed:
A provision of 60,000 has been recognised for expected warranty claims on products sold during the
last three financial years. It is expected that the majority of this expenditure will be incurred in the
next financial year, and all will be incurred within two years after the reporting period.
An example is given below of the disclosures required by paragraph 92 where some of the information
required is not given because it can be expected to prejudice seriously the position of the entity.
An entity is involved in a dispute with a competitor, who is alleging that the entity has
infringed patents and is seeking damages of 100 million. The entity recognises a
provision for its best estimate of the obligation, but discloses none of the information
required by paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Standard. The following information is
disclosed:
Litigation is in process against the company relating to a dispute with a competitor who alleges that
the company has infringed patents and is seeking damages of 100 million. The information usually
required by IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets is not disclosed
on the grounds that it can be expected to prejudice seriously the outcome of the litigation.
The directors are of the opinion that the claim can be successfully resisted by the company.