Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Goodwill is no longer amortized under U.S. GAAP (FAS 142). [8] FAS 142 was issued in June 2001. Companies objected to the removal of the option to use pooling-of-interests, so amortization was removed by Financial Accounting Standards Board as a concession. As of 2005-01-01, it is also forbidden under International Financial Reporting Standards.
In the United States, the process of conducting a PPA is typically conducted in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board's ("FASB") Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 (revised 2007) “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141r”) [1] and SFAS 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (“SFAS 142”). [2]
Amortization is recorded in the financial statements of an entity as a reduction in the carrying value of the intangible asset in the balance sheet and as an expense in the income statement. Under International Financial Reporting Standards , guidance on accounting for the amortization of intangible assets is contained in IAS 38. [ 1 ]
The IASB and FASB made joint efforts to devise a common impairment model, but the FASB eventually decided to propose an alternative scheme in January 2011. [5] The IASB issued a new exposure draft in January 2013, [5] which later led to the adoption of IFRS 9 in July 2014, [6] effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018. [7]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Fentanyl has made headlines for driving overdose deaths, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of the rise of an even deadlier drug. An addiction specialist weighs in.
In accounting, an impaired asset is an asset which has a market value less than the value listed on its owner's balance sheet.. According to U.S. accounting rules (known as US GAAP), the value of an asset is impaired when the sum of estimated future cash flows from that asset is less than its book value.
The companies claimed, among other things, that the health warnings violated their free speech rights by compelling the companies to endorse the U.S. government's anti-smoking message through ...