02-18-2010, 05:25 AM
Ahmed
I don't tend to be impatient on your queries since I already know you take too long to understand or don't even understand even after this "too long".
You see even knowing this I am writing long posts with patience; and yet you are trying to don't understand it.
So, still I am not losing patience, who knows one day you may understand.
No criticism, no offense.
Buddy, you have been told that although finance costs on finance lease are included in the definition of borrowing costs given by IAS23, and can be capitalized if the leased asset is capitalized, YET, there is a limit for every sort of capitalization.
Simply being "directly attributed" may not be sufficient basis unless it meets all requirements which I have in detail written in above post.
Masla lease ke borrowing cost ka nahi hai; problem is with capitalization, its limits, recoverability, impairment and inflow of economic benefits.
Had you been expected to learn from directly mentioning of IASs as a reply, it would have been so easier. I know you cannot and this is based on previous experience with you.
I will again ask you to see this issue in the light of more than one IFRS since the matter is interconnected and you cannot make an isolated decision ignoring the boundries of other pronouncements.
Mind it, entities can capitalize borrowing cost of finance lease arrangements provided, such leased asset is a qualifying asset; the aggregate costs eventually do not cause any impairment to be recorded immediately (economic benefits and recoverability); the aggregate cost is also strictly as per basis given in IAS 17; and the borrowing cost is not that which has been incurred after the completion of such leased qualifying asset.
I already told you that issue is not with leased asset in fact, issue is of limits of capitalization of carrying cost of an asset; and the time when capitalization ceases.
One more thing, leased assets are not necessarily only the non-qualifying assets. If this concept is not in Pakistan it is the problem of local NBFC laws. IAS 17 does not make any condition that no qualifying asset can be leased.
Here I would like to ask that please also read IAS 17 as well.
Don't mind my replies since I will like you to get rid of any confusion if the purpose of your query is to do so. If the purpose is to see others getting confused (which you know will not happen) on your query or to advise others to remain patient, then you should clearly inform the forum.
We may pretend confuse, worried or impatient to applause the "depth" of your invented idea and query.
It's so interesting that you ask a question from IFRSs and also resist that why it is being answered from IFRSs. Should it be answered from SAHI BUKHARI?
Wishing to learn from you more with lot more patience.
Regards,
Kamran.
I don't tend to be impatient on your queries since I already know you take too long to understand or don't even understand even after this "too long".
You see even knowing this I am writing long posts with patience; and yet you are trying to don't understand it.
So, still I am not losing patience, who knows one day you may understand.
No criticism, no offense.
Buddy, you have been told that although finance costs on finance lease are included in the definition of borrowing costs given by IAS23, and can be capitalized if the leased asset is capitalized, YET, there is a limit for every sort of capitalization.
Simply being "directly attributed" may not be sufficient basis unless it meets all requirements which I have in detail written in above post.
Masla lease ke borrowing cost ka nahi hai; problem is with capitalization, its limits, recoverability, impairment and inflow of economic benefits.
Had you been expected to learn from directly mentioning of IASs as a reply, it would have been so easier. I know you cannot and this is based on previous experience with you.
I will again ask you to see this issue in the light of more than one IFRS since the matter is interconnected and you cannot make an isolated decision ignoring the boundries of other pronouncements.
Mind it, entities can capitalize borrowing cost of finance lease arrangements provided, such leased asset is a qualifying asset; the aggregate costs eventually do not cause any impairment to be recorded immediately (economic benefits and recoverability); the aggregate cost is also strictly as per basis given in IAS 17; and the borrowing cost is not that which has been incurred after the completion of such leased qualifying asset.
I already told you that issue is not with leased asset in fact, issue is of limits of capitalization of carrying cost of an asset; and the time when capitalization ceases.
One more thing, leased assets are not necessarily only the non-qualifying assets. If this concept is not in Pakistan it is the problem of local NBFC laws. IAS 17 does not make any condition that no qualifying asset can be leased.
Here I would like to ask that please also read IAS 17 as well.
Don't mind my replies since I will like you to get rid of any confusion if the purpose of your query is to do so. If the purpose is to see others getting confused (which you know will not happen) on your query or to advise others to remain patient, then you should clearly inform the forum.
We may pretend confuse, worried or impatient to applause the "depth" of your invented idea and query.
It's so interesting that you ask a question from IFRSs and also resist that why it is being answered from IFRSs. Should it be answered from SAHI BUKHARI?
Wishing to learn from you more with lot more patience.
Regards,
Kamran.