Intangible Assets and the Effects of AASB 138

CO5123 Group Assignment

Names: Xinyu Chen and Shannon Frick

Student IDs: 11906467 and 11159183
Subject Name: Advanced Issues in Accounting
Subject Code: CO5123
Subject Coordinator: David Smorfitt
Due Date: 5th May, 2009
11906467, 11159183

Table of Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Intangible Assets: An Overview.............................................................................................3
Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January 2005.............................................4
Changes to Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB 138.....................................................6
Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB 138.....................................................................6
Australian Accounting Review Report 2008..........................................................................6
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets 2007................................8
Student Investigation of Two Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed Entities.................................8
How Intangible Assets Affect the Balance Sheet................................................................9
Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total Assets..................................................................9
Debt Ratio.........................................................................................................................11
Return on Assets (ROA)...................................................................................................12
Asset Turnover..................................................................................................................13
Further Industry Comparison............................................................................................13
Conclusion................................................................................................................................14
References................................................................................................................................16
Appendices...............................................................................................................................18
Appendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008.......................................18
Appendix B: Technology One Limited Income Statement 2007/2008................................19
Appendix C: Domino’s Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008........................................19
Appendix C: Domino’s Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008........................................20
Appendix D: Domino’s Pizza Limited Income Statement 2007/2008.................................21
Appendix E: Peer Reviews...................................................................................................22

2
11906467, 11159183

Abstract

Intangible assets have been given a lot of attention by accounting professionals and
other parties involved with their financial reporting lately, due to the difficulty they present in
being precisely valued, classified and accounted for. For some companies, intangible assets
make up the majority of their total company’s assets; for other companies, intangible assets
are very small part of their total assets. In either case, accounting treatment of intangible
assets has seen some interesting twists occur in the accounting world, especially after the
introduction of AASB 138 ‘Intangible Assets’ in 2005. This paper aims to expose some of
the new ways intangible assets are being accounted for in financial reporting regarding
intangible assets since the inception of the new standard.

Introduction
Intangible Assets: An Overview

Intangible assets are those assets that are identifiable, have no physical substance, and
are non-monetary. Companies frequently use their resources, or incur liabilities, upon
acquiring development, maintenance or enhancement of intangible assets (CPA Australia,
2009a). Some common examples of intangible assets include software, patents, copyrights,
motion picture films, customer lists, mortgage servicing rights, fishing licenses, import
quotas, franchises, customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, market share and
marketing rights (CPA Australia, 2009a). Common headings that intangible assets fall under
include systems, technology, licenses, intellectual property, market knowledge, trademarks
(including brand names and publishing titles), copyright, franchises, patents, marketing rights
and customer lists (Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance
[GWADTF], 2009).

Accounting treatment for intangible assets is outlined in the Australian Accounting

Standards Board’s standard AASB 138 ‘Intangible Assets’, which was originally introduced
on January 1 2005, along with 40 other standards in an initiative to comply with International
Financial Reporting Standards. Under AASB 138, an intangible asset must be identifiable,
proven to give future economic benefits that of which are in control by the entity, and be able

3
11906467, 11159183

to be valued at a specific cost. (GWADTF, 2009) Expenses incurred on acquiring, developing

and enhancing intangible resources (for example, new systems, processes, market knowledge
or intellectual property) cannot be recognised as intangible assets unless an asset can be
separately identified from these expenses and control of the asset is with the company.
AASB 138 lists important exceptions to intangible assets that include internally generated
brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and similar items (GWADTF, 2009).

AASB 138 specifies that the amortisation of an intangible asset with a finite useful
life involves systematically allocating a depreciable amount over an intangible asset’s useful
life in a manner that best represents the expected consumption of the asset’s future economic
benefits (p. 107 and p. 108). Those intangible assets with indefinite lives are, of course, not
to be amortised, seeing as how there is no foreseeable limit to the period over which they are
expected to generate net cash inflows. All intangible assets that are fully amortised or have
no future economic benefits being derived from their use must be derecognised on disposal,
and any gains or losses on this derecognition must be included in the income statement (p.
113).

Intangible assets are commonly confused with goodwill. Goodwill is different from
intangible assets in that it cannot be identified, measured, or separated, nor can it be
determined if future economic benefits that are attributable to it will flow to the company. In
order to be identifiable, an intangible asset must be separable, or come about from a
contractual or legal right. Separable assets are capable of being separated from the entity, and
have the ability to be acquired, transferred, rented, licensed or exchanged. Thus, Goodwill
does not fit the requirements of identifiability and separability, as do intangible assets
(GWADTF, 2009)

Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January 2005

On January 1st, 2005, Australian entities made a change from AGAAP standards to
AIRFRS compliancy for their 2005/2006 financial year reporting periods. This applied to the
public sector, along with most reporting entities and their subsidiaries. The AIRFRS
compliance included the accounting standard AASB 138 ‘Intangible Assets.’ Prior to the
inception AASB 138, there was no single specific standard in place for the accounting of
intangible assets. AASB 138 replaced the existing requirements that applied to intangible
assets, which were (GWADTF, 2009):
4
11906467, 11159183

• AAS 4/ AASB 1021 ‘Depreciation’

• AAS 10/AASB 1010 ‘Recoverable Amount of Non-Current Assets’
• AAS 13/AASB 1011 ‘Accounting for Research and Development’
• AAS 18/AASB 1013 ‘Accounting for Goodwill’
• AAS 21/AASB 1015 ‘Acquisition of Assets’
• AASB 1041 ‘Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’
• Several Urgent Issues Group abstracts to take into account International Financial
Reporting Standards (Parker, 2004).

The AASB 138 standard applies to all intangible assets except for those intangible assets
that are already covered by other AASB standards, financial assets, and mineral rights and
expenditure on the exploration, development and extraction of mineral resources. The other
AASB standards that cover these classifications of intangible assets outside of AASB 138 are
shown below in Table 1:

AASB Standard Introduced 01/01/2005 Application to Intangible Assets

AASB102 ‘Inventories’ and AASB 111
‘Construction Contracts’ :
AASB 112 ‘Income Taxes’:
AASB 117 ‘Leases’ :
AASB 3 ‘Business Combinations’
AASB 5 ‘Non-Current Assets Held for Sale’
AASB 136 ‘Impairment of Assets’
Table 1: AASB Standards Other than AASB 138 for Treating Intangible Assets after 1/1/05
Intangible assets held for sale in the ordinary
course of business
Deferred tax assets involving intangibles
Leases involving intangibles
When Goodwill is acquired in a business
combination
Intangible assets held for sale
Intangibles are assessed for impairment at
each reporting date

Changes to Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB 138

The key differences from the requirements of the previous standards for intangible assets
listed above and the AASB 138 ‘Intangible Assets’ standard include the following
(GWADTF, 2009):

5
11906467, 11159183

• An intangible asset must be separable (i.e. capable of being separated from the entity
and have the ability to be exchanged, sold, licensed, transferred or rented) or come
from contractual or other legal rights.
• Research expenditure of all kinds must be expensed
• Development expenditure must meet specific criteria before it can be capitalised.
• Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items
similar in substance must no longer be recognised.
• Intangible assets are only permitted for revaluation where there is an active market to
determine fair value.
• An intangible asset is classified as having an either finite or indefinite life. Intangible
assets with indefinite lives must not be amortised.
• Computer software is considered an intangible asset if it is not integral to the operation of
related hardware.

Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB 138

Australian Accounting Review Report 2008

A study on the effects of the introduction of AASB 138 ‘Intangible Assets’ by the
Australian Accounting Review in 2008 revealed that the debt-to-equity ratio for 23 ASX-
listed Australian companies that were assessed as having to derecognise internally generated
intangible assets under AASB 138 changed significantly between the 2004/2005 and
2005/2006 financial years as a result (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008). However, several
other expected changes that were predicted by numerous professionals and touted in the
media as causing write-offs totalling in the billions did not occur in the year following the
introduction of the AASB 138 standard. The report compared predicted changes to actual
changes both before and after the adoption of AASB 138, with interesting results.

Key financial ratios used in the report on intangible assets by the Australian
Accounting Review included Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), and Debt-to-
Equity Ratio (DER). The most important finding from the report was that, despite the
variance across circumstances, it was only the DER that showed significant differences in the
selected companies after the introduction of AASB 138, but not ROE or ROA. The
anticipated significant impact anticipated by analysts and investors from AASB 138 being

6
11906467, 11159183

applied to intangible assets was in fact not so significant (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008,
p. 253).

Table 2: Results of the Absolute Changes of ROE, ROA and DER of the Selected Firms (Cheung, Evans. and
Wright, 2008).

Table 2above presents two sets of non-parametric tests conducted by the Australian
Accounting Review of the differences between measures of intangible assets and key
financial ratios calculated or projected under different reporting requirements. As can be
seen, the DER value has a very large standard deviation, meaning that the change in DER
value after the inception of AASB 138 was very significant (Note: “DER – ADJAIFRS” in
Table 2 refers to the expected DER).

The question of why the anticipated impacts of AASB 138 were not fully realised may
be answered by the fact that many entities simply did not derecognise their intangible assets
as projected. The report found that the distinction between internally generated intangible
assets and those purchased at cost was not communicated to users very clearly in the pre-
adoption period of AASB 138! As a result of this confusion, many entities 'revealed' in the
2005/06 reporting period that their intangible assets had been purchased at cost, and had not
applied derecognition (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008, p. 254).

PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets 2007

7
11906467, 11159183

Research done on the effects of AASB 138 by PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that

$45 billion of identifiable intangible assets and $84 billion of goodwill was recorded on the
balance sheets of ASX 200 companies in the 2005/2006 period - increases in value of 26%
and 47% respectively. The large increase in goodwill was attributed to companies
reclassifying roughly $10 billion worth of assets to goodwill after the transition to AIFRS.
The largest holders of intangible holders were, not surprisingly, the Media, Consumer Staples
and Telecommunications industries (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004).

The report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers also found that growth expectations and

bigger deals had lead to goodwill representing a larger proportion of total purchases in
2005/2006, while the proportion of identifiable intangible assets decreased. The average
useful life of intangible assets decreased by an incredible 9 years, decreasing from 20 years in
2004/2005 to 11 years in 2005/2006. The amount of reported intangible assets that had
indefinite lives also declined from 45% in 2004/2005 to 33% in 2005/2006. Profits were
more volatile as a result of all these changes (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004).

Student Investigation of Two Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed Entities

In order to test how intangible assets appear on a company’s balance sheet, along with
their affect on a company’s income statement, our group chose two ASX-listed companies
from different sectors to compare: Technology One (ASX:TNE) and Domino’s Pizza
(ASX:DOM). Technology One develops, markets, sells, implements and supports its own
software solutions to various organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the United
Kingdom. Domino’s Pizza’s company sector, on the other hand, is in the consumer services
sector of fast food – the company is famous for making and selling pizza to customers in their
market areas, including Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium and the Netherlands
(Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis, 2009).

How Intangible Assets Affect the Balance Sheet

From Technology One’s balance sheets we have found that intangible assets and
goodwill, which are listed together under one line item in Non-Current Assets, is $17,268,000
in 2008 and $9,592,000 in 2007. Due to the fact that we need to examine the amount of
intangible assets alone and not goodwill, we have not used these numbers, but instead used

8
11906467, 11159183

the note information to find the value of intangible assets. From the notes regarding
intangible assets and goodwill in Technology One’s Annual Reports, we observed that the
intellectual property - also called intangible assets - is $2,547,000 for 2008 and $128,000 for
2007. Therefore, increased intangible assets during 2008/2007 equals to $2,547,000-
$128,000/$128,000=1890%.

From Domino’s pizza’s balance sheet, the cost of other intangible assets for 2008 was
$1,726,000, but nearly half of this cost for 2007($968,000). Increased intangible assets during
2008/2007 equals to $1,726,000-$968,000/$968,000=78.3%.

It can be concluded that Technology One Limited has many more intangible assets
than Domino’s Pizza, probably because improvements, updates and innovations in the
software industry happen very quickly. If Technology One and other software companies
want to keep their business alive and compete with other software companies, then they need
to spend a large proportion of cash on research and development for new versions of software
and other projects in the future.

Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total Assets

Technology One Limited:

For 2008: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$2,547,000/$73,422,000=3.47%

For 2007: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$128,000/54,928,000=0.23%

We can conclude that percentage of intangible assets increased 15.1 times from 0.23%
in 2007 to 3.47% in 2008. There are two main reasons could explain why intangible assets
increase so much in 2008. First of all in November 2007, the company purchased Enterprise
Content Management, the costs of which were capitalised as intangible assets. Secondly, in
August 2008, the Outcome Manager Technology had been acquired by Technology One
Limited, which has been provisionally classified as an intangible asset or intellectual
property. (Come from annual report p58, p28, p9). Due to the fact that the company’s
financial reporting date is 30 September in each year, these two acquisitions should therefore
be included in the 2008 financial annual report. This explains why there are so many
differences on the term of intangible assets between the financial years of 2008 and 2007.

9
11906467, 11159183

Domino’s Pizza:

For 2008:
intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$1,726,000/$142,157,000=1.21%
For 2007:
Intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$968,000/131,613,000=0.73%

From the above calculation we know that intangible assets increased by 1.7 times in
2008 compared with the year before that. Domino’s Pizza’s intangible assets did not increase
dramatically like those of Technology One Limited, highlighting the fact that these two
companies operate in different sectors, and have contrasting proportions of assets that are in
the form of intangibles.

We can get an idea from the balance sheet that intangible assets are classified as non-
current assets, which means total assets or total non-current assets go up when added with
intangible assets. Some ratios will be changed, such as debt ratio, return on assets, return on
net assets, and asset turnover because they are all related to total assets or total non-current
assets.

10
11906467, 11159183

Debt Ratio

Chart 1
Debt ratio=Toal Liabitliy / Total Assets

2008
Total liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR with IA DR no IA
TechnologyOne 22,908 73,422 70,875 31.20% 32.30%
Domino's Pizza 62,903 142,157 140,431 44.20% 44.80%

2007
Total liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR with IA DR no IA
TechnologyOne 16,822 54,928 54,800 30.60% 30.70%
Domino's Pizza 64,430 131,613 130,645 49% 49.30%

Debit ratio growth%(with IA)

TechnologyOne 1.96
Domino's Pizza -9.8
Note: TA=Total Assets, IA=Intangible Assets, DR=Debit raio

Table 3: Debt Ratio of Technology One Limited and Domino’s Pizza, 2007 & 2008

Technology One Limited’s Debt Ratio was 31.20% in 2008 if intangible assets were
included in total assets, as seen in Table 3above. However, without intangible asset, debt ratio
increases to 32.30% in 2008. While 30.6% Debt ratio when include intangible as asset, 30.7%
debt ratio when exclude intangible as asset in 2007. Debt ratio grows 1.96% during 2007 and
2008 when treat intangible as assets.

Domino’s Pizza’s Debt Ratio was 44.20% in 2008 when we added intangibles into
total assets. Nevertheless, when not considering intangibles as asset, the debt ratio for 2008
grew to 44.8%. For 2007, the debt ratio was 49% if treating intangibles as assets, or a 49.3%
debt ratio if intangibles are not treated as assets. Debt ratio decreases 9.8% from 2007 to
2008.

Our calculations of Debt Equity on Technology One and Domino’s Pizza show that
intangible assets for both companies had a positive effect on debt ratio between 2007 and
2008, since the smaller debt ratio means the companies performed better in relation to debt.

11
11906467, 11159183

Comparatively, Technology One had a smaller debt ratio that did Domino’s Pizza, and its
growth of debt ratio was much quicker than that of Domino’s Pizza.

Return on Assets (ROA)

Return on Asset= Net Income/ Total Assets

2008
NI ($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA
TechnologyOne 17,229 73,422 70,875 0.234657187 0.243089947
Domino's Pizza 11,834 142,157 140,431 0.083245989 0.084269143

2007
NI($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA
TechnologyOne 14,781 54,928 54,800 0.269097728 0.269726277
Domino's Pizza 9,129 131,613 130,654 0.069362449 0.069871569

ROA growth with IA

TechnologyOne -0.127985253
Domino's Pizza 0.200159305

Note: NI= Net Income TA=Toal Asset IA= Intangible Asset

Table 4: ROA of Technology One Limited and Domino’s Pizza, 2007 & 2008

From the Table 4, we can conclude that Technology One had a higher ROA than
Domino’s Pizza did in two years. However, Technology One’s ROA decreased 12.7% from
2007 to 2008, while the ROA of Domino’s Pizza grew 20%.

Intangible assets have a slightly negative impact on the ROA, because for both
companies the ROA ratio decreased in two years when intangibles were added to total assets.
Furthermore, the companies’ intangible assets will reduce their ROA and tell investors that
the firm’s use of its assets and control of its expenses to generate an acceptable rate of return
may be altered negatively as intangible assets are recognised.

12
11906467, 11159183

Asset Turnover

Asset Turnover= Net Sales/Total Assets

2008
SR ($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) AT with IAAT no IA
TechnologyOne 108,491 11,880 96,611 73,422 70,875 1.315832 1.363118
Domino's Pizza 165,768 12,811 152,957 142,157 140,431 1.075972 1.089197

2007
SR ($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) AT with IAAT no IA
TechnologyOne 76,823 9,058 67,765 54,928 54,800 1.233706 1.236588
Domino's Pizza 171,579 17,446 154,133 131,613 130,654 1.171108 1.179704

AT growth with IA
TechnologyOne 0.066568395
Domino's Pizza -0.081235377

Table 5: Asset Turnover of Technology One Limited and Domino’s Pizza, 2007 & 2008

It can seem from Table 5 that Technology One has a higher asset turnover than
Domino’s Pizza, which grows by about 6.66% during 2008 and 2007. Asset turnover
dropped slightly for both companies when including intangible assets as total assets during
these two years, which means intangible assets have a negative impact on the asset turnover
ratio, since the higher the asset turnover, the better the return that the company can produce.

Further Industry Comparison

For the sake of comparison, our group chose two other competitors that had similar
operations and profits to see if our results for Technology One and Domino’s Pizza were
similar. The competitor we chose for Technology One was InfoMedia Limited (ASX:IFM),
whose main business involves building information management systems for automobile
manufacturers and oil companies. The competitor chosen for Domino’s Pizza was Retail
Food Group Limited (ASX: RFG), who are the holders of famous franchises in Australiasuch
as Brumby’s, Donut King, BB’s Café and Michel’s Patisserie.

The results for the Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover ratios for these competitors
are included below in Table 6, along with the same ratios for Technology One and Domino’s
Pizza.

2007/2008 Financial Year Competitor Comparison

13
11906467, 11159183

Debt Ratio Return on Assets Asset Turnover

w/ No w/ No w/ No
Company Intangibles Intangibles Intangibles Intangibles Intangibles Intangibles
Technology One
(ASX: TNE) 0.3120 0.3230 0.2347 0.2431 1.3158 1.3631
InfoMedia (ASX:
IFM) 0.2710 0.2743 0.2929 0.2798 1.1596 1.1465

Domino's Pizza
(ASX: DMP) 0.4420 0.4480 0.0832 0.0842 1.0760 1.0892
Retail Food Group
Limited (ASX:
RFG) 0.5868 3.6782 0.0770 0.4826 0.4624 2.8982

Table 6: Financial Ratios of Technology One Limited, Domino’s Pizza, and Selected Competitors 2007/2008

While InfoMedia Limited showed similarity to Technology One in each ratio, Retail
Food Group Limited had drastic differences in Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover when
compared to Domino’s Pizza and the company’s Intangible Assets were not included in the
calculations. Upon further investigation, we found that Retail Food Group’s franchise
systems with their subsidiary companies are veryexpensive intangible assets – all of which
have indefinite life. This was a very interesting discovery, but unfortunately one we cannot
investigate further in this report.

Conclusion

From our own findings and research on contemporary accounting for intangible assets
and the introduction of AASB 138 on January 1st2005, fewer side effects were found than we
had actually anticipated. This may be due to the fact that, after the inception of AASB 138
during the Australian adoption of IFRS compliance, many ASX-listed companies may have
performed some “creative accounting” manoeuvres to have their financial statements appear
favourable to investors and other interests. Those in charge of financial reporting may have:

1. Reclassified intangible assets to goodwill, to avoid amortisations and use creative

impairment instead.
2. Reduced the useful life of intangible assets in order to decrease the value of
intangibles more rapidly in an attempt to avoid the ill effects intangible assets may

14
11906467, 11159183

have on key financial ratios which investors may rely on, such as Debt Ratio,
ROA and Asset Turnover.
3. Aggressively interpret AASB 138 (e.g. twist the meaning of “active market”) or
purposely misinterpret internally generated assets or tangible assets in general, in
disclosures within company financial reports.
4. Misinterpreted the classifications (e.g. internally generated intangible assets).

In any case, it still appears to our group as though there needs to be further
investigation done on AASB 138 and its effects on the financial reports of Australian entities
by Australian accounting authorities in order to gain a better understanding of these effects
and promote accurate financial reporting of intangible assets in future.

15
11906467, 11159183

References

Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Domino’s Pizza Enterpreise Limited. (2009). Retrieved on

April 22nd 2009 from the Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis website at:
http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=DMP&xtm-
licensee=dat

Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Technology One Limited. (2009). Retrieved on April 22nd 2009
from the Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis website at:
http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=TNE&xtm-
licensee=dat

Australian Securities Exchange: What is GICS?(2009). Retrieved April 20th 2009 from the
Australian Securities Exchange website at: http://www.asx.com.au/research/indices/gics.htm

Chartered Accountants: AASB 138 Intangible Assets.(2009). Retrieved April 21st2009 from
the Chartered Accountants website at: http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/A121904976

Cheung E., Evans E. and Wright S. (2009). The Adoption of IFRS in Australia: The Case of
AASB 138 (IAS 38) Intangible Assets. Australian Accounting Review, Melbourne: September
2008. Vol 18, Issue 3 p. 248.

CPA Australia. (2009a). Accounting Handbook 2009. Pearson Education Australia,

Melbourne, Victoria: Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd.

CPA Australia (2009b). AASB 138 fact sheet. Retrieved on April 20th from the CPA Australia
website at: http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FECA-
3389FE0B/cpa/hs.xsl/872_12821_ENA_HTML.htm

Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance. (2009). AASB 138
Intangible Assets Summary. Retrieved on April 23rd2009 from the Government of Western
Australia Department of Treasury and Finance website at:
http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/aasb138.DOC.

16
11906467, 11159183

Henderson, Pierson & Herbohn. (2008). Issues in Financial Accounting (13th Edition).
Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education Australia.

International Accounting Standards Board: Intangible Assets. (2009). Retrieved April 21st
2009 from the International Accounting Standards Board website at:
http://www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/Intangible+Assets/Intangible+Assets.htm

Parker, K. (2004). “The Untouchables.” Australasian Business Intelligence, Dec 10, 2004
pNA.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008). “Intangible Assets Value In The Real World.” Retrieved on

April 29th, 2009, from the PriceWaterhouseCoopers website at:
http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/7CA088FEB7642C23CA257376007
A2BDC/$file/IntangibleAssets_ValueInTheNewWorld.pdf

Schaeffer, B. and Robins, S. (2008). Valuation of Intangible Assets in Franchise Companies

and Multinational Groups: A Current Issue. Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2008 v27 i3
p185(8).

17
11906467, 11159183

Appendices
Appendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008

18
11906467, 11159183

Appendix B: Technology One Limited Income Statement 2007/2008

19
11906467, 11159183

Appendix C: Domino’s Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008

20
11906467, 11159183

Appendix D: Domino’s Pizza Limited Income Statement 2007/2008

21
11906467, 11159183

22
11906467, 11159183

Appendix E: Peer Reviews

23