Impairment Calculator
for Not-for-Profit
Calculate impairment for not-for-profit assets under IAS 36. Adapted for service-delivery assets where cash flows are limited and depreciated replacement cost may be the primary measure.
Impairment testing, audit-ready.
Not just calculated.
Email unlocks the free download.
No payment required. Unlock above to download the full working paper.
IAS 36 impairment testing for Not-for-Profit
Not-for-profit (NFP) entities face a fundamental tension with IAS 36. The standard's core mechanism compares carrying amount to recoverable amount, defined as the higher of VIU and FVLCOD. VIU is built on projected cash inflows. But many NFP assets don't generate cash inflows at all. A community centre, a heritage building used for programme delivery, or a fleet of vehicles serving beneficiaries produces social outcomes rather than revenue. IAS 36.5 acknowledges this by referencing "service potential" for public sector entities, but for NFPs reporting under full IFRS (or local equivalents that incorporate IAS 36), the practical question is how to measure recoverable amount when cash flows are minimal.
The answer depends on the jurisdiction and reporting framework. Under full IFRS, an NFP must apply IAS 36 as written, which means building a VIU model using whatever cash inflows the asset generates (grant income tied to asset use, rental income from partial letting, fees charged for services). If VIU is negligible, the entity relies on FVLCOD. For specialised NFP assets with no active market (a purpose-built hospice, a modified community transport vehicle), FVLCOD may need to be estimated using depreciated replacement cost under IFRS 13's cost approach. This is a significant exercise that requires estimating the current replacement cost of the asset and adjusting for physical depreciation, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence. Some jurisdictions have specific NFP guidance: AASB 136 in Australia includes provisions for not-for-profit entities, and FRS 102 Section 27 in the UK applies to most UK charities with a simplified impairment model.
Common pitfalls for NFPs include failing to identify impairment indicators in the first place. Many NFPs don't have the financial reporting infrastructure to monitor asset performance against expectations, which is the internal indicator in IAS 36.12(g). A charity that purchased a building for GBP 2M five years ago may not track whether the building's contribution to service delivery has declined. External indicators are easier to spot: a decline in property values, a loss of a major grant that funded the programme using the asset, or a government policy change that reduces demand for the service. Auditors of NFPs should set planning expectations for impairment testing at the engagement planning stage and ensure management understands its obligation to monitor indicators throughout the year.
For NFP entities using this calculator, input the carrying amount of the asset or CGU. If the asset generates some cash inflows (grant income, service fees), model those in the VIU calculation. Set the discount rate to a social discount rate or the entity's borrowing rate, as many NFPs don't have a traditional WACC. The UK HM Treasury Green Book recommends a 3.5% real social discount rate for public sector appraisals, which some NFPs use as a starting reference. Terminal growth rates for grant-dependent NFPs should be conservative (0.5% to 1.5%) unless the entity has contractual multi-year funding commitments. If the VIU result is well below carrying amount, consider whether FVLCOD using depreciated replacement cost produces a higher figure.