In the period when operations that meet the criteria in
ASC 205-20 for discontinued operations are disposed of or classified as held-for-sale, prior years’ results are segregated retrospectively between continuing and discontinued operations in accordance with
ASC 205-20-45-3 through
ASC 205-20-45-5. When this occurs, a new allocation of tax expense or benefit to continuing operations must be determined for the prior years.
ASC 740-270-45-8 specifies that the amount of tax to be allocated to discontinued operations should be the difference between the tax originally allocated to continuing operations and the tax allocated to the restated amount of continuing operations. Amounts of tax allocated to components of income (loss) other than continuing operations recognized in prior years should not be adjusted in recasting the financial statements for the discontinued operation. This prescribed “with-and-without” allocation approach will often result in a different amount than would result from a complete reapplication of the intraperiod allocation rules.
The reallocation between continuing and discontinued operations of the tax expense originally allocated to continuing operations should be based entirely on estimates that were made in preparing the prior years' financial statements and should not reflect any hindsight. While
ASC 740-270-45-8 specifically applies to interim financial reporting, we believe its provisions apply to restating prior annual periods as well. See Example FSP 16-1 for the accounting when a change in tax law occurred in the prior period being restated for discontinued operations.
When the prior years include changes in the valuation allowance for beginning-of-year DTAs, however, a question arises as to whether any of the change should be attributed to the discontinued operations. To the extent the discontinued operations were included in a consolidated tax return along with the remaining continuing operations, the change in valuation allowance resulting from the change in judgment about the realizability of DTAs in future years should be recorded entirely in continuing operations consistent with the "general rule" set forth in
ASC 740-10-45-20.
This would be the case even if the change in judgment (at the time) related to beginning-of-year DTAs that arose in operations that are now classified as discontinued or as a result of income that was expected from those now discontinued operations. As provided in
TX 12.3.2.4, if the benefit of a loss is not recognized in the year in which the loss is incurred, it will not, when recognized in a subsequent year, be classified on the basis of the source of the loss. Thus, the fact that a loss carryforward or deductible difference arose from operations in a prior year that subsequently were classified as discontinued would not be relevant in classifying the tax benefit initially recognized in the current year.
There is one situation, however, where departure from the general rule may be appropriate. If the discontinued operations filed a separate tax return, it may be appropriate to record in discontinued operations the change in assessment of the realizability of DTAs in future years. However, in situations where a valuation allowance is required in a spin-off transaction, the recognition of a valuation allowance may be required to be reflected through continuing operations. Refer to
TX 14.8.1.
A question also could arise when the disposal results in a different realization, or estimate of future realization, of DTAs from that reflected in the beginning-of-year valuation allowance. DTAs (or DTLs) that relate to a subsidiary's inside basis temporary differences may simply disappear, perhaps indirectly realized in the pre-tax gain or loss on sale of the subsidiary's stock. These tax effects should be reflected as the tax effects of the gain or loss on disposal, even though implicitly they may reflect a change in the valuation allowance related to beginning-of-year DTAs.
In the event that there is a change to the reporting entity's estimated tax rate (e.g., change in blended state tax rate) within a particular jurisdiction as a direct result of the sale of discontinued operations, a question may arise as to whether the adjustment should be reflected in continuing operations or discontinued operations. Although the need to adjust the estimated tax rate arose because of discontinued operations, the remaining temporary differences are part of continuing operations. Therefore, the impact of revaluing the reporting entity's DTAs and DTLs should be reflected in continuing operations.
With respect to discontinued operations, we believe the net effect of the change in estimated tax rate generally should be reflected in the period in which the subsidiary is classified as held for sale.