Learn the key principles and best practices surrounding capitalizing or expensing subsequent expenditures on Property, Plant, and Equipment assets, including major repairs, betterments, and replacements.
Subsequent expenditures on property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) play a critical role in a company’s financial reporting. Deciding whether an expenditure should be capitalized or expensed can significantly impact financial statements and, by extension, key performance indicators (KPIs) such as return on assets (ROA) or earnings per share (EPS). In this section, we will explore the criteria, best practices, and common pitfalls regarding subsequent expenditures, including repairs, betterments, and replacements.
This discussion builds upon earlier topics in Chapter 12 by focusing on how to treat costs incurred after an asset has been placed in service. We will address the relevant U.S. GAAP guidance, provide practical examples, show illustrative diagrams, and offer tips on handling typical issues—like roof replacements or major overhauls. We will also touch on IFRS comparisons to highlight differences in international practice.
Once an entity purchases a long-lived asset or constructs it in-house, they typically record it at historical cost (including all expenditures necessary to bring the asset to the condition and location intended for use). However, costs don’t stop there. Over an asset’s useful life, a company may incur additional expenses:
• Ordinary repairs and maintenance (e.g., painting, light bulb replacements)
• Major repairs or overhauls (e.g., replacing a building’s roof, engine overhaul on a plane)
• Replacements of significant components (e.g., upgrading a hydraulic system of a crane)
• Improvements or betterments (e.g., expanding a warehouse to increase capacity)
The key question is whether these expenditures should be immediately expensed (thus reducing current period income) or capitalized (thus depreciated over future periods).
Under U.S. GAAP (ASC 360), subsequent expenditures may be capitalized if:
In simple terms, if the expenditure either (a) extends the asset’s useful life beyond the original estimate or (b) adds to the value or functionality of the asset, it may qualify for capitalization. Otherwise, the expenditure is treated as a period expense.
• Ordinary Repairs and Maintenance: These costs typically restore the asset to its original or normal operating capacity. They do not increase life, capacity, or productivity beyond the original estimates.
• Betterments or Improvements: These include structural or technical modifications that enhance an asset’s performance or capacity.
• Replacements or Renewals: These occur when an old component is replaced with a new one (e.g., a building roof). If the new component significantly extends the asset’s useful life or improves its functionality, those costs are capitalized.
Below is a simplified decision diagram illustrating when to capitalize versus expense.
flowchart TB
A[Start: Subsequent Expenditure] --> B{Does it enhance: <br>1) Useful Life? <br>2) Productivity or Capacity?}
B -- No --> C[Expense in current period]
B -- Yes --> D[Capitalize and adjust depreciation]
C --> E[End]
D --> E[End]
In this flowchart, the expenditure is capitalized only if it meets specific criteria (i.e., extending life, improving capacity, improving quality, or reducing operating costs in a manner that was not previously recognized).
Ordinary repairs typically maintain assets in their current operating condition without extending useful life or improving functionality. Examples include:
• Minor repairs to machinery (e.g., replacing bolts and nuts, small parts)
• Repainting walls or a storefront to maintain aesthetic appeal
• Routine safety inspections and minor tune-ups
The guiding principle is that these costs occur regularly and do not provide future economic benefits beyond those originally estimated. Therefore, they are typically charged to expense as incurred.
XYZ Manufacturing decides to repaint its main production facility at a cost of $50,000. The building’s structural integrity remains the same, and its useful life, capacity, or quality of output is not improved beyond the original state. Hence, this $50,000 is considered a maintenance expense in the current period and not capitalized.
Major repairs or overhauls differ from ordinary maintenance in that they may significantly restore or improve the asset’s capacity or performance. Generally, if a major overhaul or repair substantially increases future benefits (for instance, by extending the asset’s life beyond the original estimate), it may be capitalized. However, determining whether a cost truly extends the life can be complex and requires judgment based on engineering reports, prior asset condition, and industry norms.
Consider an airline that performs a substantial overhaul of an aircraft engine, costing $2 million. If the overhaul extends the engine’s useful life by five years beyond the original 20-year estimate, under GAAP, the expenditures could be capitalized as part of the aircraft’s carrying amount or recognized as a separate component (depending on the chosen accounting method). The capitalized amount would then be depreciated over the new estimated remaining useful life of the engine.
Betterments (sometimes called improvements) refer to enhancements that increase an asset’s operating efficiency, capacity, or quality of output. For instance, installing a solar panel system on a building’s rooftop could reduce energy costs and/or increase the building’s environmental compliance or capacity for electricity production.
Examples of betterments include:
• Adding a new wing to a manufacturing plant to accommodate higher production volume.
• Enhancing a software system to allow for increased transactions per second (in business contexts where software is intangible, but the same principle applies for capitalizing intangible development costs if criteria are met).
• Installing high-efficiency HVAC systems in a building to significantly reduce operating costs beyond original expectations.
The key is that the improvement yields additional benefits that were not inherent in the asset’s initially estimated life or capacity.
A replacement is the substitution of one major component with another that is of similar or higher quality. On occasion, the new component substantially extends the overall asset’s service life or improves its performance. If the cost of the old component is known and the replacement extends the life or capacity, you remove the old cost from the books (and any remaining accumulated depreciation) and capitalize the replacement cost. If you cannot separately identify and measure the cost and accumulated depreciation of the old component reliably, you may capitalize the cost of the new component and remove a marginal portion based on engineering estimates or appraisal data if feasible.
A typical scenario is replacing the roof of a factory building. Let’s assume the original roof had an estimated useful life of 15 years, matching the building’s 50-year life at the time of acquisition. After 20 years from the acquisition date, the company replaces the roof because of structural issues discovered.
• If the new roof is of substantially higher quality and extends the building’s total useful life beyond the original 50-year estimate, the replacement (roof cost) should be capitalized.
• If the new roof merely restores the building’s functionality for the remainder of its original life (i.e., the building still has 30 years left in its projected life), an argument can be made that it does not extend the overall building’s life or capacity beyond what was originally estimated. In that case, the cost might still be capitalized if it represents a significant component with a separately identifiable useful life. However, some consider that if the roof is replaced within the original overall projected life of the building, and it simply maintains the building’s original function, the cost might not be considered an extension of the entire building’s life. Instead, it may be recognized as a new component with its own depreciation schedule, while you remove the old roof’s carrying amount if it is identifiable.
The treatment requires professional judgment, adherence to the entity’s capitalization policy, and compliance with relevant accounting guidance.
flowchart TB
AA[Roof Replacement] --> AB{Is the roof cost significant and does it renew or extend building life?}
AB -- Yes, extends life --> AC[Capitalize new roof cost <br> and remove old roof carrying amount]
AB -- No, normal maintenance --> AD[Expense as incurred]
AC --> AE[Depreciate new roof <br> over new or remaining useful life]
AD --> AE[End]
• The cost of the new component is $120,000.
• The carrying value of the old component is $20,000 (original cost $100,000 less accumulated depreciation $80,000).
• The new component significantly enhances the capacity of the machine, qualifying for capitalization.
Remove the old component from the asset account:
(Dr) Accumulated Depreciation – Machine $80,000
(Dr) Loss on Disposal of Component (if any) $20,000
(Cr) Machine (old component) $100,000
Capitalize the cost of the new component:
(Dr) Machine (new component) $120,000
(Cr) Cash/Accounts Payable $120,000
Depreciate the new component over its useful life (or the remaining life of the machine, whichever is appropriate).
If a major overhaul cost of $500,000 extends the useful life of an asset from 10 years to 12 years, and the current book value is $1,200,000 with 4 years of useful life left:
Capitalize the overhaul cost:
(Dr) Asset – Overhaul $500,000
(Cr) Cash/Accounts Payable $500,000
Revise the depreciation schedule for the combined carrying amount ($1,700,000) over the new remaining life of 6 years.
Companies frequently establish a minimum dollar threshold below which all costs are expensed, even if they have many of the capitalization indicators. This threshold is designed for practical expediency and to avoid excessive administrative costs associated with tracking relatively minor expenditures (e.g., $1,000 or $5,000).
Consistency in application and proper documentation are essential:
• Written internal policies should define what qualifies as a capital expenditure vs. maintenance.
• Audit trails should include proper approvals, engineering reports (if needed), or managerial documentation demonstrating that the asset’s life or capacity is extended.
Under IFRS (IAS 16 – Property, Plant, and Equipment), the same general principle applies. Subsequent costs are capitalized if they meet the definition of an asset—i.e., they bring probable future economic benefits to the entity and can be reliably measured. IFRS emphasizes a component approach. If the replaced part is a separately identifiable component, its carrying value should be derecognized; the cost of the new component should be capitalized and depreciated over its expected useful life.
| Key Differences | U.S. GAAP (ASC 360) | IFRS (IAS 16) |
|---|---|---|
| Component Approach | Not strictly required but permitted. | Required. Components with significant costs must be separately depreciated. |
| Derecognition | Encouraged if cost of old component can be measured reliably. | Required when old component is replaced. |
| General Guidance | Capitalize if betterment extends life or capacity, or improves quality of output. | Similar principle: Capitalize if probable future economic benefits. |
Overlooking Capitalization Criteria
Some companies might expense all subsequent expenditures without carefully evaluating whether a cost extends an asset’s useful life or enhances capacity. This can understate assets and overstate current period expenses.
Premature Capitalization
Conversely, management might incorrectly capitalize ordinary maintenance to inflate the balance sheet and reduce current period expenses. This practice can lead to overstated assets and understated expenses, possibly misrepresenting financial performance.
Insufficient Documentation
Without clear documentation (e.g., engineering analyses, cost-benefit studies), the judgment surrounding major repairs or replacements becomes vulnerable to error or bias.
Forgetting to Remove the Old Component
In a replacement situation, failing to remove the carrying value of the replaced component can lead to double-counting assets.
Ignoring the Final Stage
After a significant replacement, management should update depreciation schedules to ensure consistent treatment for the new asset cost.
Company ABC expands an existing warehouse to include an additional loading dock and upfit the interior to hold automated storage and retrieval systems. The total cost is $2 million. The expansion will enable the warehouse, which was previously handling 50 shipments an hour, to handle 75 shipments an hour.
• Since the expansion increases operating capacity beyond the original design, it clearly indicates probable future economic benefits.
• The $2 million will be capitalized, likely as a building improvement.
• The company recalculates the depreciation of the new additions over their estimated useful life, which may coincide with the original warehouse or be separate if they have different economic lifespans.
Beyond compliance, capitalizing appropriate improvements and replacements can signal growth, modernization, and efficiency to investors. However, it also increases fixed assets on the balance sheet, potentially affecting key ratios such as asset turnover. Over-capitalization can inflate earnings in the short term, but the ongoing depreciation expense will impact the bottom line in future periods. Thus, maintaining accuracy and transparency in subsequent expenditure accounting is vital.
• Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 360, “Property, Plant, and Equipment.”
• International Accounting Standard (IAS) 16, “Property, Plant, and Equipment.”
• AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide: Property, Plant, and Equipment for industry-specific applications.
• FASB Conceptual Framework (primarily discussing relevance and faithful representation).
Additional in-depth technical guidance is also available through Big Four Accounting Firm publications on PP&E componentization and best practices.
FAR CPA Hardest Mock Exams: In-Depth & Clear Explanations
Financial Accounting and Reporting (FAR) CPA Mocks: 6 Full (1,500 Qs), Harder Than Real! In-Depth & Clear. Crush With Confidence!
Disclaimer: This course is not endorsed by or affiliated with the AICPA, NASBA, or any official CPA Examination authority. All content is for educational and preparatory purposes only.