
Answers
© EWP Go to www.emilewoolfpublishing.com for Q/As, Notes & Study Guides 643
Disclosures relevant to Engina
The following outlines the related party disclosure requirements for the three
transactions you have specifically requested comment on. It is your responsibility to
bring any further related party transactions to our attention in order that they can
also be incorporated into your financial statement disclosures.
(a) Sale of goods to directors
The sale of goods and a company car to Mr Satay both constitute related party
transactions, due to Mr Satay’s position as a director of Engina. IAS 24
requires disclosure of all related party transactions with key management
personnel. However, accounting standards only apply to material
transactions. An item is considered material where knowledge of that
transaction might influence the decisions of a user of the financial statements.
Materiality is not just a matter of size, as small transactions with a director
may still be of relevance to an investor if the transaction is material to the
director, despite not being material to the entity.
In the situation described, the transactions amount to $600,000 of sales and the
sale of a company car for $45,000 (market value $80,000). In terms of value
these transactions appear not to be material to Engina and neither do they
appear to be material in value to Mr Satay. However, given the sensitive
nature of transactions with directors, and especially senior directors like Mr
Satay, the transactions should be disclosed in the financial statements in
accordance with good corporate governance practice.
Significant contracts with directors, such as these with Mr Satay, may also
require disclosure by the local Stock Exchange.
(b)
Hotel property
The sale of the hotel to the brother of Mr Soy, constitutes a related party
transaction because of Mr Soy’s status as Managing Director. The property
seems to have been sold at below market price and IAS 24 requires disclosure
of any information surrounding a transaction which will allow the reader to
understand its impact on the financial statements.
The hotel had a carrying value of $5m, but given the fall in market values it
should have been written down to its recoverable amount in accordance with
IAS 36
Impairment. Recoverable amount is measured at the higher of value in
use ($3.6m) and fair value minus costs of sale ($4.3 - 0.2m). Hence the property
should have been recorded in the statement of financial position at $4.1m.
As the property was sold at $100,000 less than this impaired value, disclosure
of this fact should be made, together with any other information relevant to
the reader, such as the reason for the sale in light of the expected decline in
prices in the future.
(c)
Mr Satay
Mr Satay has investments in 100% of the equity of Car and 80% of the equity
of Wheel. In turn, Wheel owns 100% of Engina. Engina and Wheel are related
because of their parent-subsidiary relationship. In addition, because all three
entities are under the common control of Mr Satay, IAS 24 also considers
Engina and Car to be related. Therefore, the transactions between Engina and
both Wheel and Car are related party transactions.