Under the component approach, each part of an investment property with a cost that is significant in relation to the total cost of the property is depreciated separately.
The objective of the component approach is to reflect more precisely the pattern in which the asset’s future economic benefits are expected to be consumed by the entity.
To apply the component approach, it is necessary to identify the various parts of an asset. There are two reasons for identifying the parts: depreciation; and the replacement of parts. IAS 16 requires separate depreciation only for significant parts of an item of property, plant and equipment with different useful lives or consumption patterns. However, the principles regarding replacement of parts (that is, subsequent cost of replaced part) apply generally to all identified parts, regardless of whether they are significant or not.
On replacement of a part, the remaining book value of the replaced part is derecognised, and the cost of the new part is recognised, irrespective of whether the part was depreciated separately or not.
The diagram below illustrates the steps required by the ‘component approach’.
Apportionment in parts
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Several
insignificant parts
Comparison of useful life and pattern of consumption between identified components
Aggregation of parts with the same useful life and the same pattern of consumption
Remainder Component 3
(part 4) Component 2
(Part2) Component 1
(part 1 and 3)
Level 1 (replacement)
Level 2 (depreciation)
3.3.2.1. Identification of significant parts of an asset
The significance of a part of a building for depreciation purposes is determined based on the cost of the part in relation to the total cost of the building at initial recognition. [IAS 16 para 43].
The standard is silent on how to determine the parts of a building. The asset’s specific circumstances need to be taken into account.
Separation between interior and exterior parts would normally not be sufficient for all types of building and across all regions, depending on the type of building.
Management should carefully evaluate whether separation into interior and exterior truly reflects the
significant parts of the building, taking into account the need to make replacements during the useful life of the building. For example, solid walls, floors and ceiling can be used over a longer term, and they can be replaced later than the plasterboard walls and the heating system.
In practice, the first step in determining the parts of a building should be analysis of the construction contracts, the inspection report or the invoice (being parts of the acquisition cost). If these documents do not provide sufficient information, other sources such as construction catalogues should be taken into account. For construction catalogues to be a sufficient source, they need to be a standard that is commonly used in the economic environment in which the entity operates. It would be expected that such standards take into account the specifics of the geographical area as well as type of building.
It might be necessary to request an expert opinion (for example, construction experts) in order to determine the parts of a building.
The following practices are commonly used to identify the parts of a building:
Example practice 1 Example practice 2
Exterior walls
Exterior doors and windows
Interior walls, doors, windows
Heating and other technical systems
Sanitary facilities
3.3.2.2. Replacement of parts
When a part of an asset is replaced and the recognition criteria are met, the entity needs to derecognise the carrying value of the replaced item and recognise the cost of the replacement.
Note that, for insignificant parts that are replaced, the carrying amount of the replaced parts should be derecognised, regardless of whether the replaced part had been depreciated separately. [IAS 16 para 70].
3.3.2.3. Depreciation principles
Determining the useful life of the building
An entity is required to estimate the useful life of a building as a whole, in addition to estimating the useful lives of the parts of the building. The entity might include, in its accounting manual, guidance on how the useful life of a building as a whole is estimated.
An entity should estimate the useful economic life of the building, to ensure that the individual useful economic lives of the individual components are reasonably determined within the context of the overall utility of the building to the entity.
Management should estimate the useful life of a building as a whole on a stand-alone basis, taking into account only the expected utility to the entity. [IAS 16 para 57]. The average of the useful lives of the parts is not a sufficient basis to estimate the useful life of the building as a whole.
However, to estimate the useful life of the building as a whole, it might be necessary to consider the useful life or the economic life of significant parts, and whether these parts are so significant that they could affect the useful life of the building as a whole. Management should carefully evaluate situations where the useful life of a building is considered to be longer than the useful life of the structure of the building, such as walls and roof.
Determining the useful life of significant parts
The cost of a part is depreciated on a systematic basis over its useful life. The asset management policy of the entity might involve disposal of significant parts after a specified time, or after consumption of a specified proportion of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. Therefore, the useful life of the asset could be shorter than its economic life. The estimation of useful life is a matter of judgement, based on the entity’s experience with similar assets.
An entity should review the useful life (and the residual value) of an asset at least at each financial year-end.
However, an entity can choose to evaluate the estimated useful life of an asset additionally at each interim reporting date. [IAS 16 para 51].
In principle, the useful life of a part of a building should not be longer than the useful life of the building as a whole. For example, it would be unlikely for a building with a useful life of 25 years to have interior walls with a useful life of 30 years. However, an entity should carefully assess whether parts might be transferred to another building for further use. In those cases, the useful life of the parts might reasonably be longer than the useful life of the building as a whole.
Significant parts can be grouped and depreciated together if their useful life and the depreciation method are the same. [IAS 16 para 45].
Determining the useful life of the remainder
An entity is obliged to depreciate significant parts of a building and the ‘rest of the building’ separately. The ‘rest of the building’ consists of parts that are not individually significant. An entity groups these parts to one
depreciation unit: ‘the remainder’ (see diagram in section 3.3.2).
The remainder consists of those parts of the building that are not individually significant but could have a useful life significantly different from the useful life of the building as a whole.
The applicable useful life of the remainder, as well as the depreciation method used, needs to be determined in a way that faithfully represents the consumption pattern and/or useful life of its parts. [IAS 16 para 46]. One acceptable method to determine useful life of the remainder could be the average of the useful life of its parts, rather than the useful life of the building as a whole.
The standard is silent on whether one remainder is sufficient where the useful lives of insignificant parts differ significantly (for example, parts with five years and parts with 20 years of useful life). In such a case, it would be appropriate to have more than one remainder. Further, applying a depreciation rate – calculated based on the average useful life of the parts in the remainder – in that instance might not faithfully represent the
consumption pattern and/or the useful life of the parts. [IAS 16 para 46].
3.4. Impairment
Overview
Under the cost model, investment properties should be tested for impairment whenever indicators of
impairment exist. Impairment is recognised if the carrying amount of an asset or a cash-generating unit (CGU) exceeds its recoverable amount, which is the higher of fair value less costs of disposal and value in use.
A CGU is defined as the smallest identifiable group of assets that generates cash inflows that are largely independent of the cash inflows from other assets or groups of assets. [IAS 36 para 6]. Management needs to define the CGU at an appropriate level. In the case of investment property, it is likely that an individual investment property would meet the definition of a CGU, since it is usually able to generate independent cash inflows.
Impairment indicators relevant to the real estate sector include, but are not limited to:
decline in property prices;
decline in market rental prices;
decline in the stock prices for property companies;
market oversupply of properties;
decline in building permits, in the event that this limits the options for use of the property;
unfavourable changes in market interest rates;
increase in country risk;
cost overruns for property under construction;
newly constructed properties that might be more attractive to existing tenants of an entity’s property; and
physical or other damage caused to the property.
Properties measured under the fair value model are not tested for impairment.
An impairment test is performed for investment property under construction, accounted for at cost in accordance with IAS 40, when there is an indication (triggering event) that the property is impaired. At each reporting date, management assesses whether there is a triggering event, irrespective of whether cost
accounting is a result of management’s decision to apply the cost model or due to the fact that fair value cannot be determined reliably in accordance with paragraph 53 of IAS 40.
The impairment process in accordance with IAS 36 is illustrated in the diagram below:
Identify CGU
Determine recoverable amount of asset of CGU, higher of Value in Use
(ViU) and Fair Value Less Costs of Disposal (FVLCOD) (IFRS 13)
Established carrying value of asset or CGU
Compare carrying value to recoverable amount
Recognise impairment if recoverable amount less than carrying value