The collision of international accounting standards and laws governing the use of maritime domain presents a challenge. On one hand, IFRS and IAS oblige companies to calculate depreciation in such a way that the present value of a fixed asset at the expiration of the concession agreement is equal to zero, regardless of the fact that the assets have a use, market and fair value upon expiration. On the other hand, any form of value of assets is not reimbursable by the grantor in any way. If so, the concession beneficiary would be able to calculate depreciation at natural rates and at the end of the concession the maritime domain would have a certain present value of assets that could be reimbursed to the concession beneficiary through one of the legally considered modules (by the owner of the maritime domain or possibly by a new concessionaire). The paper presents the way in which fixed assets are depreciated and compares the effects on the company's performance based on two different approaches to depreciation: according to the natural consumption of assets and according to the accelerated rates due to the duration of the concession period. Regardless of the fact that depreciation is the most significant non-monetary cost, it very much affects the company's cash flow: through payments in the form of profit tax and the payment of dividends. Estimating the useful life of fixed assets affects performance indicators: directly on the cost of depreciation, and indirectly on total expenses, gross result, income tax calculation, net result, EBIT, liquidity, economy and profitability indicators. The role of controlling in this situation is to "raise the flag", give early warnings and continuously serve all stakeholders with relevant information on the importance of managing fixed assets in the system of concessions on maritime domain, and its impact on business performance.