Assets, PP&E & Impairment (US GAAP)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35 uses a two-step model for long-lived assets held and used. Step 1, the recoverability test, compares the carrying amount to the total undiscounted cash flows expected from the asset's use and eventual disposal. Here $560,000 of undiscounted cash flows exceeds the $500,000 carrying amount, so the asset is deemed recoverable and no impairment is recognized, regardless of what fair value shows. Fair value is only brought in as Step 2, to measure the loss, and only if Step 1 fails. The option recognizing a $70,000 loss because carrying amount exceeds fair value wrongly jumps straight to comparing fair value against carrying amount, skipping the recoverability test that the asset actually passed. The option requiring the shortfall to persist for two consecutive reporting periods invents a persistence requirement that appears nowhere in ASC 360. The option measuring a $130,000 loss nonsensically nets undiscounted cash flows against fair value, two figures that are never combined under this model.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35 (Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets — recoverability test)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-45-9 sets out six criteria for held-for-sale classification: management commits to a plan to sell, the asset is available for immediate sale in its present condition, an active program to locate a buyer has been initiated, the sale is probable and expected to complete within one year, the asset is being actively marketed at a price reasonable in relation to its current fair value, and it is unlikely the plan will be significantly changed or withdrawn. None of these require a signed purchase agreement or buyer commitment, which would mean the sale has effectively already happened rather than being merely probable. The option requiring a binding sale agreement or buyer commitment invents a precondition that isn't part of the six criteria. The option requiring an SEC filing of the board's approval confuses this accounting classification with unrelated securities-filing obligations. The option conditioning classification on simultaneous discontinued-operation treatment wrongly conflates held-for-sale classification with discontinued-operations reporting, which is governed by separate criteria under ASC 205-20 requiring a strategic shift with a major effect on operations.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-45-9 (criteria for classification as held for sale)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 360-10-35-20, once an impairment loss is recognized for a long-lived asset held and used, US GAAP prohibits reversing it even if the asset's fair value later recovers; the reduced carrying amount becomes the asset's new cost basis and is depreciated over its remaining useful life going forward. This differs from IFRS's IAS 36, which permits reversing impairment losses on most assets (other than goodwill) when circumstances improve. Option C describes the IFRS approach, not US GAAP. Option A invents an inflation-linked carve-out that does not exist in ASC 360. Option D is wrong because a later sale would simply produce an ordinary gain or loss on disposal recognized in the period of sale — GAAP does not permit retroactively restating a prior period's already-issued financial statements to undo a correctly measured impairment.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-20 (prohibition on reversal of impairment losses)

Correct answer: .

ASU 2017-04 replaced the old two-step goodwill impairment test in ASC 350-20 with a single-step test: the impairment loss equals the amount by which the reporting unit's carrying amount exceeds its fair value, capped at the total goodwill allocated to that unit. Here the shortfall is $9 million minus $7.5 million, or $1.5 million, which is less than the $3 million goodwill balance, so the loss recognized is $1.5 million rather than a full write-off. The option writing off the entire $3 million overstates the loss by ignoring the excess-of-carrying-over-fair-value measurement; a full write-off of goodwill would only be correct if the shortfall equaled or exceeded the goodwill balance. The option calling for a hypothetical purchase price allocation describes the old Step 2 procedure that ASU 2017-04 eliminated. The option charging the loss directly to retained earnings is wrong because a goodwill impairment loss is recognized in operating income as part of continuing operations, not as a direct adjustment to equity.

Source: FASB ASC 350-20-35 as amended by ASU 2017-04 (Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment)

Correct answer: .

ASC 350-30-35 allows an entity to first perform an optional qualitative assessment for an indefinite-lived intangible asset other than goodwill to decide whether it is more likely than not that the asset is impaired. If the entity concludes it is not more likely than not, it may bypass the quantitative fair-value-versus-carrying-amount comparison for that testing cycle, similar to the analogous option available for goodwill. Option B misstates the standard: the entire purpose of the qualitative option is that it can substitute for quantitative testing when the more-likely-than-not threshold isn't met. Option C is wrong because passing a qualitative impairment assessment has no bearing on useful-life classification; whether an intangible asset's life is indefinite depends on separate cash-flow-generating factors, not on impairment test outcomes. Option D is wrong because indefinite-lived intangibles other than goodwill have always used a direct fair-value-to-carrying-amount comparison under ASC 350-30, unrelated to the goodwill-specific simplification made by ASU 2017-04.

Source: FASB ASC 350-30-35 (impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets)

Correct answer: .

Under US GAAP, component depreciation of property, plant, and equipment is permitted but not required: a company may split an asset into significant parts with different useful lives and depreciate each separately, or it may depreciate the whole asset as one unit using a composite rate. IFRS's IAS 16 takes the opposite position, requiring separate depreciation of each significant component with a materially different pattern of consumption or useful life. Option A wrongly states component depreciation as mandatory under US GAAP, which is the IFRS rule, not the GAAP rule. Option C is wrong because component depreciation is not prohibited under US GAAP; it remains an available accounting policy choice. Option D is wrong because no such public/private company distinction exists for component depreciation — the private company accounting alternatives address goodwill amortization, certain intangible assets, and hedge accounting, not PP&E componentization.

Source: US GAAP vs IFRS comparison (PP&E component approach); FASB ASC 360 has no component depreciation requirement

Correct answer: .

ASC 835-20-25-3 requires all three of the following to be met simultaneously before interest cost qualifies for capitalization on a qualifying asset: expenditures for the asset have been made, activities necessary to prepare the asset for its intended use are in progress, and interest cost is being incurred. There is no dollar threshold in the standard — capitalization applies to any qualifying asset meeting the three conditions, regardless of the size of its total construction cost. The choices stating that expenditures have been made, that preparatory activities are in progress, and that interest cost is being incurred are each genuine, correctly stated conditions from ASC 835-20-25-3, so selecting any of them as 'not a condition' would be incorrect since they are exactly the tests the standard requires. The $1 million capitalization-threshold choice is the correct answer precisely because no such threshold rule exists anywhere in ASC 835-20; it is a fabricated condition.

Source: FASB ASC 835-20-25-3 (conditions for capitalization of interest)

Correct answer: .

ASC 410-20 requires an entity to recognize the fair value of an asset retirement obligation in the period it is incurred, if a reasonable estimate can be made, with a corresponding increase to the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset as an asset retirement cost, which is then depreciated over the asset's life. In subsequent periods, the liability increases through accretion expense — computed using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate that existed at initial measurement — and this accretion is classified as an operating expense, not interest expense. The option pairing the liability with an immediate expense wrongly expenses the obligation instead of capitalizing it, and wrongly labels the subsequent increase as interest expense at a floating current rate rather than accretion at the fixed historical rate. The option treating this as a note-only contingent liability is wrong because this is not a loss contingency deferred until work begins; it must be recognized when incurred and reasonably estimable. The option offsetting the liability against additional paid-in capital is wrong because an asset retirement obligation is a liability paired with an asset, not an equity transaction routed through paid-in capital.

Source: FASB ASC 410-20-25 and 410-20-35 (recognition and subsequent measurement of asset retirement obligations)

Correct answer: .

ASC 250-10-45-17 specifically classifies a change in the depreciation, amortization, or depletion method for long-lived, nonfinancial assets as a change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle. Because separating the effect of the revised estimate of the asset's consumption pattern from the effect of adopting a new method is impracticable, the change is accounted for prospectively, like a pure change in estimate, over the asset's remaining useful life, with no restatement of prior periods. The option calling for retrospective restatement of all prior periods applies the general treatment for ordinary changes in accounting principle, which ASC 250 specifically carves depreciation method changes out of. The option treating this as an error correction is wrong because switching from one legitimate depreciation method to another is not a misapplication of GAAP, so error-correction guidance doesn't apply. The option invoking impracticability with a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings describes an exception used for certain principle changes, such as inventory costing methods, when retrospective application genuinely cannot be done — not the rule for depreciation method changes, which are prospective by design, not because retrospective application happens to be impracticable.

Source: FASB ASC 250-10-45-17 (change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 845-10-30-3, gains and losses on nonmonetary exchanges are recognized unless the fair value of neither asset is determinable, the exchange is of similar inventory to facilitate sales to customers, or the exchange lacks commercial substance. Commercial substance exists when the economic positions of the parties are modified and their expected future cash flows change significantly, which is the case here, so Company X records the land received at its $150,000 fair value and recognizes a $50,000 gain ($150,000 minus the $100,000 carrying amount given up). Option C describes the carryover-basis treatment used only when an exchange lacks commercial substance, not this fact pattern. Option D invents a gain-deferral mechanism with no basis in ASC 845; a recognized gain is recorded at the exchange date, not amortized over a future holding period. Option B invents a 'lower of' measurement approach that is not part of the commercial-substance model, which simply measures at fair value and immediately recognizes the resulting gain or loss.

Source: FASB ASC 845-10-30-3 (recognition of gains and losses on nonmonetary exchanges)

Correct answer: .

ASU 2015-11 replaced the lower of cost or market test with the lower of cost and net realizable value test, but only for inventory measured using methods other than LIFO or the retail inventory method, such as FIFO or average cost. Since the FIFO pool's net realizable value of $460,000 is below its $500,000 cost, it must be written down to $460,000. The LIFO pool was specifically carved out of this simplification and continues to apply the older lower of cost or market test, where market is replacement cost bounded by a ceiling of net realizable value and a floor of net realizable value less a normal profit margin. Option A is wrong because ASU 2015-11 did not eliminate all differences between methods; it created a bifurcated model where LIFO and retail-method inventory keep the old test. Option C is wrong because write-down testing was simplified, not eliminated. Option D reverses the rule: FIFO and average-cost pools are the ones using the newer lower-of-cost-and-net-realizable-value test, while LIFO and retail-method inventory keep the older test; neither is exempt from testing altogether.

Source: FASB ASC 330-10-35 as amended by ASU 2015-11 (Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-44 requires that when a long-lived asset is reclassified from held for sale back to held and used, it be measured at the lower of (1) its carrying amount before it was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation or amortization expense that would have been recognized had it remained classified as held and used, or (2) its fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Here the adjusted carrying amount is $1,000,000 minus $30,000 of hypothetical six-month depreciation, or $970,000, and fair value is $950,000, so the lower amount, $950,000, is used. The option recording fair value simply because it is the current fair value wrongly treats fair value as an automatic default rather than one side of a required lower-of comparison. The option carrying forward the $880,000 write-down amount unchanged ignores the required remeasurement and the add-back of hypothetical depreciation that the standard mandates upon reclassification. The option restoring the original $1,000,000 is wrong because full reversal to the pre-impairment carrying amount is not permitted; the standard caps any recovery at the depreciation-adjusted carrying amount or fair value, whichever is lower, not an unconditional reset to original cost.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-44 (measurement upon reclassification from held for sale to held and used)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 360-10-30, the capitalized cost of property, plant, and equipment includes all costs necessarily incurred to bring the asset to the condition and location necessary for its intended use. Freight and installation-and-testing costs meet that test directly: the machine cannot function in its intended location without being delivered, installed, and confirmed to work, so $200,000 plus $8,000 plus $12,000 equals a capitalized cost of $220,000. Operator training is different: the machine itself is already in its intended condition and location once installed and tested, and training addresses how employees operate the completed asset rather than what it takes to get the asset ready — so it is expensed as incurred, matching the general treatment of costs incurred after (or unrelated to) getting the asset into service. The option capitalizing all $225,000 wrongly folds training into acquisition cost. The option capitalizing only the $200,000 purchase price ignores that freight and installation-and-testing costs are squarely part of the cost-to-bring-to-intended-use test and are routinely capitalized. The option capitalizing $208,000 gets the treatment backwards, since installation and testing are exactly the kind of cost the standard requires to be capitalized, not expensed as repairs.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-30 (initial measurement of property, plant, and equipment — costs necessary to bring an asset to the condition and location necessary for its intended use)

Correct answer: .

ASC 845-10-30-3 lists specific exceptions to the general rule that nonmonetary exchanges are recorded at fair value with a gain or loss recognized. One exception, in ASC 845-10-30-3(b), applies when the exchange is of a product held for sale in the ordinary course of business for a product to be sold in the same line of business, to facilitate sales to customers other than the parties to the exchange — exactly this fact pattern, since each grocery chain is swapping inventory to resell to its own customers rather than to the counterparty. That exception applies regardless of whether the exchange otherwise has commercial substance, so the inventory received is recorded at Company M's own carryover cost of $40,000 and no gain is recognized. The option recognizing a $12,000 gain misapplies the general commercial-substance rule without accounting for this specific carve-out. The option deferring the gain until resale invents a deferral mechanism that ASC 845 does not use; the standard's exception simply results in carryover basis, not a deferred gain that surfaces later. The option recording carryover basis but requiring note disclosure of an 'unrecognized gain' fabricates a disclosure requirement; under carryover-basis treatment there is no gain to disclose because none is measured or recognized in the first place.

Source: FASB ASC 845-10-30-3(b) and 845-10-30-16 (exchange of inventory in the same line of business to facilitate sales to customers)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 610-30, an involuntary conversion of a nonmonetary asset (the warehouse) into a monetary asset (insurance proceeds) is measured as the difference between the carrying amount of the asset lost and the amount of monetary assets received, and any resulting gain or loss is recognized immediately. The loss of the asset and the recovery through insurance proceeds are treated as two separate events and two separate units of account, so the $80,000 excess is recognized as a gain in the period the proceeds become fixed and determinable, independent of whatever management ultimately decides to do with the cash. The option deferring recognition until a decision not to rebuild confuses financial accounting with a business decision that has no bearing on when the gain is realized and measurable. The option treating the excess as a reduction of a future replacement asset's cost basis describes a tax-deferral-style mechanism, not US GAAP, which does not carry forward unrecognized gains into the basis of a not-yet-acquired asset. The option conditioning gain recognition on a reinvestment replacement period describes the deferral available under tax law for involuntary conversions (Internal Revenue Code Section 1033), which governs taxable income, not financial statement gain recognition under US GAAP.

Source: FASB ASC 610-30 (involuntary conversions — gains and losses from the derecognition of nonfinancial assets)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-23 requires a long-lived asset to be grouped with other assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and liabilities, for purposes of recognizing and measuring an impairment loss. Here the two stores share a loading dock, a combined point-of-sale and inventory system, joint promotions, and shared inventory pools, so their cash inflows cannot be separated from each other — the lowest level with largely independent cash flows is the two stores combined, not either store alone. The option treating each store as automatically its own asset group ignores the facts given and the standard's cash-flow-independence test, which can require combining locations when their cash flows are intertwined. The option requiring entity-wide grouping in all cases overstates the rule; entity-wide grouping is reserved for the limited situation (such as a corporate headquarters) where an asset has no identifiable cash flows independent of the whole entity, not a general default. The option deferring to internal management reporting invents a rule that does not exist in ASC 360; segment structure may inform the analysis but is not itself the determinative test — the cash-flow-independence criterion is.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-23 (grouping of long-lived assets for impairment testing)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-47 provides that a long-lived asset to be disposed of other than by sale — including by abandonment — continues to be classified as held and used until it is actually disposed of, which for an abandoned asset means until it ceases to be used. Because the equipment here keeps operating for eight months after the commitment date, it stays held and used and continues to be depreciated throughout that period; what changes is that the company must revise its useful life and depreciation estimate to reflect the now-shortened remaining period the equipment will actually be used, consistent with the general principle that a change in estimated useful life is accounted for prospectively. The option requiring immediate reclassification to held for sale and immediate cessation of depreciation wrongly applies the held-for-sale model, which under ASC 360-10-45-9 requires criteria such as being available for immediate sale and actively marketed — criteria that make no sense for an asset that will simply be scrapped in place while still operating. The option equating an abandonment commitment with a sale commitment ignores that ASC 360 explicitly treats disposal by abandonment differently from disposal by sale; held-for-sale classification is reserved for assets meeting the sale-specific criteria. The option suspending depreciation while keeping the asset held and used contradicts the standard: depreciation continues over the revised, shortened useful life precisely because the asset remains in productive use until abandonment.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-47 (long-lived assets to be disposed of other than by sale, including abandonment)

Correct answer: .

Under US GAAP, goodwill is recognized only as a residual: the excess of consideration transferred (plus other specified amounts) over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired in a business combination accounted for under the acquisition method in ASC 805, with the resulting amount reported under ASC 350-20. Internally generated goodwill — value built up over time through brand reputation, customer loyalty, or workforce quality without any acquisition transaction — is never capitalized, because there is no arm's-length exchange transaction establishing a reliable, verifiable measurement event; the related costs (advertising, training, and similar internal-development spending) are simply expensed as incurred. The option allowing capitalization if a valuation firm can reliably estimate the value is wrong because reliability of estimation is not the barrier — the prohibition applies regardless of measurement reliability, since no qualifying transaction ever occurred. The option requiring three years of persistence invents a durability test that appears nowhere in ASC 350-20. The option suggesting a self-acquisition reorganization as a workaround describes a contrived transaction lacking economic substance; restructuring solely to manufacture a technical 'business combination' would not create the substantive change in ownership and control that goodwill recognition is meant to reflect.

Source: FASB ASC 350-20-25 and ASC 805 (goodwill recognized only as a residual in a business combination under the acquisition method)

Correct answer: .

ASC 350-40 (in its stage-based form, still the effective model as of the 2026-27 fiscal years, before ASU 2025-06 removes it for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2027) divides internal-use software development into stages with different cost treatments. During the preliminary project stage — evaluating alternatives and determining performance and system requirements, with no management commitment yet — activities resemble research and development, so all costs are expensed as incurred. Once management with appropriate authority authorizes and commits to funding the project, the entity enters the application development stage, and internal and external direct costs of coding, installation, and testing incurred from that point are capitalized. Here the first two months fall squarely in the preliminary stage (expensed) and months three through eight fall in the application development stage (capitalized). The option capitalizing both stages ignores the preliminary stage's R&D-like treatment. The option reversing the two stages' treatment — capitalizing preliminary costs and expensing application development costs as 'maintenance' — inverts the rule entirely. The option expensing everything until go-live ignores that capitalization begins with management's authorization and commitment during the application development stage, not at the software's in-service date.

Source: FASB ASC 350-40-25 (costs of software developed or obtained for internal use — preliminary project stage and application development stage), noting ASU 2025-06's later removal of this stage-based model

Correct answer: .

ASC 985-20-25 requires that all costs incurred before a software product intended to be sold, leased, or otherwise marketed reaches technological feasibility be expensed as incurred as research and development. Technological feasibility is established once the entity has completed all the planning, designing, coding, and testing necessary to confirm the product can be produced to meet its design specifications, including functions, features, and technical performance. Costs incurred after that point, through the point the product is available for general release to customers, are capitalized as an intangible asset. Here the costs before the design and working model were confirmed are R&D expense, and the costs afterward, up to general release, are capitalized. The option capitalizing both sets of costs ignores the technological-feasibility trigger entirely. The option expensing both sets ignores that ASC 985-20 explicitly permits capitalization after feasibility is reached. The option reversing the treatment — capitalizing pre-feasibility costs and expensing post-feasibility costs as cost of goods sold — inverts the standard's trigger point and mischaracterizes ongoing capitalized development costs as a cost-of-sales item, which they are not until the software is actually sold.

Source: FASB ASC 985-20-25-1 and 25-2 (research and development costs for computer software to be sold, leased, or otherwise marketed — technological feasibility)

Correct answer: .

ASC 805-50-30-3 requires that when a group of assets acquired does not constitute a business, the cost of the group is allocated to the individual assets acquired based on their relative fair values, and no goodwill is recognized. This reflects the cost accumulation model used for asset acquisitions, under which the transaction is recorded at the cost actually incurred rather than at the fair value model used for business combinations under ASC 805-30. Here, the $10 million cost is allocated across the land, building, and lease intangible in proportion to their $4 million, $5 million, and $1.5 million fair values, and the $0.5 million excess of aggregate fair value over cost paid simply reduces each asset's recorded amount pro rata — it is not recognized as a separate gain or as goodwill. The option recording full fair values and a bargain purchase gain applies business-combination accounting (ASC 805-30), which does not apply here because no business was acquired. The option recognizing $0.5 million of goodwill as a plug is wrong because goodwill can arise only in a business combination, never in an asset acquisition. The option recording full fair values and routing the difference through additional paid-in capital fabricates an equity adjustment that has no basis in the asset-acquisition cost accumulation model.

Source: FASB ASC 805-50-30-3 (allocating the cost of a group of assets acquired that does not constitute a business, based on relative fair values)

Correct answer: .

ASC 350-20-35-3A gives an entity the option, for any reporting unit in any period, to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not (a likelihood of more than fifty percent) that a reporting unit's fair value is less than its carrying amount. If that qualitative assessment concludes it is not more likely than not, the entity may stop there and is not required to perform the quantitative fair-value-to-carrying-amount comparison for that reporting unit that period. This qualitative bypass is unconditional and available in any period regardless of whether the entity used the quantitative test in a prior year, and it can be resumed or dropped from year to year. The option requiring the quantitative test every year regardless of the qualitative conclusion contradicts the entire purpose of the qualitative screen, which exists precisely to let a company skip the quantitative test when warranted. The option requiring two consecutive prior years of passing the qualitative assessment invents a track-record condition that does not appear anywhere in ASC 350-20. The option waiving testing below a FASB-set dollar threshold is fabricated; no such de minimis exemption exists — the standard's mechanism is the qualitative-factors assessment, not a dollar-based waiver.

Source: FASB ASC 350-20-35-3A (optional qualitative assessment for goodwill impairment testing)

Correct answer: .

ASC 835-20-30 computes avoidable interest — the interest that theoretically could have been avoided if the expenditures on the qualifying asset had not been made — by applying a capitalization rate to weighted-average accumulated expenditures (WAAE). The rate hierarchy gives priority to any borrowing specifically incurred to finance the asset: the specific borrowing's rate is applied first, to the portion of WAAE up to the amount of that specific borrowing, and the weighted-average rate on the entity's other (general) outstanding debt is applied to any remaining WAAE in excess of the specific borrowing. Here that is $1,200,000 at 6% plus the remaining $800,000 at 8%. Whatever the computed avoidable interest amount is, it can never exceed the total interest cost the entity actually incurred during the period — that ceiling exists because a company cannot capitalize more interest than it truly paid or accrued. The option capitalizing the full $150,000 regardless of computation ignores the avoidable-interest concept entirely and treats capitalization as automatic rather than computed. The option applying only the general 8% rate to the entire WAAE ignores the required priority given to the specific construction borrowing's own rate for the portion of expenditures it covers. The option using an undifferentiated blended rate with no ceiling both invents an incorrect blending methodology and omits the mandatory cap against actual interest incurred.

Source: FASB ASC 835-20-30 (determining the capitalization rate and computing avoidable interest, including the ceiling on capitalized interest)

Correct answer: .

Under US GAAP's general principle for subsequent expenditures on property, plant, and equipment, costs that merely maintain an asset's originally intended level of service — ordinary repairs and maintenance such as an oil change and tire replacement — are expensed as incurred, because they do not add future economic benefit beyond what the asset already provided. Costs that extend an asset's useful life, increase its capacity, or improve its efficiency beyond its original condition are capitalized as betterments, because they create additional future economic benefit. The $15,000 engine replacement does both: it extends the truck's useful life by three years and increases its towing capacity beyond the original specification, so it is capitalized (typically with any remaining carrying amount of the replaced engine derecognized). The option capitalizing both expenditures ignores the routine-maintenance exception and would overstate the asset's carrying amount with costs that create no incremental benefit. The option expensing both expenditures ignores that betterments extending useful life or capacity are specifically capitalized, not treated as automatic period costs just because the asset is already in service. The option reversing the treatment — capitalizing routine maintenance and expensing the betterment — inverts the standard distinction between maintaining existing service potential (expense) and enhancing it (capitalize).

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-30 (subsequent costs — repairs and maintenance versus betterments/improvements to property, plant, and equipment)

Correct answer: .

Land is presumed to have an indefinite useful life and is therefore never depreciated under US GAAP, so its $500,000 cost stays in the Land account permanently. Site additions attached to the land that have their own limited useful lives — such as paving, fencing, and plantings that will need resurfacing or replacement within a couple of decades — are recorded separately in a Land Improvements account and depreciated over each improvement's own estimated life, because they do not share land's indefinite-life characteristic. Treating the entire $583,000 as one indivisible depreciable asset ignores that land itself has no determinable useful life to depreciate over, while the improvements clearly do. Expensing the $83,000 of improvement costs immediately is wrong because these expenditures provide multi-period benefit and meet the capitalization criteria for a long-lived asset; there is no basis for treating durable site improvements as a current-period cost merely because they sit on indefinite-lived land. Depreciating the land itself over the building's useful life confuses the building (a depreciable asset) with the land beneath it, which retains its indefinite life regardless of what is built on it or how the site is used.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35 (depreciation of property, plant, and equipment) and general US GAAP practice guidance distinguishing land (indefinite life, not depreciated) from land improvements (limited life, depreciated separately)

Correct answer: .

The units-of-production method allocates an asset's depreciable base — cost minus estimated salvage value — over its total estimated units of output, producing a constant per-unit depreciation rate that is then applied to actual output each period. Here the depreciable base is $220,000 minus $20,000, or $200,000, divided by 400,000 total estimated units, giving a rate of $0.50 per unit; applying that rate to the 50,000 units produced in the first year gives $25,000 of depreciation expense. Using the full $220,000 cost without subtracting salvage value overstates the depreciable base and ignores that GAAP depreciation methods systematically exclude the amount expected to be recovered at disposal. Dividing cost by useful life in years mixes up the units-of-production method, which is driven by output, with the straight-line method, which is driven by the passage of time, producing a nonsensical annual figure applied against unit output. Treating the $20,000 salvage value itself as the depreciation expense misunderstands what salvage value represents: it is the estimated residual amount excluded from depreciation, not an expense to be recognized, and the units-of-production method does not front-load expense the way a declining-balance method does.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-4 (depreciation methods should be systematic and rational, including units-of-production, applied over the depreciable base net of estimated salvage value)

Correct answer: .

A revision of an asset's estimated useful life or salvage value is a change in accounting estimate, not the correction of an error and not a retrospective restatement event, because the original estimates were reasonable when made and the revision simply reflects new information about the asset's remaining service potential. ASC 250-10-45-17 requires changes in accounting estimate to be accounted for prospectively: the equipment's remaining undepreciated cost at the start of year 6, reduced by the revised $9,000 salvage value, is spread evenly over the newly estimated 3-year remaining life, and depreciation already recorded in years 1 through 5 is left untouched. Restating the first five years' depreciation as if the new estimate had applied from acquisition improperly treats an estimate change as if it were a retrospective accounting policy change. Treating this as an error correction with a retained-earnings adjustment is wrong because nothing about the original 10-year, no-salvage estimate was mistaken at the time it was made — it simply reflects updated information now, which is the defining feature of an estimate change rather than an error. A one-time cumulative catch-up recognized entirely in the current period's income statement is also incorrect, since prospective treatment spreads the adjusted remaining cost over the remaining periods rather than dumping the full effect into a single year.

Source: FASB ASC 250-10-45-17 (changes in accounting estimate, including useful life and salvage value of a depreciable asset, accounted for prospectively)

Correct answer: .

Under the involuntary-conversion guidance in ASC 610-30, the loss on a destroyed nonmonetary asset and any insurance recovery are treated as two separate events, each its own unit of account, rather than being netted together as a single transaction. The loss equal to the asset's full carrying amount is recognized when the destruction occurs, regardless of whether, when, or how much insurance will eventually be recovered; the recovery itself is recognized separately, only once it becomes fixed and determinable, such as through final acceptance and approval from the insurer. Waiting to recognize any loss until the recovery amount is known incorrectly treats the loss as if it were the net result of a single combined calculation, which is precisely the netting the two-events principle rejects. Deferring the loss to match it with the eventual recovery in the same period misapplies a matching notion that does not govern involuntary conversions under this guidance; the destruction and the recovery are recognized in whatever periods each becomes determinable, which will often differ. Making loss recognition conditional on management's belief about whether the recovery will fall short of carrying amount is also wrong, since the loss on the destroyed asset is recognized in full immediately and independently of any expectation about the insurance outcome.

Source: FASB ASC 610-30 (involuntary conversions: loss recognized when incurred, without regard to the timing of an insurance recovery, which is recognized as a separate unit of account once fixed and determinable)

Correct answer: .

ASU 2018-08 clarified the scope of ASC 958-605 so that its contribution-accounting guidance applies to any entity that receives a contribution, not solely to not-for-profit organizations, which is a frequently missed point since the guidance is filed under the 'Not-for-Profit Entities' topic. Because the developer attached no conditions to the land transfer and expects nothing in return, the transfer is an unconditional contribution, which ASC 958-605 requires to be recognized in full — at the $300,000 fair value of the asset received, with an offsetting contribution revenue or gain — in the period the contribution is received, not deferred to a later triggering event. Withholding recognition until construction begins wrongly assumes recognition can never occur for anything but a conditional contribution; here the transfer is unconditional, which is exactly the case the standard requires recognizing immediately. Recording the land at the donor's own carrying amount, with a credit to paid-in capital, misapplies equity-transaction accounting that has no relevance to a nonreciprocal gift between unrelated parties. Amortizing the contribution into income over the plant's useful life invents a deferral mechanism that unconditional-contribution accounting does not use; deferral of recognition is reserved for contributions that remain conditional.

Source: FASB ASC 958-605-25-1 and 958-605-30-2 (recognition and measurement of contributions received, including the ASU 2018-08 scope clarification that this guidance applies to all entities, not only not-for-profit entities)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 350-30, the accounting treatment of costs to legally defend an intangible asset turns on the outcome of the litigation. A successful defense that clearly establishes an increase in the asset's future economic benefit supports capitalizing the associated legal costs, added to the patent's carrying amount, to the extent that increase in value is evident, since the defense preserved and confirmed a benefit the company can now be confident of realizing. An unsuccessful defense, by contrast, signals that the asset's value is impaired or that the right no longer exists as believed, so the related legal costs are expensed immediately, and here the remaining carrying amount of the cancelled patent must also be written off as a loss since the patent itself no longer has enforceable value. Expensing both outcomes identically ignores the outcome-dependent distinction the standard draws and treats a value-confirming successful defense the same as a value-destroying loss. Capitalizing both regardless of outcome wrongly assumes litigation cost capitalization is automatic rather than contingent on a favorable, value-increasing result. Reversing the treatment — capitalizing the losing case's costs while expensing the winning case's costs — inverts the rule entirely, since it is the successful outcome that evidences increased value worth capitalizing, not the unsuccessful one.

Source: FASB ASC 350-30-25 (costs incurred to defend an intangible asset: capitalized to the extent of an evident value increase if the defense is successful; expensed, along with any impaired carrying amount, if unsuccessful)

Correct answer: .

Under the composite (or group) depreciation method, individual assets within the group do not have their own separately tracked accumulated depreciation, because the method deliberately depreciates the pooled cost of dissimilar assets at one blended rate to simplify recordkeeping and smooth out over- or under-depreciation across the group. When an individual asset is retired in the ordinary course, US GAAP practice for this method removes the asset's full original cost from the asset account, records the cash or other consideration received, and plugs any difference to Accumulated Depreciation, recognizing no gain or loss in earnings on the retirement — here, Cash for $12,000, Accumulated Depreciation for the $38,000 difference, and the asset account credited for the full $50,000. Recognizing a $38,000 loss in earnings improperly applies individual-asset retirement accounting to a method that is specifically designed to avoid that outcome for ordinary dispositions. Recognizing a $12,000 gain equal to the cash received is not how any disposal is recorded under any depreciation method. Tracking the machine's own individual accumulated depreciation and computing a gain or loss from it contradicts the entire premise of the composite method, which pools rather than individually tracks depreciation across the group's dissimilar assets.

Source: US GAAP practice guidance on group and composite depreciation methods (e.g., PwC's Property, Plant and Equipment guide, chapter on depreciation): no gain or loss is recognized on ordinary retirements, with the cost/proceeds difference absorbed by accumulated depreciation

Correct answer: .

ASC 845 provides that an exchange lacking commercial substance is generally recorded on a carryover-cost basis with no gain or loss recognized, but carves out an exception when the party receiving monetary consideration (boot) receives 25% or more of the total consideration received: in that case the entire transaction is treated as a monetary exchange and the full gain is recognized. Here Company A's $2,000 cash is only 8% of the $25,000 total consideration received (the $23,000 truck plus the $2,000 cash), well below the 25% threshold, so the exchange keeps its lacking-commercial-substance treatment, but the receipt of some cash still triggers partial gain recognition proportional to the cash portion: 8% of the $7,000 total realized gain ($25,000 fair value given up minus $18,000 carrying amount), or $560, with the remainder of the gain deferred into the recorded basis of the truck received. Treating any cash receipt as automatically converting the exchange into a commercial-substance transaction ignores the specific 25% threshold the guidance sets. Deferring the entire gain ignores that a cash-received boot below 25% still triggers a proportional, not zero, gain recognition. Recording a loss by treating the cash as reducing the received truck's fair value confuses monetary boot received within a nonmonetary exchange with an unrelated fair-value adjustment, which is not how boot is accounted for under this guidance.

Source: FASB ASC 845-10-30-1 through 30-3 (nonmonetary exchanges lacking commercial substance; the 25%-of-consideration boot threshold for partial gain recognition)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-40 does not treat the write-down at the date of initial held-for-sale classification as a one-time event; it requires the carrying amount of an asset classified as held for sale to be remeasured at each subsequent reporting period at the lower of its carrying amount or its fair value less costs to sell, with any further decline in fair value less costs to sell recognized as an additional loss for as long as the asset remains classified as held for sale and unsold. Here the machine's fair value less costs to sell fell from $370,000 to $340,000 between the two reporting dates, so the company recognizes an additional $30,000 loss and reduces the carrying amount to $340,000. The option treating the initial write-down as the only required adjustment ignores that the standard mandates remeasurement at every subsequent reporting period, not just once at classification. The option reversing the original write-down and restoring the $400,000 carrying amount is backwards: the standard does allow gains for later fair-value increases, but only up to the amount of cumulative losses previously recognized, and here fair value declined further rather than recovering, so no reversal is applicable at all. Routing the additional decline through other comprehensive income misapplies available-for-sale securities accounting, which has no bearing on held-for-sale long-lived assets; losses and any permitted subsequent gains on held-for-sale assets are recognized in earnings, not OCI.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-40 (a loss shall be recognized for any initial or subsequent write-down to fair value less cost to sell of an asset classified as held for sale, remeasured at each reporting period)

Correct answer: .

ASC 410-20 measures upward revisions to the estimated undiscounted cash flows of an asset retirement obligation as new, separate layers of the liability, each discounted at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate that is current as of the date the revision is recognized, rather than reopening or blending the rate used for previously recognized layers. Here the original $200,000 obligation, recognized five years ago at the then-current 6% rate, keeps accreting at that original 6% rate, while the new $150,000 layer of increased expected cost is discounted at today's current 9% rate and accretes separately at 9% going forward. Requiring one consistent rate fixed at initial recognition for all future revisions ignores that the layered approach exists precisely so that each layer reflects the rate conditions prevailing when that layer's cash flow estimate was added. Blending the two rates by relative layer size invents a weighted-average mechanism the standard does not use; layers are tracked and accreted separately, not merged into a single recalculated rate. Selecting whichever rate is lower for conservatism has no basis in ASC 410-20 — downward revisions, not upward ones, are the case where the original historical rate is reused, and even then it is because that layer is being reduced, not because a lower rate is inherently more conservative.

Source: FASB ASC 410-20-35-8 (upward revisions to estimated cash flows of an asset retirement obligation are discounted at the current credit-adjusted risk-free rate as a new liability layer; downward revisions use the rate in effect when the corresponding layer was initially recognized)

Correct answer: .

ASC 730-10-25-2 provides that materials, equipment, and facilities used in research and development activities are charged to expense when acquired unless they have an alternative future use, in which case they are capitalized as tangible assets and their cost is allocated to expense (as depreciation) over the periods the assets are used, with that depreciation itself treated as a research and development cost. Because the centrifuge here can be redeployed to future projects and routine testing after this project ends, it has an alternative future use and must be capitalized and depreciated rather than expensed in full. Personnel costs such as scientist salaries directly engaged in research and development, by contrast, have no such capitalization exception and are always expensed as incurred. The option capitalizing both items as amortizable intangible assets misapplies an internal-use or externally-marketed software framework that has no bearing on tangible lab equipment or labor costs under ASC 730. The option expensing both amounts in full ignores the specific statutory exception for tangible items with an alternative future use, which exists precisely to prevent expensing an asset that will keep generating value beyond the current project. The option reversing the treatment, expensing the equipment while capitalizing the salaries as a prepaid asset, inverts the rule entirely: it is tangible items with alternative future use that qualify for capitalization, never labor costs, which are never capitalized as research and development assets regardless of any future use argument.

Source: FASB ASC 730-10-25-2 (elements of research and development costs; capitalization of materials, equipment, and facilities with alternative future use)

Correct answer: .

ASU 2018-15, codified in ASC 350-40, requires a customer in a hosting arrangement that is a service contract to apply the same capitalization criteria used for internal-use software to the implementation costs of that arrangement: costs incurred in an application-development-stage-equivalent activity, such as configuring and testing the hosted system for the customer's own use, are capitalized. However, because no software license or other asset is obtained, the capitalized amount is presented on the balance sheet as a prepaid asset rather than as internal-use software or property, plant and equipment, and it is amortized straight-line over the term of the hosting arrangement, with the amortization expense presented in the same income statement line as the related hosting fees. The option expensing everything immediately describes the rule that applied before ASU 2018-15, when hosting arrangements were treated purely as service contracts with no capitalization at all; ASU 2018-15 specifically changed this by aligning the accounting with internal-use software while stopping short of calling the result software or a licensed asset. The option treating the cost as internal-use software under the internal-use software caption, amortized over the vendor's product life cycle, misapplies the balance sheet presentation and the amortization period, which is tied to the hosting contract term, not any external product cycle. The option treating the cost as leasehold improvements to IT infrastructure has no basis in ASC 350-40, since nothing here involves leased physical space or equipment.

Source: FASB ASC 350-40-25 and 350-40-35, as amended by ASU 2018-15 (customer's accounting for implementation costs of a hosting arrangement that is a service contract)

Correct answer: .

ASC 350-30-35-1 through 35-3 requires an entity to estimate an intangible asset's useful life based on legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, and economic factors, and to treat the asset as finite-lived (amortized) unless no such factor limits its life. Here the renewable-but-eroding contracts and expected competitive decay point to a finite 12-year life, not an indefinite one, so amortization is required. ASC 350-30-35-6 further requires straight-line amortization whenever the pattern in which the economic benefits of the intangible asset are expected to be consumed cannot be reliably determined, which is exactly the case described. The option treating the asset as indefinite-lived simply because its life exceeds ten years invents a bright-line rule that does not exist; indefinite life depends on the absence of any limiting factor, not on the length of the estimated life. The option imposing a fixed 40-year default period fabricates a rule from an entirely different, now-superseded accounting framework and ignores the specific 12-year estimate supported by the facts. The option requiring an accelerated method presumes a consumption pattern that the facts explicitly rule out, since management could not reliably determine any such pattern, which is precisely the condition triggering the straight-line default rather than an accelerated method.

Source: FASB ASC 350-30-35-1 through 35-6 (determining and amortizing the useful life of a finite-lived intangible asset)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-21 lists specific examples of events or changes in circumstances indicating that the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group) may not be recoverable, one of which is a current-period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow losses associated with the use of the asset, or a projection or forecast demonstrating continuing losses. That is exactly the fact pattern here, so an impairment indicator is present, which triggers (rather than skips) the recoverability test: the asset group's carrying amount is compared to the sum of the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected from its continued use and eventual disposal, and only if the carrying amount exceeds that undiscounted sum does the entity proceed to measure and recognize an impairment loss based on fair value. The option requiring only fixed-interval testing ignores that ASC 360 is fundamentally an indicator-triggered, event-driven model for long-lived assets held and used, unlike the annual testing required for goodwill. The option jumping straight to a fair-value write-down skips the required first step of comparing carrying amount to undiscounted cash flows, which is mandatory before any fair-value-based loss can be measured. The option treating operating losses as irrelevant to asset carrying amounts contradicts the standard's own list of indicators, which explicitly includes operating and cash flow losses as evidence bearing on recoverability.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-21 and 360-10-35-17 (indicators of impairment and the undiscounted cash flow recoverability test for long-lived assets held and used)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 360-10-40, when a long-lived asset that is not a discontinued operation is sold, the entity derecognizes the asset's cost and related accumulated depreciation and recognizes any gain or loss, measured as the sale proceeds less the asset's carrying amount at the date of sale, in income from continuing operations. Here proceeds of $9,000 exceed the $6,000 carrying amount by $3,000, so a $3,000 gain is recognized and both the cost and accumulated depreciation are removed from the books. The option treating the proceeds as revenue while continuing to depreciate the van is wrong because the van has been sold and no longer exists on the company's books to be depreciated; treating incidental sale proceeds as revenue also misclassifies the nature of the transaction. The option routing the difference through additional paid-in capital fabricates an equity treatment that has no basis for an ordinary asset disposal; gains and losses on the sale of long-lived assets flow through the income statement, not equity. The option asserting that any sale below original cost is automatically a loss ignores that gain or loss recognition depends on comparing proceeds to the asset's carrying amount (cost less accumulated depreciation), not its original cost; a fully or substantially depreciated asset can easily be sold above its carrying amount for a gain even while sold below its original cost.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-40-1 (recognition of gain or loss on sale of a long-lived asset not classified as a discontinued operation)

Correct answer: .

ASC 845-10-30 provides that when an exchange includes both a nonmonetary asset and monetary consideration (boot), and the boot is significant, defined as being 25 percent or more of the fair value of the exchange, both parties account for the entire transaction as if it were monetary rather than nonmonetary. Here the $30,000 of cash is 30% of the $100,000 fair value of the exchange, crossing that threshold, so Company P recognizes its full $40,000 gain (the $100,000 fair value of the equipment given up less its $60,000 carrying amount), rather than only a portion of it, even though part of what it received was another piece of equipment rather than cash. The option asserting that commercial substance alone governs ignores that the boot-percentage test is a separate, specific rule that applies in addition to the commercial-substance analysis and can itself convert what looks like a nonmonetary exchange into one accounted for as monetary. The option requiring full deferral of the gain describes the treatment for exchanges lacking commercial substance with little or no boot, which is the opposite of the facts here, where boot is significant and commercial substance is present. The option capping recognized gain at a fixed 25% fabricates a proportional-limitation rule; the 25% figure in ASC 845 is a threshold that determines whether the whole transaction is treated as monetary, not a ceiling on the percentage of gain recognized.

Source: FASB ASC 845-10-30 (nonmonetary transactions involving monetary consideration; the 25 percent boot threshold for monetary transaction treatment)

Correct answer: .

The accounting for acquired IPR&D depends on whether it is obtained in a business combination or in an asset acquisition. ASC 805-20-25-13 requires an acquirer in a business combination to recognize acquired IPR&D as an indefinite-lived intangible asset at its acquisition-date fair value, regardless of whether it has an alternative future use; that asset is not amortized but is tested for impairment until the associated research and development project is completed (at which point it becomes a finite-lived amortizable asset) or abandoned (at which point it is written off). Outside a business combination, in an asset acquisition where the acquired group of assets does not meet the definition of a business, ASC 730-10-25 continues to require IPR&D with no alternative future use to be expensed immediately at the acquisition date, consistent with the general research and development cost model. The option expensing IPR&D in both scenarios ignores the specific business-combination exception created for IPR&D acquired in a business combination. The option capitalizing IPR&D as indefinite-lived in both scenarios ignores that the business-combination exception does not extend to asset acquisitions, where the ordinary ASC 730 expensing rule still applies. The option reversing the two treatments, expensing in the business combination and capitalizing in the asset acquisition, inverts the actual rule, which capitalizes IPR&D specifically because it arose in a business combination, not despite it.

Source: FASB ASC 805-20-25-13 (acquired in-process research and development in a business combination) and ASC 730-10-25 (research and development costs acquired other than in a business combination)

Correct answer: .

ASC 410-20-30-3 through 30-4 identifies the expected present value technique as the preferred approach for measuring the fair value of an asset retirement obligation in most circumstances, particularly whenever a range of possible settlement dates and cash flow scenarios exists. That technique weights each identified outcome by its assigned probability to arrive at a single expected cash flow estimate, which is then discounted using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate to arrive at the liability's present value. Here the probability-weighted calculation is $2 million times 20%, plus $3 million times 50%, plus $5 million times 30%, totaling $3.4 million. The option selecting only the single most-likely scenario ignores that ASC 410-20 specifically calls for incorporating the full range of identified outcomes through probability weighting rather than picking one scenario and discarding the rest. The option selecting the highest-cost scenario fabricates a conservatism-based rule that does not appear in ASC 410-20; the standard calls for a probability-weighted expectation, not a worst-case assumption. The option using a simple unweighted average ignores the probabilities management has actually assigned to each scenario, substituting equal weighting for the information given, which is inconsistent with the expected-present-value method's core purpose of reflecting the relative likelihood of each outcome.

Source: FASB ASC 410-20-30-3 through 30-4 (expected present value technique for measuring the fair value of an asset retirement obligation)

Correct answer: .

Whether a gain is recognized on an involuntary conversion under US GAAP turns on what the company receives in exchange for the converted asset. In Case 1, the land is converted directly into a similar nonmonetary asset, substitute land of comparable use, with no monetary consideration involved, so the transaction is treated like a nonmonetary exchange without the recognition trigger that a monetary receipt creates: no gain is recognized, and the substitute land is recorded at the original land's carrying amount, carrying that basis forward. In Case 2, the warehouse is converted into a monetary asset, cash from the insurer, and a monetary conversion triggers immediate gain recognition equal to the proceeds less the asset's carrying amount in the period the conversion occurs, regardless of whether or when the company later decides to spend that cash rebuilding; any replacement purchase is a separate transaction recorded at its own cost. The option treating both cases identically ignores this fundamental distinction between nonmonetary and monetary conversions that the accounting model turns on. The option deferring the Case 2 gain until a rebuilding decision is made incorrectly imports an income-tax deferral concept, available under separate tax rules, into financial reporting, where GAAP recognizes the gain immediately upon conversion into cash. The option recording the Case 1 land at zero and deferring the Case 2 gain until funds are spent misstates both outcomes: the substitute land carries over the original basis rather than being recorded at zero, and GAAP has no general policy of deferring monetary-conversion gains pending reinvestment.

Source: FASB ASC 610-30 (involuntary conversions of nonfinancial assets; direct nonmonetary replacement versus monetary conversion)

Correct answer: .

Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the improvement's useful life or the lease term, where the lease term includes renewal periods only when the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise the related renewal option. Here the improvements' physical useful life is 15 years, but the retailer is not reasonably certain it will exercise the 4-year renewal option, so the relevant lease term for amortization purposes is the 6-year non-cancelable period rather than the full 10 years including the option. Because 6 years is shorter than the 15-year physical life, the improvements are amortized over 6 years. The option requiring amortization over the full 15-year physical life ignores that leasehold improvements are constrained by the lease term whenever that term is shorter, since the improvements have no assured use to the retailer beyond the period it controls the leased space. The option automatically including the renewal option's 4 years regardless of certainty of exercise ignores the reasonably-certain-to-exercise condition, which exists precisely to prevent extending the amortization period based on an option the lessee may never take up. The option applying a rounding convention to the nearest 5-year increment fabricates a mechanical rule that does not exist anywhere in US GAAP; the shorter-of comparison uses the actual useful life and actual lease term, not a rounded approximation.

Source: FASB ASC 842-20-35-12 (amortization of leasehold improvements over the shorter of their useful life or the lease term, including renewal periods reasonably certain to be exercised)

Correct answer: .

ASC 730-10-25 requires R&D costs to be expensed as incurred because, at the time they're incurred, there's no assurance the research will produce a future economic benefit — this is true even when the research succeeds and eventually leads to a patentable invention. Once a patent is actually obtained, though, ASC 350-30-25 treats the patent as a separately identifiable, specifically attributable intangible asset, and the direct legal and governmental filing costs incurred to register the application at that point are capitalized as the patent's cost and amortized over its useful life, since those costs are directly attributable to securing the specific legal right rather than to the uncertain research effort itself. Capitalizing the full $138,000 wrongly folds the inherently uncertain R&D spending into an asset's cost as if success were assured from the outset. Expensing everything on the theory that internally generated intangibles can never be capitalized overgeneralizes: that blanket prohibition applies to unidentifiable internally generated intangibles like goodwill or brand value, not to the separately identifiable legal costs of registering a patent. Capitalizing the R&D spending while expensing the filing fees reverses the correct treatment of the two cost streams entirely.

Source: FASB ASC 730-10-25 (Research and Development — expensing) and ASC 350-30-25 (Intangibles — patent costs)

Correct answer: .

Under ASC 350-40, a purchased software license for internal use is capitalized immediately when acquired — the three-stage framework (preliminary project stage, application development stage, post-implementation stage) that determines whether costs are expensed or capitalized applies to internally developed software, not to the license fee paid for software a company buys outright. Costs incurred to configure and install purchased software so it is ready for its intended use, such as the consulting fees here, are likewise capitalized as part of bringing the asset into service, the same way installation costs are capitalized for purchased equipment. Capitalizing only the license fee while expensing configuration costs ignores that readiness costs for an asset are part of its cost. Forcing both costs through the internally-developed-software stage test confuses the framework that governs costs a company incurs building its own software with the framework that governs software it simply buys. Claiming purchased software can never be capitalized is squarely wrong; purchased software is, if anything, more straightforwardly capitalizable than internally developed software because there is no stage-based uncertainty to resolve before capitalization can begin.

Source: FASB ASC 350-40-25 (Internal-Use Software — capitalization of purchased software costs)

Correct answer: .

ASC 410-20-35-8 treats upward and downward revisions to an asset retirement obligation's estimated cash flows asymmetrically. Upward revisions are discounted using the current credit-adjusted risk-free rate, reflecting that a new layer of obligation is effectively being recognized today. Downward revisions, by contrast, are discounted using the historical credit-adjusted risk-free rate that applied when the specific layer being reduced was originally recognized, or a weighted-average historical rate if the company cannot identify which specific layer the reduction relates to. The reasoning is that a downward revision reverses part of a previously recognized layer rather than creating a new one, so it should unwind at the same rate that layer was originally measured at; using today's rate instead would let a change in interest rates manufacture a gain or loss that has nothing to do with the actual change in expected cash flows. Using the current rate for a downward revision, as if it were symmetrical with the upward-revision rule, is exactly the mistake the standard is designed to prevent. Averaging the two rates has no basis in the guidance. Dropping the credit adjustment entirely ignores that the credit-adjusted risk-free rate, not the plain risk-free rate, is the rate ASC 410-20 requires throughout, for both upward and downward revisions alike.

Source: FASB ASC 410-20-35-8 (Asset Retirement Obligations — subsequent measurement, revisions to cash flow estimates)

Correct answer: .

A long-lived asset to be disposed of other than by sale — including one to be distributed to owners in a spin-off — does not meet the held-for-sale criteria in ASC 360-10, because those criteria are written around a sale transaction with a buyer. Instead, the asset continues to be classified as held and used right up until the distribution occurs, and continues to be depreciated normally in the meantime. When testing recoverability during that period, the undiscounted cash flow estimate is based on using the asset for its full remaining useful life, assuming the planned distribution will not occur, which avoids letting the pending spin-off itself manufacture an impairment. At the distribution date itself, the asset is remeasured: if its carrying amount exceeds its fair value at that date, an impairment loss is recognized before the asset is removed from the parent's books at its post-impairment carrying amount. Treating the plant as held for sale and halting depreciation early misapplies a test reserved for sale transactions. Assuming the distribution will occur when estimating the recoverability-period cash flows gets the required assumption backwards — the test must assume continued use, not the pending disposal. Claiming no impairment testing applies at all ignores that ASC 360-10 explicitly addresses distributions to owners as one of its covered disposal methods.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35 and ASC 360-10-40-4 (Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets — assets to be distributed to owners)

Correct answer: .

Under US GAAP, the capitalized cost of land includes the purchase price together with all costs directly and necessarily incurred to complete the acquisition, such as legal and title fees, consistent with the general historical-cost principle for property, plant, and equipment. Once land is acquired but held for future use rather than actively being developed, however, carrying costs incurred during the holding period, such as property taxes and insurance, are expensed as incurred rather than added to the land's cost, because those costs are not part of bringing a specific asset to its intended use — they are simply the cost of owning the land while it sits idle. If and when active construction begins, carrying costs incurred during that construction period are capitalized instead, but that is a distinct later stage from the pre-construction holding period described here. Capitalizing the annual property taxes and insurance treats routine carrying costs as if they were acquisition or construction costs, which overstates the land's cost basis. Expensing the legal and title fees wrongly excludes costs that are squarely part of completing the purchase. Deferring recognition of the entire $1,040,000 acquisition cost until construction begins incorrectly delays capitalization of a cost that is incurred, and should be recognized, at the time of purchase.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-30 (Property, Plant, and Equipment — initial measurement) and ASC 970-340-25 (real estate carrying costs of land held for future use)

Correct answer: .

The cost depletion method divides a depletion base by the estimated total recoverable units to arrive at a per-unit depletion rate, then multiplies that rate by the units extracted in the period. The depletion base is built from the acquisition cost of the mineral rights, plus development costs incurred to prepare the property for extraction, plus the initial estimated restoration (asset retirement) costs that will be required once extraction ends, less the property's estimated residual value once depleted. Here that is $2,000,000 plus $500,000 plus $200,000, less $100,000, for a $2,600,000 base, divided by 1,000,000 recoverable tons for a $2.60 rate, times 150,000 tons extracted, for $390,000. The option folding the $300,000 of exploration costs into the base is wrong because those costs were already expensed as incurred under the company's stated policy and do not get capitalized a second time into the depletion base. The option excluding the restoration cost and residual value, and the option excluding development costs and the restoration cost, each omit required components of the depletion base, understating or distorting the per-unit rate and the resulting expense.

Source: FASB ASC 930 (Extractive Activities — Mining); cost depletion method and depletion base composition (acquisition, development, and restoration costs, less residual value, divided by estimated recoverable units) as described in standard intermediate accounting references

Correct answer: .

ASC 835-20-25-5 provides that interest capitalization is not suspended during brief interruptions, such as short delays from weather or normal course-of-business pauses, but must be suspended during an extended period in which activities necessary to get the asset ready for its intended use are suspended. The standard does not hinge the outcome on labeling the cause (weather versus a labor dispute) but on whether the interruption is brief or extended and whether substantially all qualifying activity has genuinely stopped. The two-week weather delay is brief and does not require suspension, so capitalization continues through it; the four-month strike, during which no construction-related work of any kind continues, is an extended period of genuine inactivity, so capitalization must be suspended for its duration and would resume once work restarts. The option treating any cessation as an automatic trigger ignores the brief-interruption carve-out. The option requiring abandonment ignores that suspension can be required well short of abandoning the project. The option reversing the two outcomes invents a rule listing specific causes that the standard does not contain; the standard turns on duration and extent of inactivity, not on whether the cause is weather or labor.

Source: FASB ASC 835-20-25-5 (brief interruptions do not require suspension of interest capitalization; capitalization is suspended during extended periods in which activities necessary to get the asset ready for its intended use are suspended)

Correct answer: .

When an asset retirement obligation is settled, ASC 410-20 requires recognizing a gain or loss for any difference between the amount paid to settle the liability and its recorded carrying amount at the settlement date. Here the company paid $575,000 to settle a liability recorded at $610,000, so it recognizes a $35,000 gain in income in the period of settlement; had the cash paid instead exceeded the recorded liability, the difference would be recognized as a loss. The option calling for retroactive restatement of prior accretion is wrong because settlement differences reflect new information resolved only at the settlement date, not an error in prior periods' accretion, which was based on the best available estimates at the time. The option adjusting the platform's carrying amount is wrong because the platform has already been removed from service, leaving no asset basis left to adjust; settlement differences are an income statement item, not a capitalized cost. The option treating the difference as additional current-period accretion is wrong because accretion reflects the passage of time on a discounted liability, a mechanically distinct concept from the gain or loss that arises only once the obligation is actually settled.

Source: FASB ASC 410-20-40-1 (settlement of asset retirement obligations; recognition of a gain or loss for the difference between the settlement amount and the liability's carrying amount)

Correct answer: .

ASC 350-30-35-16 requires an entity to reassess an indefinite-lived intangible asset's useful life each reporting period, and when events or circumstances no longer support an indefinite life, ASC 350-30-35-18 and 35-19 require the asset to be tested for impairment immediately, using the same fair-value-based comparison applied to other indefinite-lived intangibles, before the entity begins amortizing it; only after that impairment test is complete does the resulting carrying amount get amortized prospectively over the newly estimated remaining useful life, with no restatement of prior periods. The option skipping straight to amortization is wrong because the reassessment itself is exactly the kind of event that triggers the required impairment test under the standard. The option calling for retroactive restatement is wrong because changes in an intangible asset's useful life, like changes in a tangible asset's useful life, are accounted for prospectively, never by restating history. The option delaying any change until the next fiscal year is wrong because the reassessment and resulting reclassification take effect in the period the facts and circumstances actually change, not on a fixed annual cycle.

Source: FASB ASC 350-30-35-16 through 35-19 (reassessment of an indefinite-lived intangible asset's useful life; required impairment test before amortization begins)

Correct answer: .

ASC 360-10-35-28 allocates an asset group's impairment loss pro rata among its assets based on their relative carrying amounts, except that the loss allocated to any individual asset cannot reduce that asset's carrying amount below its own fair value whenever that fair value is determinable without undue cost and effort. Asset A represents 40% of the group's $500,000 total carrying amount, so an initial pro rata allocation would assign it $32,000 of the $80,000 loss, but Asset A's $200,000 carrying amount can only absorb a $20,000 loss before hitting its own $180,000 fair value floor. The $12,000 that cannot be allocated to Asset A is reallocated to Asset B, the only other asset in the group, which also bears its own initial 60% share of $48,000, for a total of $60,000. This leaves Asset A at exactly its $180,000 fair value and Asset B at $240,000, summing to the group's $420,000 fair value. The option allocating the loss equally ignores the relative-carrying-amount basis the standard requires. The option applying a straight pro rata split with no adjustment ignores the fair-value floor entirely. The option excluding Asset A altogether overstates the floor's effect, since Asset A still absorbs a loss up to its fair value rather than none at all.

Source: FASB ASC 360-10-35-28 (allocating an impairment loss to the long-lived assets of a group on a pro rata basis, subject to the fair-value floor for any asset with a separately determinable fair value)