When it comes to accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment (PPE), the two most widely accepted methods are the Cost Model and the Revaluation Model. Both methods are recognized by international accounting standards such as IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), particularly IAS 16, but they result in significantly different financial statements. Choosing between the two models can have lasting impacts on an organization’s financial health, so understanding the mechanics and implications of both is essential.
In this tutorial, we will explore both models by diving into their core concepts, their impact on financial statements, and examples with journal entries and calculations.
Overview of the Cost Model vs. Revaluation Model
- Cost Model: Under the cost model, PPE is carried at its historical cost, minus accumulated depreciation and impairment losses. This model does not consider changes in the fair value of the asset after its initial recognition.
- Revaluation Model: Under the revaluation model, PPE is carried at its fair value at the date of revaluation, minus any accumulated depreciation and impairment losses. This model accounts for changes in the fair value of the asset, which can either increase or decrease the carrying amount of the asset over time.
The main difference between the two models lies in whether or not the carrying amount of an asset is updated to reflect its fair value. Each model has its pros and cons, which we’ll address with examples.
1. Cost Model: Concept and Journal Entries
The cost model is straightforward. You purchase an asset and recognize it at its historical cost. Over time, depreciation reduces the carrying amount. Here’s how it works.
Example:
A company purchases machinery for $50,000 on January 1, 2024. The machine has an estimated useful life of 5 years and no residual value. The company chooses the straight-line method of depreciation.
Initial Journal Entry (Cost Model)
The initial recognition of the asset under the cost model is simple:
| Date | Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/01/2024 | Machinery | $50,000 | |
| Cash (or Bank) | $50,000 |
Depreciation Journal Entry (Cost Model)
Using the straight-line method, the annual depreciation expense would be calculated as:
| Date | Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/31/2024 | Depreciation Expense | $10,000 | |
| Accumulated Depreciation | $10,000 |
This process continues each year, reducing the carrying amount of the asset by $10,000 annually until the machinery is fully depreciated after five years.
Financial Impact (Cost Model)
Under the cost model, the machinery would appear on the company’s balance sheet like this after one year:
| Balance Sheet as of 12/31/2024 | |
|---|---|
| Property, Plant & Equipment: Machinery | $50,000 |
| Less: Accumulated Depreciation | ($10,000) |
| Net Carrying Amount | $40,000 |
In the income statement, the depreciation expense for the year would reduce net income:
| Income Statement for 2024 | |
|---|---|
| Depreciation Expense | $10,000 |
| Net Income (after other expenses) | (Lowered by $10,000) |
The cost model keeps the asset’s carrying value fixed at its original cost, adjusted only for depreciation and impairment. This is particularly useful for assets whose fair value is either difficult to estimate or whose value doesn’t fluctuate significantly over time.
2. Revaluation Model: Concept and Journal Entries
In the revaluation model, the carrying amount of PPE is adjusted to reflect its fair value at specific revaluation dates. This method is used for assets whose fair value can fluctuate significantly over time, such as land or buildings.
Example:
Let’s consider the same machinery purchase for $50,000 on January 1, 2024, with a useful life of 5 years. Now, suppose that on December 31, 2025, the fair value of the machinery has increased to $45,000 due to improvements in market conditions.
Initial Journal Entry (Revaluation Model)
The initial entry would be identical to the cost model:
| Date | Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/01/2024 | Machinery | $50,000 | |
| Cash (or Bank) | $50,000 |
Depreciation for Year 1 (Revaluation Model)
In the first year, the depreciation would be the same as in the cost model:
| Date | Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/31/2024 | Depreciation Expense | $10,000 | |
| Accumulated Depreciation | $10,000 |
After the first year, the carrying amount of the machinery is $40,000 (original cost of $50,000 minus $10,000 depreciation).
Revaluation Journal Entry
On December 31, 2025, the machinery’s fair value has increased to $45,000. At that point, we adjust the carrying amount to match its new fair value.
First, calculate the depreciation for year two:
The carrying amount before revaluation on December 31, 2025, would be:
Now, we adjust the carrying amount to the revalued amount of $45,000. The difference is:
Journal Entry:
| Date | Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/31/2025 | Accumulated Depreciation | $20,000 | |
| Machinery | $20,000 | ||
| 12/31/2025 | Machinery | $15,000 | |
| Revaluation Surplus (Equity) | $15,000 |
Depreciation After Revaluation
The revalued carrying amount ($45,000) will now be depreciated over the remaining three years. The new annual depreciation expense is:
Financial Impact (Revaluation Model)
After revaluation, the machinery’s carrying amount and the impact on the financial statements would look like this:
| Balance Sheet as of 12/31/2025 | |
|---|---|
| Property, Plant & Equipment: Machinery | $45,000 |
| Less: Accumulated Depreciation | ($0) |
| Net Carrying Amount | $45,000 |
| Revaluation Surplus (Equity) | $15,000 |
In the income statement, the depreciation expense for 2025 would be $10,000 (before revaluation). After revaluation, the future depreciation expense will be $15,000 annually.
| Income Statement for 2025 | |
|---|---|
| Depreciation Expense | $10,000 |
| Revaluation Gain (Other Comprehensive Income) | $15,000 |
3. Impact on Financial Statements and Analysis
Balance Sheet
Under the Cost Model, the value of the asset remains fixed, except for depreciation and impairment adjustments. Over time, the carrying amount of the asset steadily decreases.
In contrast, the Revaluation Model allows the carrying amount to fluctuate in line with market conditions. This gives a more dynamic view of the asset’s value but also introduces volatility into the balance sheet. The revaluation surplus is recognized in equity under Other Comprehensive Income (OCI), and this adjustment can result in a significantly higher asset value than the cost model.
Income Statement
The Cost Model results in stable depreciation expenses each year, which simplifies forecasting and financial planning. The company’s net income reflects this stability.
The Revaluation Model, on the other hand, can lead to fluctuations in depreciation expenses as the asset’s carrying amount is adjusted. Additionally, gains and losses from revaluations are recognized in OCI, which does not impact the company’s net income directly but affects total comprehensive income.
Cash Flow Statement
Neither model impacts cash flows directly since depreciation and revaluation do not involve actual cash transactions. However, the method chosen can influence stakeholders’ perceptions of the company’s financial health, indirectly affecting financing and investment decisions.
4. Key Considerations for Choosing Between the Models
The decision to choose between the cost model and the revaluation model hinges on several factors:
- Volatility of Asset Values: If the assets in question experience significant fluctuations in market value, the revaluation model provides a more accurate representation of the asset’s current value. This is particularly relevant for real estate, where market conditions can cause property values to rise or fall.
- Management Preferences: Some companies prefer stability and predictability in their financial statements, opting for the cost model to maintain consistent depreciation expenses and avoid revaluation volatility.
- Regulatory Requirements: In some jurisdictions, companies may be required to use one model over the other for certain types of assets. International subsidiaries adhering to IFRS may have different reporting requirements than those following local GAAP.
- Impact on Ratios: The model chosen affects key financial ratios, such as Return on Assets (ROA) and Debt-to-Equity. The revaluation model can inflate asset values, improving ROA, but may also distort other ratios.
Conclusion
Choosing between the cost model and the revaluation model is not a one-size-fits-all decision. The Cost Model offers simplicity and stability but may not provide an accurate representation of an asset’s current market value. The Revaluation Model reflects fair value but introduces complexity and volatility into the financial statements.
In making this choice, management must consider the nature of the assets, market conditions, regulatory requirements, and how each model aligns with the company’s financial strategy. A well-thought-out decision can enhance the transparency and relevance of financial reporting, aiding stakeholders in making more informed decisions.