Key Points
- Recoverable amount only needs to be determined when indicators of impairment exist, unless the asset is goodwill or an intangible with an indefinite useful life.
- The test compares carrying amount to recoverable amount; any excess is recognised as an impairment loss immediately in profit or loss.
- IAS 36.33 permits value in use (VIU) to be used alone if it already exceeds carrying amount, avoiding the cost of obtaining a fair value less costs of disposal (FVLCD) estimate.
- Errors in selecting the discount rate for value in use are the single most common cause of misstated recoverable amounts on mid-tier engagements.
What is recoverable amount?
A client's CFO sends over the impairment model two days before sign-off. The discount rate dropped half a point from last year, the terminal growth rate crept up, and the conclusion is the same as always: no impairment. We've seen this on about half the engagements involving goodwill or long-lived assets. The question the team has to answer isn't whether the spreadsheet recalculates correctly. It's whether the recoverable amount is real.
Recoverable amount is defined under IAS 36 as the higher of an asset's fair value less costs of disposal (FVLCD) and its value in use (VIU). IAS 36.18 requires an entity to test an asset for impairment whenever indicators suggest that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. For goodwill and indefinite-life intangible assets, IAS 36.10 mandates the test annually regardless of indicators. The recoverable amount is determined at the individual asset level unless the asset doesn't generate cash inflows largely independent of other assets, in which case the entity identifies the cash-generating unit (CGU) to which it belongs and tests at that level ( IAS 36.22 ).
The standard gives the entity a practical shortcut. If either FVLCD or VIU exceeds the carrying amount, the asset isn't impaired and the entity doesn't need to estimate the other measure ( IAS 36.19 ). At firms like ours, we see non-financial entities default to VIU because it relies on management's own cash flow projections rather than an external valuation. That default, however, shifts the audit risk squarely onto the discount rate, growth assumptions, terminal value calculation, and whether anyone actually challenged those inputs or just rolled them forward from last year (SALY with a methodology shield).
Worked example: Bergström Skog AB
Client: Swedish forestry and paper company, FY2025, revenue EUR 75M, IFRS reporter. Bergström operates a paper mill in Sundsvall that has experienced declining margins because of reduced demand for uncoated printing paper. The mill's carrying amount (including allocated goodwill of EUR 1,200,000 from a 2019 acquisition) is EUR 8,400,000 at 31 December 2025.
Step 1 — Identify the CGU
The Sundsvall mill is the smallest group of assets generating cash inflows largely independent of other assets. Bergström's two other mills produce different paper grades sold to different customer bases. The CGU is the Sundsvall mill, including allocated goodwill.
Step 2 — Estimate VIU
Management projects net cash flows over five years based on current order book and contracted prices, declining at 3% annually to reflect the structural market shift. Terminal value assumes zero real growth. The pre-tax discount rate is 9.8%, derived from the weighted average cost of capital adjusted for asset-specific risks. The present value of projected cash flows is EUR 7,150,000.
Step 3 — Assess FVLCD
Bergström obtains a broker opinion valuing the mill at EUR 6,800,000, with estimated disposal costs of EUR 340,000. FVLCD is EUR 6,460,000.
Step 4 — Determine recoverable amount and impairment loss
Recoverable amount is the higher of VIU (EUR 7,150,000) and FVLCD (EUR 6,460,000). Recoverable amount is EUR 7,150,000. The carrying amount of EUR 8,400,000 exceeds this by EUR 1,250,000. Under IAS 36.104 , the impairment loss is allocated first to goodwill (EUR 1,200,000), reducing goodwill to nil. The remaining EUR 50,000 reduces the carrying amounts of the mill's other assets on a pro-rata basis.
Conclusion: the recoverable amount of EUR 7,150,000 produces a total impairment loss of EUR 1,250,000. The measurement is defensible because the VIU calculation is anchored to board-approved budgets and the discount rate is built from observable market inputs, while a broker opinion independently cross-checks the FVLCD alternative. That combination of internal and external evidence is what separates a tested number from an assumption copied forward.
Why it matters in practice
- The FRC's 2023 thematic review of IAS 36 disclosures found that entities frequently failed to disclose the key assumptions underpinning recoverable amount calculations, particularly the discount rate and growth rate used in VIU models. IAS 36.134 (d) requires disclosure of each key assumption.
- Teams often test recoverable amount using a post-tax discount rate applied to post-tax cash flows, then present the result as if it were a pre-tax calculation. IAS 36.55 requires VIU to be determined using a pre-tax discount rate applied to pre-tax cash flows. It's one of those errors that feels minor in the spreadsheet but can shift the recoverable amount by hundreds of thousands on a mid-sized CGU.
Recoverable amount vs. carrying amount
| Dimension | Recoverable amount ( IAS 36 ) | Carrying amount |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Higher of fair value less costs of disposal and value in use | Amount at which the asset is recognised on the balance sheet after depreciation and any previous impairment losses |
| Purpose | Ceiling for impairment testing | Basis against which the ceiling is compared |
| Measurement frequency | When impairment indicators exist (annually for goodwill and indefinite-life intangibles) | Updated continuously through depreciation and amortisation (or revaluation where applicable) |
| Key judgment | Discount rate selection, cash flow projections, terminal value assumptions, and growth rate sensitivity | Depreciation method and useful life (largely mechanical) |
| Effect of error | Overstated recoverable amount hides an impairment loss, inflating assets and profit | Overstated carrying amount triggers the same balance sheet overstatement but through incorrect depreciation rather than a missed impairment |
The distinction matters on engagements because carrying amount is largely mechanical (based on acquisition cost and depreciation policy) while recoverable amount requires forward-looking judgment. Auditors who focus their testing only on whether impairment indicators exist, without then scrutinising the recoverable amount model, miss the point where management bias most affects the FS.
Related terms
Related tools
Related reading
Frequently asked questions
Do I need to calculate both value in use and fair value less costs of disposal?
Not always. IAS 36.19 permits the entity to stop at whichever measure it determines first, provided that measure already exceeds the carrying amount. If VIU is EUR 7,150,000 and the carrying amount is EUR 6,000,000, no fair value estimate is required. In our experience, practitioners estimate VIU first because the inputs (management cash flow forecasts) are already available on the engagement file.
When does recoverable amount need to be tested for goodwill?
IAS 36.10(b) requires an annual impairment test for goodwill, regardless of whether impairment indicators exist. The test is performed at the CGU level (or group of CGUs) to which the goodwill is allocated. Timing is flexible within the reporting period, but IAS 36.96 requires the test to be performed at the same time each year.
How do I audit the discount rate in a recoverable amount calculation?
Obtain management's discount rate build-up and test each component independently: the risk-free rate against government bond yields, the equity risk premium against published market data, the beta against sector comparables, and any asset-specific adjustments against the engagement's risk assessment. ISA 540.18 requires the auditor to evaluate whether the assumptions are reasonable. Compare the resulting rate to rates used by listed peers in the same sector and jurisdiction as a cross-check.