Contingent Asset

What is Contingent Asset?

IAS 37.31 prohibits recognition of contingent assets because recognising income that may never be realised would violate the prudence principle embedded in the Conceptual Framework. The standard sets up a three-tier disclosure and recognition ladder. When an inflow is not probable, the entity does nothing. When the inflow is probable (IAS 37.34), the entity discloses the contingent asset in the notes. When the inflow becomes virtually certain, the related asset is no longer contingent and the entity recognises it (IAS 37.33).

On the engagement, the auditor's job under ISA 540.13(a) is to evaluate whether management correctly classified the inflow along that ladder. This means testing the underlying evidence for the probability assessment. In litigation scenarios, for instance, the auditor reviews legal counsel's opinion, any settlement offers received, and comparable case outcomes to determine whether management's "probable" or "not probable" conclusion holds up. IAS 37.35 requires the entity to reassess contingent assets continuously, and ISA 501.9 addresses the auditor's procedures for obtaining evidence from the entity's external legal counsel through written inquiry.

Worked example: Dupont Ingenierie S.A.S.

Client: French engineering services company, FY2025, revenue EUR92M, IFRS reporter. Dupont is the claimant in a breach-of-contract lawsuit against a former subcontractor. Dupont seeks EUR3.8M in damages for defective work on a bridge reinforcement project delivered in 2023.

Step 1 — Assess existence

Dupont filed the claim in June 2024. The past event (defective subcontractor work) is documented through independent inspection reports, and Dupont's external counsel confirmed the claim has legal merit. A contingent asset exists per IAS 37.31 because the inflow depends on the court's decision, an event outside Dupont's control.

Documentation note: "Contingent asset identified per IAS 37.31. Past event: defective subcontractor performance on Project Rhone-45, confirmed by independent structural engineer report dated 2024-03-15. Future uncertain event: court ruling, expected H2 2026.

Step 2 — Assess probability

Dupont's external counsel rates the likelihood of a favourable outcome at 70–80%, based on the strength of the inspection evidence and a comparable ruling in the same jurisdiction from 2022. The inflow is probable. IAS 37.34 requires disclosure in the notes.

Documentation note: "Probability assessment based on legal counsel letter dated 2025-11-20. Counsel estimates 70–80% likelihood of favourable ruling. Cross-referenced to Cour d'appel de Lyon ruling in Beaumont v. Travaux Generaux (2022), which awarded damages on similar facts. Conclusion: inflow is probable, not virtually certain.

Step 3 — Determine treatment

Because the inflow is probable but not virtually certain, Dupont does not recognise the EUR3.8M claim as an asset. Dupont discloses the nature of the contingent asset, an estimate of its financial effect (EUR3.8M), and an indication of the uncertainties relating to the timing of any inflow, all per IAS 37.89.

Documentation note: "Contingent asset disclosed per IAS 37.34 and IAS 37.89. Amount: EUR3.8M. Not recognised because outcome, while probable, is not virtually certain. Disclosure reviewed for completeness against IAS 37.89 checklist. No prejudicial exemption applied (IAS 37.92 considered, not applicable).

Step 4 — Reassess at reporting date

At 31 December 2025, the court has not yet ruled. No settlement offer has been received. Counsel's probability assessment is unchanged. Dupont maintains the note disclosure and does not reclassify.

Documentation note: "Reassessment performed per IAS 37.35. No change in probability since prior assessment. Court hearing scheduled for Q2 2026. Contingent asset disclosure carried forward, amount unchanged at EUR3.8M.

Conclusion: the note disclosure of a EUR3.8M contingent asset is defensible because the probability assessment rests on external legal counsel's opinion, corroborated by a comparable judicial precedent, and the entity correctly stopped short of recognition given the outcome is not virtually certain.

Why it matters in practice

Teams often skip the reassessment required by IAS 37.35 at each reporting date. The contingent asset note from the prior year gets rolled forward without fresh evidence. If circumstances changed (a settlement offer, an unfavourable procedural ruling, a change in legal counsel's assessment), the disclosure may be stale or the classification may need upgrading to recognition. ISA 560.7 reinforces the obligation to consider events between the reporting date and the audit report date that may affect the assessment.

The distinction between "probable" and "virtually certain" is poorly documented in many files. IAS 37.33 sets "virtually certain" as the recognition threshold, but working papers frequently state the conclusion without recording the evidence trail that supports the probability band. Without that trail, the engagement quality reviewer cannot evaluate whether the entity is one notch below recognition or several notches above "not probable."

Contingent asset vs [contingent liability](/glossary/contingent-liability)

The asymmetry is deliberate. IAS 37 is more cautious about recognising assets than liabilities because recognising income that never materialises is harder to reverse than recognising an expense that never materialises. On an engagement, this means the auditor applies a stricter evidential standard when management wants to disclose a contingent asset than when management wants to avoid recognising a contingent liability.

Related terms

Frequently asked questions