HomeServicesImpairment testing — CPC 01 / IAS 36

Impairment testing — recoverable amount of assets

Impairment testing under CPC 01 / IAS 36, with technical assumptions verified in the field: remaining useful life, effective capacity and reinvestment needs of each asset.

Aerial view of an industrial complex — the asset base of a cash-generating unit

When the balance sheet promises more than the asset delivers

The principle behind CPC 01 is simple and strict: no asset may remain on the balance sheet at an amount higher than what the company can recover, whether by using the asset or by selling it. When the carrying amount exceeds the recoverable amount, the difference is an impairment loss — and it must be recognized in profit or loss.

The test is mandatory whenever there is an indication of impairment, and mandatory every year, regardless of any indication, for goodwill arising from expected future profitability and for indefinite-lived intangibles. In practice, it is one of the areas auditors scrutinize most closely — and one of those that depend the most on engineering assumptions, not just finance.

Where engineering comes in. Value in use is the present value of the cash flows the asset will still generate. That depends directly on how much longer it will operate, at what capacity, at what maintenance cost and with what reinvestment needs — engineering questions, answered in the field. An impairment test built on a financial spreadsheet alone, without an on-site inspection and without a remaining useful life study, has fragile assumptions exactly where the auditors will look.

When the test is required

  • External indications of impairment — a significant decline in market value, an adverse change in the business, technological or regulatory environment, an increase in interest rates affecting the discount rate.
  • Internal indications — obsolescence or physical damage, idleness, economic performance below expectations, plans to discontinue or restructure the unit.
  • Mandatory annual test — for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles, regardless of any indication.
  • A period-end close under auditor scrutiny — a qualification or recommendation concerning the recoverability of fixed or intangible assets.
  • Restructurings — discontinuation of units, plant mothballing and asset decommissioning.

What we do

  • Identification of cash-generating units — defining the smallest group of assets that generates independent cash inflows, and allocating the asset base, goodwill and corporate assets to each CGU.
  • Value in use — discounted cash flow with technical assumptions verified through on-site inspection: installed and effective capacity, remaining useful life, maintenance cost and replacement capex.
  • Fair value less costs of disposal — determined from a market perspective, in accordance with CPC 46 / IFRS 13, where this is the relevant measure.
  • Loss measurement and allocation — comparing the recoverable amount with the carrying amount, allocating the loss across the CGU's assets and analyzing reversal in subsequent periods, where applicable.
  • Sensitivity analysis — variation of the discount rate, perpetuity growth and margin, with a break-even schedule for the financial statement disclosure note.
  • Audit support — assumptions memorandum, an open and auditable model and responses to auditor inquiries through to the close.

Methodology

  1. Scope definition — identification of the CGUs, the level of aggregation and the asset base allocated to each unit.
  2. Technical diagnosis — on-site inspection of the assets, verification of installed and effective capacity, state of repair, remaining useful life and reinvestment needs.
  3. Assumption building — volumes, prices, costs, maintenance capex and working capital, based on the approved budget and historical results.
  4. Modeling — discounted cash flow with a discount rate consistent with the asset's risk, an explicit horizon and a substantiated terminal value.
  5. Comparison and measurement — comparing the recoverable amount with the carrying amount, determining and allocating the loss.
  6. Report — assumptions memorandum, an open and auditable model, sensitivity analysis and a draft disclosure.
Impairment is not feasibility. The impairment test looks at the asset already on the balance sheet and answers whether the carrying amount holds up. The economic feasibility study looks forward and answers whether a new investment is justified. Both use discounted cash flow, but they have different standards, purposes and accounting consequences — which is why we treat each as a service in its own right.

Reference standards

CPC 01 / IAS 36
Impairment of assets — the impairment test
CPC 46 / IFRS 13
Fair value measurement and the input hierarchy
CPC 27 / IAS 16
Property, plant and equipment — accounting base and useful life
CPC 04 / IAS 38
Intangibles — annual test for indefinite useful life and goodwill
ICPC 10
Remaining useful life as a projection input
IVS 2025
International Valuation Standards

Deliverables

What you receive: Impairment test report with identification of the CGUs, an open and auditable financial model, a memorandum of technical and economic assumptions, sensitivity analysis, quantification and allocation of the loss and a draft financial statement disclosure note.

Frequently asked questions

Questions about impairment testing — CPC 01 / IAS 36

How often must the impairment test be performed?

Whenever there is an indication of impairment, at any reporting date. And mandatorily every year, regardless of any indication, for goodwill arising from expected future profitability and for indefinite-lived intangibles.

What is the difference between value in use and fair value less costs of disposal?

They are the two measures of the recoverable amount, and the higher of the two prevails. Value in use is the present value of the future cash flows the asset will still generate in the company's current operations. Fair value less costs of disposal is what would be obtained by selling the asset under normal market conditions, net of the costs of disposal.

Why does the test require engineering and not just finance?

Because the model's most sensitive assumptions are technical: how many more years the asset will operate, at what effective capacity, at what maintenance cost and how much reinvestment it will require. Those answers come from an on-site inspection and a remaining useful life study — not from a spreadsheet. That is where auditors tend to concentrate their questions.

Can an impairment loss be reversed?

For most assets, yes, when the circumstances that gave rise to the loss cease to exist — capped at the carrying amount the asset would have had if the loss had never been recognized. The exception is goodwill arising from expected future profitability, whose loss is never reversed.

What is the difference between an impairment test and a feasibility study?

Impairment is a mandatory accounting test on assets already on the balance sheet: it verifies whether the carrying amount is recoverable and, if not, measures the loss. The feasibility study is a decision analysis of a future investment: it answers whether the project creates value, with NPV, IRR and scenarios. Stima provides both services separately, each with the deliverable suited to its purpose.

Need impairment testing — CPC 01 / IAS 36?

Tell us about your case — asset type, purpose and deadline. We reply with a detailed technical proposal and schedule.

Request a quote

Get in touch

Ask a question or request a quote

Write to stimabr@stimabr.com or use one of the channels below. We answer every message — including one-off technical questions, with no obligation.

Where we are

Address
Av. Fagundes Filho, 141 – Conj. 55/56
Denver Office Center – Saúde
São Paulo/SP – CEP 04304-010
Office hours
Monday to Friday, 9 am – 6 pm (BRT)
We serve all of Brazil and clients abroad

Send us a message

Your message goes straight to our inbox. Prefer to write yourself? stimabr@stimabr.com