Advantage to updating fas 13
The process burden will be much, much less than it would have been with “more likely than not” …but it’s going to be measurably more than it is at present. I think FASB/IASB made the right choice in eliminating this part of their proposal and had recommended that writers of comment letters to FASB/IASB point out the flaws and problems associated with capitalizing renewal periods.Many others made similar recommendations, and many of the 700-some comment letters received by FASB/IASB recommended that this aspect of the accounting be eliminated. Before “the people” start celebrating, though, they should understand that there will still be a need to evaluate each and every lease, with an option to renew, to determine whether there is an economic incentive in that option such that renewal of the lease is “reasonably assured” …And entities were required to present or disclose earnings-per-share data applicable to extraordinary items.
just as is the case under present accounting for capital (or financing) leases. FASB/IASB are going to work on the exact wording, but this “reasonably assured” test has a much higher bar than would have the “more likely than not test” … Few leases will go over the bar and most won’t even come near it so assumption-making will be much easier, and easier to justify to auditors, than it would have been with “more likely than not”.
Events or transactions meeting the criteria for classification as extraordinary were required to be segregated from the results of ordinary operations and shown separately in the income statement, net of tax, after income from continuing operations.
Disclosure of income taxes related to extraordinary items also was required.
Second, in many cases the assumptions would end up being arbitrary, bringing into question whether capitalizing renewal periods had any value.
Third and perhaps ultimately most important, it seemed to fly in the face of other accounting doctrine.
Among the tax preferences that can increase a taxpayer's AMTI is the accelerated portion of depreciation, thereby making it more likely that a taxpayer who buys equipment may be subject to the AMT rather than to regular tax.