This question comes from the Dagmar case in FRA.
“I do not think we have to consider it impaired because the remaining goodwill from the acquisition has not been fully written off.”
This statement is apparently true. Why? The reasoning is “Goodwill is not tested separately for impairment for investments using the equity method.”
I thought goodwill was tested annually for impairment?
Also based on the statement if a company is considered impaired, does that mean goodwill is the first thing to be written off?
“I do not think we have to consider it impaired because the remaining goodwill from the acquisition has not been fully written off.”
This statement is apparently true. Why? The reasoning is “Goodwill is not tested separately for impairment for investments using the equity method.”
I thought goodwill was tested annually for impairment?
Also based on the statement if a company is considered impaired, does that mean goodwill is the first thing to be written off?