- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
If you are studying Becker, I came across this wording in chapter 2. It is in regards to impairments…
“… this quantitative impairment test is not necessary if, after assessing relevant qualitative factors, an entity determines that it is NOT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that the fair value of the indefinite life intangible asset is less than its carrying amount.”
… What the fuuuuuhh??
I did a little googling and read somewhere that this actually isn’t a double negative. I don’t care what you call it, I think it’s very silly and I don’t like it. Would not the sentence not have the same meaning if you took out both of those “not”s ? (do you see what I did there?)
DONE
Becker
FAR: 05/02/13 - 87
AUD: 05/22/13 - 79
REG: 07/02/13 - 66 🙁 Retake 4/1/14 - 81
BEC: 10/04/13 - 79Woof
- The topic ‘"Not more likely than not"’ is closed to new replies.