English translation: non-personnel(-related) restructuring costs
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
German to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Accounting
German term or phrase:Sachstrukturaufwendungen
No real context unfortunately. In an internal HGB accounting manual when discussing items that might require recognizing a "provision for uncertain obligations", one of the bullet items is
Sachstrukturaufwendungen bei Stilllegungen
Most of the references to Sachstruktur I found relate to pedagogy. Did find one reference in a thesis paper about "changes in a company's personnel structure and "Sachstruktur" could result in restructuring.
Explanation: Note that the standard German term is actually "(Rückstellungen für) Sachstrukturmaßnahmen", rather than "Sachstrukturaufwendungen".
This conclusion is based firstly on the German KPMG book I referred to in my discussion entry ("Sachstrukturmaßnahmen"), and secondly on other sources, e.g.
"Die Rückstellung für Restrukturierung umfasst Personalstruktur- und Sachstrukturmaßnahmen, für die wegen der Aufgabe von betrieblichen Bereichen kein zukünftiger wirtschaftlicher Nutzen mehr erwartet wird."
This is the same formulation found by Steffen in his discussion entry (ThyssenKrupp).
What this indicates is that the "Sach" here doesn't refer to Sachanlagen (Sachanlagevermögen), i.e. PPE/tangible fixed assets, but to the same common distinction that we find in German accounting between "Personalkosten/Personalaufwendungen" and "Sachkosten/Sachaufwendungen", i.e. "personnel costs/expenses" and "non-personnel operating costs/expenses".
It's also clear that the "Struktur" refers to "restructuring", which is why provisions are being recognised in the first place.
So these "Sachstrukturaufwendungen" are those costs to exit an activity (aka restructuring expenses) that are not directly attributable to personnel expenses (which for discontinued operations would mainly be severance payments/redundancy scheme, retraining and/or relocation expenses, possibly additional early retirement costs, continuing healthcare costs, and so on.)
... is indeed what this is referring to, Ted - and your suggestion sounds valid, too. Question is whether "expenses" or "costs" is the better solution.
I agree with "asset- or property-related expenses incurred by abandoned/closed sites/lines of business," which is why I've suggested "infrastructure costs".
and that was translated as "exit costs". The term does seem to be used more in connection with discontinued operations than anywhere else. Maybe "exit costs from PPE changes due to plant closures"?
... than I'd thought initially. See, for example, http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/documents/Publikationen/Geschaef... (pages 169 and 170, where they are talking about provisions for "Personalstrukturmaßnahmen" and "Sachstrukturmaßnahmen"). It's all quite nebulous language but does seem to point to asset- or property-related expenses incurred by abandoned/closed sites/lines of business.
Your example is perfectly valid. In Ted's specific context, however, I'd still say that "structure" might be redundant. Otherwise I tend to agree with PP&E expenses related to (plant) closures.
are rather widespread - steel and other metals production and processing, recycling, forging technology, railway systems, crane systems, engineering and engineering services.
The company had the following PP&E structure as of Dec 31 2009: Land - USD 158mn (37% of total PP&E), Buildings - USD 187mn (44%), Equipment - USD 41mn (10%), Vehicles - USD 11mn (3%), Office
Equipment - USD 7mn (2%), Construction in Progress - USD 17mn (4%). http://traders.net.ua/_ld/11/1176_Eavex_GLNG_11.1.pdf
Explanation: Note that the standard German term is actually "(Rückstellungen für) Sachstrukturmaßnahmen", rather than "Sachstrukturaufwendungen".
This conclusion is based firstly on the German KPMG book I referred to in my discussion entry ("Sachstrukturmaßnahmen"), and secondly on other sources, e.g.
"Die Rückstellung für Restrukturierung umfasst Personalstruktur- und Sachstrukturmaßnahmen, für die wegen der Aufgabe von betrieblichen Bereichen kein zukünftiger wirtschaftlicher Nutzen mehr erwartet wird."
This is the same formulation found by Steffen in his discussion entry (ThyssenKrupp).
What this indicates is that the "Sach" here doesn't refer to Sachanlagen (Sachanlagevermögen), i.e. PPE/tangible fixed assets, but to the same common distinction that we find in German accounting between "Personalkosten/Personalaufwendungen" and "Sachkosten/Sachaufwendungen", i.e. "personnel costs/expenses" and "non-personnel operating costs/expenses".
It's also clear that the "Struktur" refers to "restructuring", which is why provisions are being recognised in the first place.
So these "Sachstrukturaufwendungen" are those costs to exit an activity (aka restructuring expenses) that are not directly attributable to personnel expenses (which for discontinued operations would mainly be severance payments/redundancy scheme, retraining and/or relocation expenses, possibly additional early retirement costs, continuing healthcare costs, and so on.)
RobinB Local time: 00:17 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 837
The translation workplace 
