IFRS 16 Sale and Leaseback Transactions: How to Account for and Audit Them

Why sale and leaseback accounting trips up audit teams

Your client just sold their warehouse to a property fund and signed a ten-year lease to stay in the same building. The CFO booked the full gain on disposal. The lease payment looks suspiciously close to a market rent. You’re now staring at IFRS 16.98 and trying to work out whether any of this gain belongs on the balance sheet instead of the income statement.

Most auditors encounter sale and leasebacks rarely enough that the accounting feels unfamiliar each time. You sell an asset for cash, but you don’t recognise all of the profit. That’s counterintuitive, and it’s where the mistakes start.

IFRS 16.100(a) requires the seller-lessee to measure the right-of-use asset not at the present value of the lease payments (the normal IFRS 16 route) but as a proportion of the previous carrying amount of the underlying asset. The gain you recognise relates only to the rights that passed to the buyer-lessor. The rights you kept through the leaseback carry forward at cost. This means the journal entries on day one differ from both a standard asset disposal and a standard lease commencement. The right-of-use asset amount, the gain, and the lease liability all need to be calculated together. Get one wrong and the other two break.

There’s a second trap. IFRS 16.99 states that if the transfer doesn’t satisfy the requirements of IFRS 15 for a sale, the entire transaction is treated as a financing arrangement. The seller-lessee keeps the asset on the balance sheet at its original carrying amount and recognises a financial liability for the proceeds received. The seller-lessee doesn’t derecognise the asset, doesn’t record a gain, and doesn’t create a right-of-use asset. Instead, the entire transaction is treated as a loan secured by the property. The accounting outcome flips completely depending on a single judgment call at the front of the analysis.

Does the transfer qualify as a sale under IFRS 15?

IFRS 16.99 points you to IFRS 15.B64–B76, the control-transfer indicators. You are applying the IFRS 15 framework to determine whether the buyer-lessor has obtained control of the underlying asset. If control transfers, you have a sale. If not, you have a financing.

Four questions decide this in practice.

First: does the buyer-lessor have present right to payment for the asset? In a genuine sale and leaseback, the purchase price is agreed and settled (or a receivable is recognised). This one is usually straightforward.

Second: has legal title transferred? Check the title deed or notarial records. In the Netherlands, property transfers require notarial execution and registration at the Kadaster. If the deed hasn’t been registered at the balance sheet date, you have a timing question worth documenting separately in the file.

Third: has physical possession transferred? In a leaseback, the seller-lessee retains physical possession by design. IFRS 15.B64(c) lists physical possession as one indicator, but it is not determinative on its own. The buyer-lessor accepts this arrangement because the leaseback grants the seller-lessee a contractual right to use the asset for the lease term. The standard anticipates this situation explicitly.

Fourth (and usually decisive): has the buyer-lessor assumed the significant risks and rewards of ownership? If the leaseback terms are such that the seller-lessee retains substantially all the risks and rewards (for example, a leaseback covering the entire economic life of the asset with a repurchase option at a nominal price), control has not transferred. IFRS 16.B60 reinforces this: a repurchase option at the seller-lessee’s discretion prevents the transfer from qualifying as a sale.

How IFRS 16.100 splits the gain between transferred and retained rights

Once you’ve confirmed a sale exists, IFRS 16.100(a) tells you how to measure two things simultaneously: the right-of-use asset and the gain or loss.

The formula for the right-of-use asset is:

Right-of-use asset = Previous carrying amount × (Present value of lease payments ÷ Fair value of the asset)

The ratio is the proportion of the economic rights the seller-lessee retained through the leaseback relative to the total fair value. A higher ratio means the seller-lessee kept more of the economic benefit, which means less gain to recognise.

The gain the seller-lessee recognises equals only the portion of the total gain that relates to the rights transferred to the buyer-lessor:

Gain recognised = Total gain on disposal × (1 − (PV of lease payments ÷ Fair value))

Where total gain on disposal = Sale price minus previous carrying amount.

The lease liability is measured normally under IFRS 16.26 (present value of the lease payments, discounted at the rate implicit in the lease or the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate). This part follows standard IFRS 16 lease accounting.

One point that causes persistent confusion: the right-of-use asset is not equal to the lease liability on day one. Under a normal new lease, the right-of-use asset and lease liability start at approximately the same amount (adjusted for prepayments and incentives). In a sale and leaseback, the right-of-use asset is based on the previous carrying amount proportion, while the lease liability is based on the present value of future payments. They will almost always differ.

This is not an error. It is the mechanism by which the retained rights carry forward at historical cost while the lease obligation reflects the market-rate leaseback terms. If the ROU asset exceeds the lease liability, the excess represents additional carrying amount retained from the original asset. Where the lease liability exceeds the ROU asset, the difference represents the portion of the gain recognised immediately in profit or loss. Either direction is possible depending on the relationship between the asset’s carrying amount, its fair value, and the leaseback terms.

Worked example: Groenevelt Vastgoed B.V.

Scenario: Groenevelt Vastgoed B.V. owns a distribution centre in Tilburg. The property has a carrying amount of €4,200,000 (cost €6,000,000, accumulated depreciation €1,800,000). On 1 January 2025, Groenevelt sells the property to Fortis Property Fund N.V. for €7,500,000 (fair value confirmed by independent valuation) and simultaneously enters a 10-year leaseback at €480,000 per year, payable at the end of each year. Groenevelt’s incremental borrowing rate is 4.5%. No repurchase options exist. Legal title transfers at notarial execution on the same date.

Step 1: Apply the IFRS 15 transfer test

Legal title transfers at completion. Physical possession stays with Groenevelt (expected in a leaseback). Fortis assumes the significant risks and rewards of ownership: no repurchase option exists, the leaseback covers 10 of an estimated 30-year remaining useful life, and no bargain purchase option is included. Control transfers. This qualifies as a sale under IFRS 16.99.

Step 2: Calculate the present value of lease payments

€480,000 per year for 10 years discounted at 4.5%.

PV = €480,000 × annuity factor at 4.5% for 10 years = €480,000 × 7.9127 = €3,798,096

Step 3: Calculate the retained-rights ratio

Retained-rights ratio = PV of lease payments ÷ Fair value of asset

= €3,798,096 ÷ €7,500,000 = 0.5064 (50.64%)

Groenevelt retained approximately half of the economic benefit of the property through the leaseback.

Step 4: Measure the right-of-use asset

ROU asset = Previous carrying amount × Retained-rights ratio

= €4,200,000 × 0.5064 = €2,126,880

Step 5: Calculate the gain to recognise

Total gain on disposal = €7,500,000 − €4,200,000 = €3,300,000

Gain recognised = Total gain × (1 − Retained-rights ratio)

= €3,300,000 × (1 − 0.5064) = €3,300,000 × 0.4936 = €1,628,880

Step 6: Verify the day-one journal entries

The entries balance. The lease liability (€3,798,096) does not equal the ROU asset (€2,126,880). That €1,671,216 gap is the retained portion of the gain embedded in the ROU measurement.

What to do when terms are off-market

IFRS 16.101 addresses transactions where the sale price or lease payments are not at fair value. This happens more often than clients admit, because sale and leaseback packages are frequently structured as a single commercial negotiation where the sale price and lease payments are traded off against each other.

If the sale price exceeds fair value, IFRS 16.101(a) treats the excess as additional financing provided by the buyer-lessor. The seller-lessee recognises a financial liability for the excess amount, not additional sale proceeds. So if Groenevelt had sold the Tilburg distribution centre for €8,200,000 against a fair value of €7,500,000, the €700,000 excess would be recognised as a financial liability rather than inflating the gain calculation.

Below fair value, the treatment goes the other way. IFRS 16.101(b) treats the shortfall as a prepayment of lease rentals. The seller-lessee recognises the shortfall as part of the right-of-use asset rather than recording an immediate loss.

In either direction, you adjust the numbers before applying the gain-split formula in IFRS 16.100. The adjusted sale price (capped at or raised to fair value) becomes the starting point. The excess or shortfall gets reclassified into separate balance sheet items.

Discount rate selection for the leaseback

The discount rate for measuring the lease liability follows the same hierarchy as any other IFRS 16 lease: the rate implicit in the lease if readily determinable, otherwise the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate (IFRS 16.26).

In sale and leasebacks, the rate implicit in the lease is sometimes determinable because the transaction includes a known purchase price (the sale price, or the adjusted sale price after IFRS 16.101 corrections), a known stream of lease payments, and a known residual value expectation. If you can solve for the rate that equates those cash flows, you have the implicit rate. This is more feasible here than in a typical office lease where you don’t know the lessor’s expected residual.

Even when the implicit rate is calculable, many practitioners default to the incremental borrowing rate because it’s easier to support. That’s acceptable under the standard.

But be aware that the rate choice directly affects the retained-rights ratio. A higher discount rate produces a lower present value of lease payments, which produces a lower retained-rights ratio, which produces a higher recognised gain. The sensitivity can be material. On the Groenevelt example, moving from 4.5% to 5.5% would reduce the present value of lease payments from €3,798,096 to approximately €3,615,000, shifting the recognised gain upward by roughly €60,000. Document the rate chosen, the basis for that choice, and consider including a sensitivity analysis in the working paper if the transaction is large relative to materiality.

Subsequent measurement after day one

After initial recognition, two things happen in parallel. The right-of-use asset is depreciated over the shorter of the lease term and the remaining useful life of the underlying asset (IFRS 16.32). For Groenevelt, the leaseback is 10 years and the remaining useful life of the distribution centre is an estimated 30 years, so the ROU asset of €2,126,880 is depreciated over 10 years at €212,688 per year. Simultaneously, the lease liability of €3,798,096 is unwound using the effective interest method under IFRS 16.36. In year one, Groenevelt records interest expense of €170,914 (€3,798,096 × 4.5%), makes a lease payment of €480,000, and closes the year with a lease liability of €3,489,010.

The amortisation schedule runs for the full 10-year term and should reconcile to nil at the end of the lease.

The annual income statement impact is the sum of depreciation on the ROU asset and interest on the lease liability, not the cash lease payment. For Groenevelt in year one, that’s €212,688 + €170,914 = €383,602 of expense through two line items, versus the €480,000 cash payment. The difference is the capital repayment portion of the lease payment, which reduces the balance sheet liability without flowing through the income statement.

One audit point that surfaces in the second and subsequent years: if the property has been impaired since the sale and leaseback, IAS 36 applies to the ROU asset like any other non-financial asset. The impairment test compares the carrying amount of the ROU asset (which is based on the original carrying amount proportion, not fair value) against its recoverable amount. A property market decline could trigger impairment even though the leaseback terms haven’t changed.

Practical checklist for your current engagement

1. Confirm control transfer under IFRS 15.B64 by documenting each of the four indicators separately in the working paper. Pay particular attention to repurchase options (IFRS 16.B60) and the proportion of economic life covered by the leaseback.
2. Obtain an independent valuation of the asset at the transaction date. The fair value drives both the retained-rights ratio and the off-market assessment. Without it, neither calculation is supportable.
3. Compare the sale price to fair value and the lease payments to market rents. If either is off-market, apply the IFRS 16.101 adjustment before calculating the gain.
4. Calculate the retained-rights ratio (PV of lease payments ÷ fair value). Use this ratio to measure both the right-of-use asset (carrying amount × ratio) and the recognised gain (total gain × (1 minus ratio)).
5. Reconcile the day-one journal entries in a single schedule. Debits must equal credits. The ROU asset will not equal the lease liability. Include an explanation for the difference in your working paper.
6. For subsequent measurement, depreciate the ROU asset over the shorter of the lease term and the remaining useful life (IFRS 16.32), and unwind the lease liability using the effective interest method (IFRS 16.36). Build the amortisation schedule from day one and include it in the file.

Common mistakes

• Recognising the full gain on disposal without applying the IFRS 16.100 retained-rights calculation. The FRC’s 2021–22 thematic review on IFRS 16 found that sale and leaseback gain calculations were among the areas most frequently requiring restatement in complex lease transactions.
• Failing to assess whether the transfer qualifies as a sale under IFRS 15 before proceeding with the leaseback accounting. If the seller-lessee retains a repurchase option or the leaseback covers substantially all of the asset’s economic life, the transaction may be a financing arrangement under IFRS 16.99, with completely different accounting consequences.
• Using the present value of lease payments as the right-of-use asset amount. Under a sale and leaseback, the ROU asset is based on the previous carrying amount proportion per IFRS 16.100(a), not the present value of lease payments. The two figures will differ, and the difference is the mechanism that limits gain recognition to the rights actually transferred.

Related Ciferi content

Related guides:

Put audit concepts into practice with these free tools:

Frequently asked questions

Further reading and source references

• IFRS 16, Leases: paragraphs 98–103 cover sale and leaseback transactions. Paragraph 100(a) defines the gain-split mechanic. Paragraph 101 addresses off-market terms.
• IFRS 15.B64–B76: the control-transfer indicators applied via IFRS 16.99 to determine whether a sale has occurred.
• IFRS 16.B60: guidance on repurchase options and their effect on the transfer-of-control assessment.
• FRC 2021–22 thematic review on IFRS 16: findings on sale and leaseback gain calculations requiring restatement.
• IFRS 16 lease accounting: Ciferi glossary entry covering the core recognition and measurement model underpinning the leaseback side of the transaction.