there will be no operating lease from lessee's point of view any more. but lessee needs to recognise the asset and the name is right to use the asset. but under lessor, still operating lease exists.
The maintenance cost which is 10% is falling under asset also taking into calculation the percentage split. Absolutely incorrect in core design to recognize a lease. you've got 4 pro qualifications. do you really think it's correct?
Very well explained. however, IFRS 16 has too many flaws and regulatory bodies have over complicated it making it transparent although it creates loopholes to evade tax much easier than simply recognising the right to use the asset as a rental payment. Whenever items are thrown onto the balance sheet they can be easily manipulated. I disagree with most IFRS standards as that's what lets the company's getaway with fictitious figures and the auditors of the hook.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
How to identify that the question is about lessor not lessee
So under an Operating lease, the asset will be recognized on the Balance sheet of the lessee as well as the lessor?
How is this possible?
there will be no operating lease from lessee's point of view any more. but lessee needs to recognise the asset and the name is right to use the asset. but under lessor, still operating lease exists.
@@globalapconlinecourse I think IFRS 16 is flawed.
The maintenance cost which is 10% is falling under asset also taking into calculation the percentage split. Absolutely incorrect in core design to recognize a lease. you've got 4 pro qualifications. do you really think it's correct?
i dont think it can be a liabliity on the books of the lessee. it should be rather treated as expense
There are recognition exemptions which allow the asset to be recognised as expenses in the lessee's book.
@@globalapconlinecourse right then accordingly to what you have just said, why is it then a DR as RTUA.?
Very well explained. however, IFRS 16 has too many flaws and regulatory bodies have over complicated it making it transparent although it creates loopholes to evade tax much easier than simply recognising the right to use the asset as a rental payment. Whenever items are thrown onto the balance sheet they can be easily manipulated. I disagree with most IFRS standards as that's what lets the company's getaway with fictitious figures and the auditors of the hook.