Chapter 8
Investing Activities
8-26
in whole or in part.
If Starbucks estimates that it will renew a lease and does not, it will have an
b. Starbucks estimates how much cost it will incur to remove the leasehold improve-
ments at the end of the lease and records an ARO at its fair value. It is unlikely that
AROs are traded in organized markets to the extent that Starbucks could use a
Level 1 or Level 2 valuation. Thus, Starbucks takes the Level 3 approach to fair
than the ARO liability. This situation occurs because the ARO-related asset is
amortized with the leasehold improvements asset and reported as amortization
expense on each year’s income statement. The ARO liability, on the other hand,
accretes (that is, becomes larger) over time. Recall that the ARO liability is
ARO liability.
Income is not affected by the act of reclaiming the property to satisfy the
ARO liability. Cash is decreased, and the ARO liability is decreased. However, if
the cash paid to satisfy the ARO liability is different than expected, a loss is
c. If Starbucks used IFRS, the carrying value of the asset would be compared to the
larger of its fair value in use (discounted future cash flows) and fair value from
sale (fair value in the market – disposal costs). IFRS impairment testing appears
to better estimate the economic decline in the fair value of the asset.
is that managers might be inclined to over-allocate expenses to line items they an-
ticipate might be ignored or underweighted by investors.