Hace poco estuve en el Forum Finanzas en Barcelona, si bien parte de lo que se expone alli suele ser un compendio de sentido comun, surge siempre ese momento de "por que no lo habia pensado antes?"...
0 Comments
Desayuno Fiscal sobre Novedades en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades y el IVA organizado por LINKTAX
Este punto es recurrente..., todo el mundo habla de la planificacion, de hacer un plan de negocio o calcular la jubilacion o realizar un analisis DAFO..
After long delays in preparation, the exposure draft (ED) of the new global lease accounting standard was issued in May this year. The fourmonth formal comment period ended on September 13.
Si, si,.. todo el mundo sabe que es el tipo de interes... ya... igual que todo el mundo sabe jugar al ajedrez... o no?
There was a time, not so long ago, that Microsoft was evil and Google were the good boys in the neighbourhood .., well that might have changed now but still there is a tool that IS DANGEROUS.. and you all use it ! and most of you use as much as your won brain (just 15% of the total) :) EXCEL (tm)! I learnt the basics of the spreadsheet program in the nineties, just finishing the university. At that moment I found it the perfect tool! I could be used for almost everything.. and each new version came loaded with more and more features...I loved it! ... but then, i started to understand how it worked... and realized that it is just a tool, a good one,.. but just as good as the user that handles it... Later on, in all my trainings to my fellow colleagues I always said pretty much the same: beware of the tool! it can hide mistakes and nobody will ever look for it! beware of the formulas, beware of the typing directly in a formula, beware of the references,.... Now, that even monetary policies (http://bit.ly/13kcmU2) are driven by EXCEL ... this warnings are more useful than ever.. La nueva ley concursal afecta directamente al sector del leasing y de arrendamiento, veamos algunos puntos importantes:
El bufete Garrigues hizo hace unos dias unos comentarios muy interesantes sobre el leasing en el marco de la ley concursal y las interpretaciones de diversos juzgados al respecto. Me permito transcribir el texto:
SENTENCIA del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 9 de Barcelona de 19 de septiembre de 2012 Artículos 61 y 90 LC.-- Contratos de arrendamiento financiero y su transcendencia práctica en el concurso.-- Calificación del crédito del arrendador en relación a las cuotas de leasing devengadas e impagadas con posterioridad a la declaración de concurso.-- El acreedor reclama la calificación como créditos contra la masa basándose en el sentido dado a la norma tras la reforma concursal operada por la Ley 38/2011-- Examen de las distintas posturas doctrinales y jurisprudenciales existentes con anterioridad a la Ley 38/2011 de reforma de la Ley Concursal.-- Análisis tras la reforma.-- Conclusión: el contrato de leasing financiero es un contrato con obligaciones pendientes para ambas partes, por lo que las cuotas devengadas tras el concurso son créditos contra la masa. Written by Andy Thompson legal & regulatory editor
http://www.assetfinanceinternational.com/lease-accounting/news/8892-lease-accounting-draft-finally-comes-out Friday, 17 May 2013 10:52 The long awaited second exposure draft (ED2) of the new global lease accounting standard was finally published on May 16. It contains few real surprises, due to the very public deliberation process used by the standard setters through the long gestation period. It nevertheless throws up some key issues that will need to be addressed by the leasing industry during the comment period running for the next four months. The two standard setting bodies – the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) - have issued almost identical versions of the proposal, consistent with the aim of a converged standard. Most of the divergences between the two versions concern aspects of relatively minor importance, within the disclosure rules for notes to the accounts. Those mainly reflect areas of close interface with the accounting rules for property, plant and equipment (PPE) owned by the users, where the respective accounting standards (IAS 16 within international financial reporting standards (IFRS) and Topic 630 in US GAAP) are in many respects non-convergent. There are, however, some significant “alternative views” released with ED2, covering some of the major issues, where minorities on each of the Boards have expressed dissent. P&L expensing rules The core objective of the new standard is to require on-balance-sheet recognition by lessees of all leases capable of running for more than 12 months. However, one of the most notable parts of the release is the section of the “Basis for Conclusions” document accompanying the main draft, addressing the most controversial lesse accounting issue that arose within the re-deliberation period after the first exposure draft (ED1) issued in 2010. This is the method for expensing leases in the profit and loss (P&L) account or income statement, where the Boards last June adopted a split model as between equipment and real estate leases. What is proposed is described as a new lease classification system. Under current rules the split into finance and operating leases determines whether or not the asset goes on the balance sheet, and it is based on whether “substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership” are passed to the lessee. Under the new proposals all leases – except those that cannot run for more than 12 months – will go on-balance-sheet. The new lease classification split, into what the Boards are calling Type A and Type B leases, will determine the lessee's periodic expense profile – and the dividing line will be struck in a different place. The proposal is that most real estate leases will be Type B. These will be expensed on a straight line basis, and presented as a single rental expense, like operating leases under existing rules (although the difference of course will be that the asset will now be on-balance-sheet). Nearly all equipment leases by contrast will be Type A - expensed on a front loaded basis, like current finance or capital leases (in fact a combination of heavily front loaded finance charges, and deprecation or amortization normally on a straight line basis). There will be some exceptions on either side. Some of the longest property leases, like for example the 99-year leases sometimes used in UK real estate, will be Type A; and a very narrow range of equipment leases - where the residual value (RV) is exceptionally high and yet the lease period can run for more than 12 months so capitalization will be required - might be Type B. The Boards are claiming that the underlying principle of the split will be consistent for both equipment and property leases. The stated principle is that a lease should be Type A, accounted for like a financing transaction, “if the lessee consumes more than an insignificant proportion of the benefits embedded in the underlying asset”. That is an intentional moving of the goal posts compared with existing lease classification. At present, there is in effect financing type treatment only if the lessee consumes substantially all the benefits of the asset; whereas the new proposal is for financing type treatment in any case where the portion consumed is significant. Yet the starting point for the test will be whether the lease is for equipment or real estate. If it is equipment, it will be Type A, front loaded expense, unless either the lease term is insignificant in relation to the economic life of the asset, or the present value (PV) of the lease payments is insignificant in relation to the fair vale of the asset. For real estate, it will be Type B unless either the lease term is a significant part of the asset's economic life, or the PV of lease payments represents substantially all of the fair value of the asset. At first sight this appears not to be consistent, in that the Boards have not moved the goal posts for real estate leases (where that PV test at “substantially all” of fair value is in fact taken from the current IAS 17 international standard) as they have for equipment leases. However, the Boards argue that this is not truly inconsistent, because in the case of a commercial property lease the economic life part of the test will relate to the life of the building, which of course represents a part of the value of the whole property including the land value. They say that a property lessee is not truly consuming more than an insignificant portion of the benefits embedded in the property (including the land) unless the lease term is a major part of the remaining economic life of the building; whereas of course equipment lessees are using up rapidly depreciating assets. The equipment vs real estate split in the P&L expensing model remains highly controversial. It has already attracted criticism before ED2 was released, and seems certain to attract widespread comment in the formal responses. The second exposure draft of lease accounting standard should be issued this week...how will the industry respond? This and many other questions on the latest CHP Consulting's Legal and Regulatory Update. |
AuthorLicenciado en Empresariales soy por lo tanto un empresologo...y he trabajado como morosologo, analista,... Archives
March 2022
Categories |