Defining Issues February 2013, No. 13-8

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Defining Issues February 2013, No. 13-8"

Transcription

1 Issues & Trends Defining Issues February 2013, No Revenue Recognition: Boards Decide Scope and Industry-Specific Issues At their January 2013 meeting, the FASB and IASB (the Boards) made tentative decisions about the scope of their revenue recognition project, application of the proposed standard to sales of nonfinancial assets that are not an output of a vendor s ordinary activities, application to certain asset management contracts, and accounting for certain repurchase agreements. The Boards also discussed feedback on the proposed disclosure and transition provisions, but made no decisions. The Boards tentatively decided: To confirm the scope of their November 2011 revised joint exposure drafts on revenue recognition (2011 EDs), including the definition of a customer. 1 In addition, the Boards provided clarifications on the application of the proposed standard to collaborative arrangements and financial services contracts. To confirm that the control and measurement (including the constraint) provisions of the proposed standard would apply to sales of nonfinancial assets that are not an output of a vendor s ordinary activities. In addition, the Boards tentatively decided that a vendor should apply the existence of contract provisions for those sales of nonfinancial assets transactions. Contents Scope 2 Sale of Assets That Are Not Part of a Vendor s Ordinary Activities 4 Asset Management Contracts 5 Repurchase Agreements 6 Disclosure and Transition Feedback 9 Interaction with FASB s Financial Instruments Impairment Project 9 Updated Redeliberations Plan 11 Summary of Joint Tentative Decisions on Revenue Recognition 12 To revise and clarify certain aspects of the proposed implementation guidance on repurchase agreements from their 2011 EDs, including adopting changes to conform that guidance to tentative decisions on sale-leaseback accounting reached by the Boards on their joint leases project. 2 To confirm that an asset manager s performance-based incentive fees should be subject to the revenue constraint. The FASB also tentatively decided to retain existing U.S. GAAP guidance on asset managers accounting for upfront commission costs for mutual funds that have a back-end sales charge. This edition of Defining Issues summarizes these tentative decisions and other discussions. In addition, this edition summarizes the interaction of the revenue proposal with the recent proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) on accounting for credit impairment losses on financial assets. 3 For a podcast summary of this Defining Issues go to: 1 FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, November 14, 2011, available at and IASB ED/2011/6, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, November 2011, available at 2 Refer to the summary of Leases Joint Project of the FASB and IASB, available at Also see KPMG s Defining Issues publications on the Boards redeliberations of their joint leases project, all available at 3 FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Financial Instruments Credit Losses, December 20, 2012, available at

2 Scope 2011 EDs Guidance Collaborative Arrangements. The Boards excluded from the scope of the proposed standard contracts with a collaborator or a partner that are not customers but rather merely share with the vendor the risks and benefits of developing a product to be marketed. The Boards defined a customer as a party that has contracted with a vendor to obtain goods or services that are an output of the vendor s ordinary activities and noted that all facts and circumstances should be considered in determining whether the counterparty is a customer. Financial Services Contracts. The 2011 EDs scoped out certain contracts such as financial instruments. However, they also specified that a contract with a customer may be partially in the scope of the revenue recognition guidance and partially in the scope of other accounting guidance (e.g., a contract with a lease of an asset and services). If the other accounting guidance specifies how to separate and/or initially measure one or more parts of a contract, then a vendor would first apply those requirements. Otherwise, the vendor would apply the revenue recognition guidance to separate or initially measure the separately identified parts of the contract. Collaborative Arrangements. A few respondents to the 2011 EDs questioned whether a transaction with a collaborator or partner could ever be within the scope of the proposed revenue model. Others asked whether the Boards had intentionally limited collaborative arrangements to projects aimed at developing a marketable product. A few respondents requested further guidance on distinguishing a customer from a collaborator. Finally, a few respondents questioned whether the proposed revenue guidance could be applied by analogy to transactions outside the scope of the proposed standard. At their January 2013 meeting, the Boards confirmed the scope of the proposed standard including the definition of a customer ( a party that has contracted with an entity to obtain goods or services that are an output of the entity s ordinary activities ). The Boards tentatively decided to clarify that: A collaborative arrangement is not limited to the development and commercialization of a product. A contract with a collaborator or a partner is within the scope of the revenue standard if the counterparty meets the definition of a customer. KPMG Observations It will be important for a vendor that engages in collaborative arrangements to analyze whether the other collaborators are customers and, thus, lead to revenue generating activities. For example, a biotech entity may conclude that a collaborative arrangement with a pharmaceutical entity to provide a license to a drug candidate and ongoing research and development services includes a revenue contract that is in the scope of the proposed standard because the pharmaceutical entity is a customer that receives the license and services as part of the biotech entity s ordinary activities. The Boards also observed that a Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

3 vendor should evaluate the relationship with the counterparty throughout the duration of the contract. For example, the counterparty may be a collaborator for certain parts of the contract and a customer for other parts of the contract. Current U.S. GAAP provides income statement presentation guidance with respect to a collaborative arrangement, which is defined as an arrangement that meets the following two criteria: (a) the parties are active participants in the arrangement, and (b) the participants are exposed to significant risks and rewards that depend on the endeavor's ultimate commercial success. 4 It is our understanding that this guidance would not be superseded by the proposed standard. However, that guidance does not address recognition and measurement of collaborative arrangements. Because the Boards have explicitly excluded collaborative arrangements with parties that are not customers from the scope of the proposed standard, we believe that a vendor would continue to account for those arrangements based on its current accounting policy. It is our understanding that the Boards decision on collaborative arrangements is consistent with the current definition and application of collaborative arrangements in ASC Topic 808. Financial Services Contracts. Some comment letter respondents requested clarification on the accounting for financial services contracts that are partially within the scope of the proposed standard and partially within the scope of other standards. For example, one respondent noted that treasury services provided by banks such as lock box, check clearing, and account reconciliations provided at reduced rates or with no charge (based on customer deposits) would not be affected by the proposed revenue standard because the accounting for customer deposits would not change. At their January 2013 meeting, the Boards tentatively decided to clarify how a vendor would apply the proposed revenue standard when a contract with a customer is partially within its scope and partially within the scope of other standards such as financial services contracts. The Boards observed that a vendor would: First apply the financial instruments guidance for determining which parts of a financial services contract are separated and excluded from the proposed revenue standard, and Then ascribe the residual amount to components within the revenue standard. The Boards also observed that there may be immaterial or no amounts left to allocate to components of a financial services contract that fall within the 2011 EDs scope. KPMG Observations The Boards tentative decision clarifies that for a financial services contract, a vendor would first apply other standards and then the proposed revenue standard. For example, assume a bank has a contract with a customer that provides the customer with a loan at a below market interest rate and investment banking services for a fixed fee. If the bank did not elect the fair value option for the loan, then it would be recognized at its amortized cost (less 4 FASB ASC Subtopic , Collaborative Arrangements Overall, available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

4 impairment) and the investment banking services would be recognized at the fixed fee in the contract. Thus, no additional amount would be allocated to the loan even though the loan had a below market interest rate. This accounting is consistent with the current requirements for recognition of a premium or discount on receivables and payables, which do not apply to the customary cash-lending activities and demand or savings deposit activities of financial institutions whose primary business is lending money. 5 Similarly, there is no change from current practice for accounting for cash deposits with free treasury services because the amount received for the cash deposit would be recognized as a deposit liability with no amounts allocable to the free treasury services. Sale of Assets That Are Not Part of a Vendor s Ordinary Activities 2011 EDs Guidance Certain aspects of the 2011 EDs would be applied to sales of intangible assets, real estate, and other property, plant, and equipment that are not an output of the vendor s ordinary activities. A vendor would derecognize the asset when the counterparty obtains control of the asset. The resulting gain or loss would be based on the difference between the transaction price and the carrying amount of the asset, but limited to amounts to which the seller is reasonably assured to be entitled. Respondents generally agreed with the 2011 EDs proposals. However, some respondents expressed concern with the potential accounting outcome from applying the constraint on variable consideration to the sale of nonfinancial assets, which could result in a Day 1 loss when the nonfinancial asset is derecognized because of the inability to recognize the contingent payments until subsequent periods. Those respondents generally would prefer that the consideration received from a sale of a nonfinancial asset be measured at fair value. At their January 2013 meeting, the Boards tentatively decided to confirm the consequential amendments proposed in the 2011 EDs that a vendor would apply the control and measurement requirements (including the constraint) to determine when the asset should be derecognized and the amount of consideration to be included in measuring the gain or loss recognized on transfer. In addition, the Boards tentatively decided that the requirements for determining whether a contract exists should apply to transfers of nonfinancial assets that are not an output of an entity s ordinary activities. KPMG Observations The proposed guidance would apply to sales of intangible assets and property, plant, and equipment, including real estate, that are not an output of the vendor s ordinary activities and transfers of a financial asset that are insubstance real estate. An exchange of a group of assets that constitutes a business or nonprofit activity (except for a transfer of in-substance real estate and conveyance of oil and mineral rights) would continue to be accounted for 5 FASB ASC Subtopic , Interest Imputation of Interest, available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

5 using current consolidation guidance. 6 Currently, vendors would first be required to determine whether or not a group of nonfinancial assets being transferred constitutes a business. If the group of nonfinancial assets does not constitute a business, a vendor then would be required to apply the proposed standard. Asset Management Contracts 2011 EDs Guidance Performance-based incentive fees in asset management contracts would be subject to the revenue constraint because they represent a form of variable consideration. Example 13, Management Fees, included in the implementation guidance to the 2011 EDs indicates that because these performance-based incentive fees are significantly affected by factors outside the asset manager s influence (e.g., fluctuations in the stock market), an asset manager s previous experience with similar contracts would not be predictive of the amount of consideration to which it would be entitled under the contract. Therefore, the asset manager would not be reasonably assured to be entitled to the performance-based incentive fees until the end of the applicable measurement period. Accounting for Performance-Based Incentive Fees. The majority of industry respondents agreed with the proposed model. However, those respondents believe that the Boards should clarify Example 13, Management Fees, in the 2011 EDs implementation guidance to indicate that some performance-based asset management fees may meet the reasonably assured threshold prior to the end of the measurement period. A few respondents said that investment advisors should be permitted to recognize performance fees in interim periods in which the investment manager s performance exceeds the specified performance targets even if the determination of the performance fees is not finalized until a later period. At their January 2013 meeting, the Boards decided to confirm that an asset manager s performance-based incentive fees would be subject to the revenue constraint and the recognition of these fees would be limited to amounts for which external factors (e.g., market volatility) do not create a risk of a significant revenue reversal. KPMG Observations Some Board members observed that although Method 2 in current U.S. GAAP (i.e., recognize revenue each period at the amount the asset manager would earn if the end of the reporting period were the end of the contract period) provides a good depiction of an asset manager s performance each period, it is not consistent with the objective of the constraint, which is to recognize revenue at an amount that is not subject to a risk of significant revenue reversal. 7 6 FASB ASC Subtopic , Consolidation Overall, available at 7 FASB ASC Section S99 (formerly EITF Topic No. D-96, Accounting for Management Fees Based on a Formula), Revenue Recognition Services SEC Materials, available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

6 The Boards observed that the proposed standard also is different from Method 1 in current U.S. GAAP because an asset manager is not precluded from recognizing a portion of the performance-based incentive fee prior to the resolution of the contingency if the amount to be recognized is not subject to a risk of significant revenue reversal. For example, if the asset manager locks in the performance fee prior to the end of the contract period by diverting the managed funds to money market investments and intends to hold the managed funds in money market investments until the end of the contract period, the asset manager might be able to recognize a portion of the performance fees prior to the end of the contract period. Accounting for Upfront Commission Costs. Current U.S. GAAP allows asset managers to defer and amortize commissions paid upfront to third-party brokers who distribute fund shares to investors. 8 Some respondents to the 2011 EDs questioned why the FASB proposed to remove this industry-specific cost guidance. Those respondents view the costs as fulfillment costs of the asset manager s distribution service obligation to the fund, rather than customer acquisition costs, because the investors to whom the shares are distributed are not the asset manager s customers. At the January 2013 meeting, the FASB tentatively decided to retain the specific cost guidance for investment companies, which would allow asset managers to continue to defer and amortize upfront commission costs consistent with current practice. Repurchase Agreements 2011 EDs Guidance If a vendor sells an asset to a customer and unconditionally promises to repurchase the asset, the accounting depends on the form of the promise (i.e., forward, call option, or put option). If a customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise an unconditional right to require the vendor to repurchase the asset (put option), the customer would be considered to effectively pay the vendor for the right to use the asset for a period of time. Consequently, the vendor would account for the agreement as a lease. To determine whether the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise its right, a vendor would consider factors including the relationship of the repurchase price to the expected market value of the asset at the date the repurchase option is exercisable and the amount of time until the right expires. The 2011 EDs specify that if the repurchase price is expected to exceed the market value of the asset, the customer would have a significant economic incentive to exercise the put option. If the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise its right, the vendor would account for the agreement similar to a sale of a product with a right of return. If the vendor has an unconditional obligation (a forward) or an unconditional right (a call option) to repurchase the asset, the customer would not have control of the asset. The vendor would account for the agreement as a lease if it expects 8 FASB ASC paragraph (formerly EITF Issue No , Distribution Fees by Distributors of Mutual Funds That Do Not Have a Front-End Sales Charge), available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

7 to repurchase the asset for less than the original sales price of the asset. If the vendor expects to repurchase the asset for an amount that is greater than or equal to the original sales price, it would account for the transaction as a financing arrangement. Some respondents to the 2011 EDs questioned why the proposed guidance on repurchase agreements is limited to only unconditional repurchase options, which excludes repurchase agreements that may have conditions but are otherwise economically similar. Other respondents requested clarification on whether processing costs should be included in the repurchase price of a product financing arrangement when a vendor sells a product to a contract manufacturer and then repurchases the product or processed goods of which the original product is a component. Respondents from the automotive industry expressed the following concerns on the proposed guidance for repurchase agreements. Existing U.S. GAAP requires that contracts that include minimum residual value guarantees be accounted for as leases, irrespective of whether the customer has to return the asset to the vendor. 9 Some respondents noted that the proposed standard may lead to different accounting for economically similar transactions (e.g., the automaker that sells to a rental company and agrees to repurchase the auto after a specified time period would account for that transaction differently from an agreement to provide a guarantee of the minimum resale value for that auto) and may provide structuring opportunities. Current guidance on products sold to a dealer by a manufacturer specifies that when certain conditions are met, the manufacturer recognizes a sale of the product to the dealer even when the manufacturer or its financing affiliate has agreed to repurchase the auto from the dealer to provide an operating lease to 10 the dealer s retail customer. Automakers pointed out that the current guidance would be eliminated by the proposed standard and, therefore, the Boards should clarify how they would expect automakers to account for these transactions. At their January 2013 meeting, the Boards tentatively decided: To remove the word unconditional from the implementation guidance for repurchase agreements. To clarify that in a product financing arrangement (i.e., when a vendor sells a product to another entity and repurchases that product as part of a larger component for a higher price), the vendor would exclude the processing costs from the repurchase price in determining the amount of interest related to the financing component of the arrangement. That no amendments to the guidance were necessary for the sale of a good to a customer with a guarantee that the customer will receive a minimum resale 9 FASB ASC paragraphs through 25 (formerly EITF Issue No. 95-1, Revenue Recognition on Sales with a Guaranteed Minimum Resale Value), available at 10 FASB ASC paragraph (formerly EITF Issue No. 95-4, Revenue Recognition on Equipment Sold and Subsequently Repurchased Subject to an Operating Lease), available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

8 amount because the Boards confirmed that the existence of the guarantee would not preclude the transfer of control of the product to the customer. That no amendments to the guidance were necessary for the sale of a good to a customer that is subsequently repurchased by the vendor for the purpose of leasing it to the customer s customer. The Boards confirmed that the repurchase of the good by the vendor subsequent to the customer obtaining control of that good does not constitute a repurchase agreement as described in the proposed revenue standard. However, in determining whether the customer obtained control of the good, a vendor should consider the principal versus agent guidance. That a sale-leaseback transaction that includes a put option with a repurchase price that is less than the original sales price and for which the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise would be accounted for as a financing arrangement because the customer (buyer-lessor) would not be deemed to obtain control over the asset subject to the sale-leaseback transaction. KPMG Observations Removal of the Word Unconditional. The Boards tentative decision to remove the word unconditional would result in the proposed guidance being more consistent with current real estate guidance. For example, if a vendor has an option to repurchase the property from the buyer, or the buyer has an option to require the seller to repurchase the property if the value of the property appreciates above a specific market threshold (which is a price higher than the original sales price), and it is likely that the value of the property will appreciate above the specific threshold, the vendor would account for the transaction as a financing arrangement. Processing Costs. The Boards tentative decision would result in guidance that is consistent with current guidance on product financing arrangements. 11 The Boards acknowledged that a financing arrangement also may include processing by the buyer. For example, an automaker may sell steel to a parts supplier and in a related transaction agree to purchase component parts from the supplier containing a similar amount of steel. The price of the component parts includes processing, holding, and financing costs. The vendor should separately identify the processing costs from the financing and holding costs and record processing costs as part of the cost of the product. Guaranteed Minimum Resale Value. Some Board members observed that they believe there is a substantive difference between a contract that includes a customer put option where the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise and a contract in which the automaker guarantees the auto s minimum resale value. In the former case, the customer does not control the asset because it has a significant economic incentive to put the auto back to the automaker. In the latter case, the customer can retain the auto or can sell it on its own terms, retaining any excess proceeds it may receive above the guaranteed minimum resale amount; therefore, the customer is deemed to control the asset (i.e., direct its use and obtain substantially all of its economic benefits). The Boards tentative decision with respect to contracts that include 11 FASB ASC Subtopic , Debt Product Financing Arrangements, available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

9 minimum resale value guarantees would result in a change from existing U.S. GAAP that some Board members believe is a consequence of a transfer of control model rather than a risks and rewards model. Equipment Sold and Subsequently Repurchased Subject to an Operating Lease. The Boards observed that contracts entered into by the vendor with parties in the distribution channel that are not customers of the vendor are not combined. For an automaker, the customer for the sale of the vehicle typically is the dealer while the customer for an operating lease agreement is the end user. Because the dealer and the end user are not related parties, those contracts (the initial sale of the vehicle to the dealer and the subsequent lease contract with the end user) would not be evaluated for combining purposes and would be treated as separate contracts. In a contract in which an automaker sells to a dealership and agrees to subsequently repurchase the auto if the dealer s customer chooses to lease it through the automaker s captive finance affiliate, the automaker would generally recognize revenue upon the sale of the auto to the dealership using the point in time transfer of control indicators in the 2011 EDs. The Boards discussed a transaction where the end consumer orders a customized auto with the automaker and concurrently enters into a finance agreement with the finance affiliate of the automaker. The Boards noted that the automaker should consider the principal versus agent guidance in the proposed standard in evaluating whether the dealer is acting as an agent for the automaker. Sale-Leaseback Transactions with Put Options. The Boards previously reached a tentative decision that the leaseback in a sale-leaseback transaction would not automatically preclude a seller from concluding that it had transferred control of the asset to the customer but that a sale-leaseback transaction not accounted for as a sale would be accounted for as a financing arrangement. The Boards tentative decision at their January 2013 meeting is intended to clarify when a seller-lessee has not transferred control to the buyer-lessor in a saleleaseback transaction as a result of a put option held by the buyer-lessor. Disclosure and Transition Feedback At their January 2013 meeting, the staff provided the Boards with a summary of the feedback received on the Boards proposed disclosure and transition requirements. This feedback was received through comment letters, outreach, and workshops held in Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States that included both preparers and financial statement users. The Boards were not asked to make any decisions with respect to the feedback. Instead, the issues will be discussed by the Boards in February Interaction with FASB s Financial Instruments Impairment Project On December 20, 2012, the FASB issued a proposed ASU on credit losses that would change the way an entity recognizes credit impairment losses on financial assets. 12 The FASB s proposed impairment model would reflect a vendor s current 12 FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Financial Instruments Credit Losses, available at Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

10 estimate of contractual cash flows that are not expected to be collected in the determination of the credit loss. Receivables that result from revenue transactions (i.e., trade receivables) are included within the scope of the proposed ASU. However, contract assets reflecting revenue recognized in advance of contractual billings that are contingent on something other than the passage of time are not within its scope. KPMG Observations The proposed standard does not include collectibility as a recognition threshold that would require an assessment of the customer s ability to pay the promised amount of consideration before revenue could be recognized. Instead, a vendor would recognize revenue (even when collectibility is not probable or reasonably assured) and separately recognize an allowance for any expected credit impairment loss from contracts with customers following the guidance that applies to financial assets (trade receivables). As a result of the proposed removal of the collectibility threshold, revenue may be recognized earlier than under current U.S. GAAP for certain contracts with a corresponding credit impairment loss for a vendor s estimate of contractual cash flows that are not expected to be collected. The IASB is also expected to issue an exposure draft of its financial asset impairment model in the first quarter of Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

11 Updated Redeliberations Plan The following table summarizes the remaining issues currently scheduled for redeliberations. The topics may change if deemed necessary by the Boards and their staff. The timing for discussion is undetermined. Issues to Be Redeliberated at Future Meetings Contract issues relating to whether a credit-card issuing bank should combine contracts with its cardholders who participate in its loyalty programs with merchant contracts and whether a contract with merchants should allocate a portion of the revenue generated from the merchant interchange fees to the goods or services provided under the loyalty programs. Disclosures: Consideration of the costs to prepare the proposed disclosures, including accessibility of the necessary information; Usefulness of the disclosures to financial statement users; Reconsideration of proposed interim reporting requirements; and Whether there are different needs of public and nonpublic financial statement users (FASB only). Transition, effective date, and early adoption: Consideration of the challenges and costs of retrospective application; Assessment of whether financial statement users needs for comparative financial information can be met through alternatives to full retrospective application; Determination of an effective date based on the transition method; and Consideration of early adoption. Remaining issues and consequential amendments, including: Licensing and rights to use intellectual property, if needed. Cost-benefit analysis. Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

12 Summary of Joint Tentative Decisions on Revenue Recognition The following chart summarizes the changes made by the Boards to the 2011 EDs during redeliberations. All decisions are tentative until a final standard is issued EDs Tentative Decisions Scope Definition of a Customer A party that has contracted with a vendor to obtain goods or services that are an output of the vendor s ordinary activities. Other parties to a contract may not be customers, but may be partners or collaborators with the vendor in developing goods or services to be sold to customers. In this situation, the guidance in the proposed standard would not apply. Contracts Partially in the Scope of Other Accounting Guidance A contract with a customer may be partially in the scope of the 2011 EDs and partially in the scope of other accounting guidance (e.g., a contract with a lease of an asset and services). If the other accounting guidance specifies how to separate and/or initially measure one or more parts of a contract, then a vendor would first apply those requirements. Otherwise, the vendor would apply the 2011 EDs to separate and/or initially measure the separately identified parts of the contract. Definition of a Customer The Boards have not revised the 2011 EDs scope, including the definition of a customer. The Boards tentatively decided to clarify that certain transactions with a collaborator or partner can be within the scope of the proposed revenue standard if the collaborator is a customer for certain transactions. The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify in the final standard that a collaborative arrangement is not limited to developing a commercial product to be marketed. Contracts Partially in the Scope of Other Accounting Guidance The Boards affirmed the 2011 EDs proposal that for arrangements partly in its scope and partly in the scope of another standard/topic, other standards/topics (e.g., financial instruments) should be applied first to allocate consideration to the components in the scope of the other standard/topic. Any residual consideration remaining after this allocation would become the transaction price allocable to the performance obligation(s) accounted for under the proposed revenue model. Step 1 Identify the Contract with the Customer Definition of a Contract A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that Definition of a Contract The Boards have not revised the 2011 EDs definition of a contract. Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

13 creates enforceable rights and obligations. The 2011 ED specifies that enforceability is a matter of law. A contract exists if it has commercial substance (i.e., the risk, timing, or amount of the vendor s future cash flows is expected to change as a result of the contract); the contract is approved by all parties, and they are committed to fulfill their respective obligations; the vendor can identify each party s rights for the goods or services to be transferred; and the vendor can identify the payment terms for those goods or services. The Boards tentatively decided to provide additional guidance in the final standard on determining whether a contract with a customer exists based on the customer s commitment to perform its obligations under the contract. Step 2 Identify the Separate Performance Obligations in the Contract A performance obligation is a promise in a contract with a customer to transfer a good or service to the customer. Performance obligations include promises that are implied by a vendor s customary business practices, published policies, or specific statements if those promises create a valid expectation of the customer that the vendor will transfer a good or service (e.g., customer loyalty programs). Certain conditions must be met for a performance obligation to be considered a separate performance obligation and accounted for as its own unit of account within the contract. The Boards have not revised the definition of a performance obligation from the one included in the 2011 EDs. However, the Boards tentatively decided that a promise to transfer goods or services to an unrelated party (i.e., the customer s customer) as a sales incentive that was made in the contract or implied by a vendor s customary business practices, published policies, or specific statements, would be treated as a performance obligation in the transaction with the customer. If the promise was made after the transfer of control of the product to the intermediary, the Boards affirmed that the promise would not be treated as a performance obligation. Criteria for Identifying Separate Performance Obligations A single contract may have promises to deliver more than one good or service. A vendor would Criteria for Identifying Separate Performance Obligations A single contract may have promises to deliver more than one good or service. A vendor would Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

14 need to evaluate the promised goods or services to determine whether each good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) constitutes a separate performance obligation. A vendor would account for a promised good or service as a separate performance obligation only if it is distinct from other goods or services in the contract. A promised good or service would be distinct if both of the following are met: The vendor regularly sells the good or service separately; and The customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer. Readily available resources are goods or services that are sold separately (by the vendor or by another vendor) or resources that the customer already has obtained (from the vendor or from other transactions or events). Notwithstanding the above requirements, a good or service in a bundle of promised goods or services is not distinct, and should be accounted for as a single performance obligation, if both: The goods or services are highly interrelated and transferring them to the customer requires the vendor to provide a significant service of integrating the goods or services into the combined item for which the customer has contracted; and need to evaluate the promised goods or services to determine whether each good or service (or bundle of goods or services) constitutes a separate performance obligation. A vendor would account for a promised good or service as a separate performance obligation only if: The good or service is capable of being distinct because the customer can benefit from the good or service on its own (i.e., the good or service is an asset that on its own can be used, consumed, sold for an amount other than scrap value, held, or otherwise used in a way that generates economic benefits) or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer. Readily available resources are goods or services that are sold separately (by the vendor or by another vendor) or resources that the customer already has obtained from the vendor or from other transactions or events; and The good or service is distinct within the context of the contract because the good or service is not highly dependent on, or highly interrelated with, other promised goods or services in the contract. The following indicators would be used to evaluate whether a good or service is distinct in the context of the contract: The vendor does not provide a significant service of integrating the bundle of goods or services. This means Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

15 The bundle of goods or services is significantly modified or customized to fulfill the contract. The 2011 EDs guidance would allow vendors, as a practical expedient, to account for two or more distinct promised goods or services as a single performance obligation if those promised goods or services have the same pattern of transfer to the customer. that the vendor is not using the good or service as an input to produce the output specified in the contract; The customer was able to purchase, or not purchase, the good or service without significantly affecting the other promised goods or services in the contract; The good or service does not significantly modify or customize another good or service promised in the contract; and The good or service is not a part of a series of consecutively delivered goods or services promised in the contract that meets both of the following conditions: Those goods or services transfer to the customer over time (based on an evaluation under the performance obligation satisfied over time criteria); and The vendor uses the same method for measuring progress to depict the transfer of those goods or services to the customer. Step 3 Determine the Transaction Price Time Value of Money Time value is reflected in a vendor s estimate of the transaction price if the contract has a financing component that is significant to the contract using the discount rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the vendor and the customer at the inception The Boards tentatively decided to affirm the 2011 EDs proposed requirements that an entity should adjust the amount of promised consideration for the effects of the time value of money if the contract with a customer has a significant financing component. The Boards also tentatively decided: Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

16 of the contract. To assess whether a financing component is significant to a contract, a vendor should consider all relevant factors including: The expected length of time between when the vendor transfers the promised goods or services to the customer and when the customer pays for those goods or services; Whether the amount of consideration would substantially differ if the customer paid in cash promptly under the typical credit terms in the industry and jurisdiction; and The interest rate in the contract and prevailing interest rates in the relevant market. The financing component would be recognized as interest expense (when the customer pays in advance) or interest income (when the customer pays in arrears). As a practical expedient, a vendor would not be required to reflect the time value of money in its estimate of the transaction price if the vendor expects at contract inception that the period between customer payment and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the customer will be one year or less. To clarify the application of the indicators in the 2011 EDs for determining whether a contract has a significant financing component; To clarify that if the transfer of goods or services to a customer is at the discretion of the customer, a vendor should not adjust advance payments for the effects of the time value of money; To retain the proposed practical expedient and clarify that the practical expedient also would apply to contracts with a duration of greater than one year if the period between performance and payment for that performance is one year or less; and To clarify that the proposed revenue standard would not preclude a vendor from presenting as revenue interest income that is recognized from contracts with a significant financing component. Step 3 Determine the Transaction Price Collectibility A vendor should not reflect the effects of a customer s credit risk in the measurement of the transaction price. Consequently, a vendor recognizes revenue at the promised amount of consideration (the amount to which a vendor The Boards tentatively decided that impairments from expected credit losses (i.e., bad debt expense) should be presented as a separate line item within operating expenses in the statement of comprehensive income, if that Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

17 expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services). In addition, the proposed guidance does not include collectibility as a recognition threshold that would require an assessment of the customer s ability to pay the promised amount of consideration for revenue to be recognized. Impairments for expected credit losses (i.e., bad debt expense) would be presented as a separate line item adjacent to the revenue line item. In exceptional cases, if there is significant uncertainty about collectibility at contract inception, that uncertainty may indicate that the parties are not committed to perform their respective obligations and therefore, do not have a contract as defined in the proposed standard. The use of the installment and cost-recovery methods would be eliminated by the proposed standard. amount is material. This presentation requirement would apply to all credit loss impairments, whether determined at contract inception or subsequently. In reaching those tentative decisions, the Boards also tentatively decided to reaffirm the following proposals from the 2011 EDs relating to collectibility: A vendor should not reflect the effects of a customer s credit risk in the measurement of the transaction price; and An assessment of the customer s ability to pay the promised amount of consideration should not be required to recognize revenue (i.e., there should not be a collectibility threshold in the proposed standard). The Boards noted that if there is significant uncertainty about collectibility at contract inception, that may indicate that the parties are not committed to perform their respective obligations, and no contract exists. Step 4 Allocate the Transaction Price to the Separate Performance Obligations Relative Standalone Selling Price Method Relative Standalone Selling Price Method Under the proposed guidance, a vendor would allocate the transaction price to all separate performance obligations in proportion to the standalone selling price of the promised goods or services, except as noted below. No significant changes were made to the proposals in the 2011 EDs. The best evidence of standalone selling price would be the observable price for which the vendor sells the goods or services separately. In the absence of Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

18 separate observable sales, the standalone selling price would be estimated. Reallocation of the transaction price for changes in standalone selling prices would not be allowed. The contingent revenue concept does not exist in the proposed revenue model. A vendor would recognize a contract asset for rights to consideration in exchange for goods or services that the vendor has transferred, even if that amount is contingent on future performance by the vendor. Determining a Standalone Selling Price The proposed standard would require a vendor to consider all information that is reasonably available and maximize observable inputs when estimating the standalone selling price. Estimation methods include, but are not limited to (a) adjusted market assessment approach, (b) expected cost plus a margin approach, and (c) residual approach. The residual approach would be appropriate only if the standalone selling price of a good or service is highly variable or uncertain and the standalone selling prices of the other performance obligations in the contract are observable. Determining a Standalone Selling Price The Boards tentatively decided to retain from the 2011 EDs the residual approach, adjusted market assessment approach, and expected cost plus a margin approach to estimating selling prices. The Boards clarified that the residual approach also could be used when two or more performance obligations in a contract have standalone selling prices that are highly variable or uncertain and at least one of the other goods or services in the contract has a standalone selling price that is not highly variable or uncertain. When there are two or more goods or services with highly variable or uncertain standalone selling prices, the Boards clarified that a vendor could use a combination of techniques to estimate their standalone selling prices by: First applying the residual approach to estimate the aggregate of the standalone selling prices for all of the goods or services with highly Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

19 variable or uncertain standalone selling prices; and Using another technique to estimate the individual standalone selling prices relative to the aggregate standalone selling price estimated above. Allocating Discounts to One or Some Performance Obligations If the sum of the standalone selling prices exceeds the transaction price (i.e., the customer receives a discount for the bundle of goods), the discount would be allocated to all of the performance obligations unless both of the following criteria are met, in which case the entire discount would be allocated to the separate performance obligations to which the discount relates: Allocating Discounts to One or Some Performance Obligations The Boards clarified that discounts should first be allocated using the 2011 EDs guidance on allocating discounts to some performance obligations in the contract before using a residual approach to estimate the standalone selling price of any other performance obligations. The vendor regularly sells each good or service in the contract on a standalone basis; and The observable selling prices from those standalone sales provide evidence of the performance obligations to which the entire discount belongs. Allocation of Contingent Payments Entirely to a Distinct Good or Service If the transaction price includes consideration that is contingent on a future event or circumstance, the contingent amount would be allocated entirely to a distinct good or service only if both of the following criteria are met: The contingent payment terms for the distinct good or service relate specifically to the vendor s efforts to transfer Allocation of Contingent Payments Entirely to a Distinct Good or Service The Boards tentatively decided to retain the criteria from the 2011 EDs for determining when a vendor would allocate contingent consideration to distinct goods or services and clarified that a vendor could allocate contingent consideration to more than one distinct good or service in the contract. Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

20 that good or service or to a specific outcome from transferring that good or service; and Allocating the contingent consideration entirely to the distinct good or service, when considering all of the performance obligations and payment terms in the contract, would depict the amount of consideration to which the vendor expects to be entitled for transferring that good or service. Step 5 Recognize Revenue Performance Obligations Satisfied Over Time A vendor transfers control of a good or service over time if at least one of the following two criteria is met: The Boards tentatively decided that a vendor transfers control of a good or service over time if one of the following criteria is met: The vendor s performance creates or enhances an asset that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced; or The vendor s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the vendor and at least one of the following criteria is met (1) the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits as the vendor performs; (2) another vendor would not need to substantially reperform work the vendor has completed to date if that other vendor were to fulfill the remaining obligation to the customer; or (3) the vendor has a right to payment for performance completed to date and the vendor is expected to fulfill the contract as promised. The vendor s performance creates or enhances an asset that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced; The customer receives and consumes the benefits as the vendor performs. A customer obtains the benefits of a vendor s performance if another vendor would not need to substantially reperform work the vendor has completed to date if that other vendor were to fulfill the remaining obligation to the customer; or The vendor s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the vendor, the vendor has a right to payment for performance completed to date, and it expects to fulfill the contract as promised. Defining Issues / February 2013 / No

New Accounting Rules for Nonfinancial Asset Sales

New Accounting Rules for Nonfinancial Asset Sales On February 22, 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2017-05, Other Income Gains and Losses from the Derecognition of Nonfinancial Assets (Subtopic

More information

Defining Issues May 2013, No

Defining Issues May 2013, No Defining Issues May 2013, No. 13-24 FASB and IASB Issue Revised Exposure Drafts on Lease Accounting The FASB and IASB (the Boards) recently issued revised joint exposure drafts (EDs) on proposed changes

More information

Defining Issues. FASB Completes Technical Redeliberations on Leases. October 2015, No Key Facts. Key Impacts

Defining Issues. FASB Completes Technical Redeliberations on Leases. October 2015, No Key Facts. Key Impacts Defining Issues October 2015, No. 15-47 FASB Completes Technical Redeliberations on Leases The FASB met on October 7 to discuss comments received and related follow-up issues on the external review of

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2019-01 3 January 2019 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects automotive entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Recent standard setting activity... 2 Key considerations...

More information

Leases: Overview of the new guidance

Leases: Overview of the new guidance Leases: Overview of the new guidance Prepared by: Richard Stuart, Partner, National Professional Standards Group, RSM US LLP richard.stuart@rsmus.com, +1 203 905 5027 March 2, 2016 Introduction On February

More information

Lease & Finance Accountants Conference. September The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, NC

Lease & Finance Accountants Conference. September The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, NC Lease & Finance Accountants Conference September 11-13 The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, NC H A N D O U T S Lessor Accounting under ASC 842 EQUIPMENT LEASING AND FINANCE ASSOCIATION Presenters Rod Hurd Chief

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2018-18 13 December 2018 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects life sciences entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 2 Scope and scope exceptions...

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2017-17 29 June 2017 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new revenue standard affects operating real estate entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Real estate sales... 2 Property management services...

More information

IASB Staff Paper March 2011

IASB Staff Paper March 2011 IASB Staff Paper March 2011 Effect of board redeliberations on Exposure Draft Leases About this staff paper This staff paper indicates how the proposals in the Exposure Draft Leases would change as a result

More information

Click to edit Master title style REVENUE RECOGNITION Understanding the New Revenue Recognition Standard ASC 606

Click to edit Master title style REVENUE RECOGNITION Understanding the New Revenue Recognition Standard ASC 606 Click to edit Master title style REVENUE RECOGNITION Understanding the New Revenue Recognition Standard ASC 606 9/7/2017 0 Agenda Overview of ASC 606 Review of the five-step process Accounting for contract

More information

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Enter Home Stretch in Redeliberations on Lease Accounting but on Different Tracks. Key Facts. October 2014, No.

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Enter Home Stretch in Redeliberations on Lease Accounting but on Different Tracks. Key Facts. October 2014, No. Defining Issues October 2014, No. 14-46 FASB and IASB Enter Home Stretch in Redeliberations on Lease Accounting but on Different Tracks At their July and October joint meetings, the FASB and the IASB (the

More information

FASB and IASB Continue Making Decisions on Lease Accounting

FASB and IASB Continue Making Decisions on Lease Accounting Accounting Journal Entry FASB and IASB Continue Making Decisions on Lease Accounting March 28, 2011 At recent meetings, the FASB and IASB (the boards ) have continued to make progress on the leases project,

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2018-08 20 September 2018 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects engineering and construction entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 2 Scope and

More information

Revenue: Real estate Q&As

Revenue: Real estate Q&As Revenue: Real estate Q&As US GAAP January 2019 kpmg.com/us/frv Contents Foreword... 1 About this publication.. 2 Executive summary. 3 A. Scope.. 8 B. Step 1: Identify the contract... 29 C. Step 2: Identify

More information

International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases. Objective. Scope. Recognition exemptions (paragraphs B3 B8) IFRS 16

International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases. Objective. Scope. Recognition exemptions (paragraphs B3 B8) IFRS 16 International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases Objective 1 This Standard sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases. The objective is to ensure

More information

FSA Faculty Consortium Technical Accounting Update. Bob Uhl, partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP

FSA Faculty Consortium Technical Accounting Update. Bob Uhl, partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP FSA Faculty Consortium Technical Accounting Update Bob Uhl, partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP Deloitte University May 30, 2014 Acronyms Acronym ASC ASU ED FASB IASB IFRS U.S. GAAP Full Form Accounting Standards

More information

IFRS Project Insights Leases

IFRS Project Insights Leases IFRS Project Insights Leases The IASB and FASB ( the Boards ) published a Discussion Paper (DP) setting out a proposed lessee accounting model in March 2009. The proposed accounting model has evolved since

More information

The Impact of the New Revenue Standard on Real Estate Sales

The Impact of the New Revenue Standard on Real Estate Sales The Impact of the New Revenue Standard on Real Estate Sales Wing W. Poon Montclair State University In May 2014, the FASB and the IASB jointly issued significantly revised standard on revenue recognition.

More information

2018 Accounting & Auditing Update P R E S E N T E D B Y : D A N I E L L E Z I M M E R M A N & A N D R E A S A R T I N

2018 Accounting & Auditing Update P R E S E N T E D B Y : D A N I E L L E Z I M M E R M A N & A N D R E A S A R T I N 2018 Accounting & Auditing Update P R E S E N T E D B Y : D A N I E L L E Z I M M E R M A N & A N D R E A S A R T I N AGENDA Leases FASB & GASB Revenue Recognition FASB 2 FASB ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic

More information

IFRS 16 LEASES. Page 1 of 21

IFRS 16 LEASES. Page 1 of 21 IFRS 16 LEASES OBJECTIVE The objective is to ensure that lessees and lessors provide relevant information in a manner that faithfully represents those transactions. This information gives a basis for users

More information

LAW AND ACCOUNTING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF CURRENT FASB DEVELOPMENTS 2014 Spring Meeting Los Angeles, CA

LAW AND ACCOUNTING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF CURRENT FASB DEVELOPMENTS 2014 Spring Meeting Los Angeles, CA LAW AND ACCOUNTING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF CURRENT FASB DEVELOPMENTS 2014 Spring Meeting Los Angeles, CA Randall D. McClanahan Butler Snow LLP randy.mcclanahan@butlersnow.com GOING CONCERN In July 2013, FASB

More information

Lease accounting scope & impacts

Lease accounting scope & impacts Leasing Lease accounting scope & impacts Scope What s in? All industries, all entities Arrangements that meet the definition of a lease Embedded leases within other arrangements What s out? Leases of:

More information

Executive Summary. New leases standard Lessees

Executive Summary. New leases standard Lessees Executive Summary December 2018 The new leases standard focuses on increased transparency and comparability providing financial statement users with more information about an entity s leasing activities.

More information

International Accounting Standard 17 Leases. Objective. Scope. Definitions IAS 17

International Accounting Standard 17 Leases. Objective. Scope. Definitions IAS 17 International Accounting Standard 17 Leases Objective 1 The objective of this Standard is to prescribe, for lessees and lessors, the appropriate accounting policies and disclosure to apply in relation

More information

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard - SLFRS 16. Leases

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard - SLFRS 16. Leases Sri Lanka Accounting Standard - SLFRS 16 Leases CONTENTS from paragraph SRI LANKA ACCOUNTING STANDARD - SLFRS 16 LEASES INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVE 1 SCOPE 3 RECOGNITION EXEMPTIONS 5 IDENTIFYING A LEASE 9 Separating

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2016-09 14 April 2016 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the FASB s new leases standard will affect health care entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 3 Scope and scope exceptions...

More information

In December 2003 the IASB issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

In December 2003 the IASB issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects. IFRS Standard 16 Leases In April 2001 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) adopted IAS 17 Leases, which had originally been issued by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC)

More information

FASB/IASB Update Part II

FASB/IASB Update Part II American Accounting Association FASB/IASB Update Part II Tom Linsmeier FASB Member August 3, 2014 The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenters. Official positions of the FASB/IASB

More information

No February Leases (Topic 842) An Amendment of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification

No February Leases (Topic 842) An Amendment of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification No. 2016-02 February 2016 Leases (Topic 842) An Amendment of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification The FASB Accounting Standards Codification is the source of authoritative generally accepted accounting

More information

Implementing the New Lease Guidance

Implementing the New Lease Guidance Implementing the New Lease Guidance October 22, 2018 2018 Crowe LLP 2018 Crowe LLP Agenda Background Scope Effective dates & transition requirements Lessee accounting model Lessor accounting model Specialized

More information

LKAS 17 Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 17

LKAS 17 Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 17 Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 17 Leases CONTENTS SRI LANKA ACCOUNTING STANDARD LKAS 17 LEASES paragraphs OBJECTIVE 1 SCOPE 2 DEFINITIONS 4 CLASSIFICATION OF LEASES 7 LEASES IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

More information

Accounting and Auditing Update. Staci L. Brogan, CPA, Shareholder Patricia R. Giudici, CPA, Senior Manager Schneider Downs & Co. Inc.

Accounting and Auditing Update. Staci L. Brogan, CPA, Shareholder Patricia R. Giudici, CPA, Senior Manager Schneider Downs & Co. Inc. Accounting and Auditing Update Staci L. Brogan, CPA, Shareholder Patricia R. Giudici, CPA, Senior Manager Schneider Downs & Co. Inc. Agenda Overview of the standard setting agenda Revenue recognition Lease

More information

by Trevor Farber and Scott Streaser, Deloitte & Touche LLP FASB Accounting Standards Update No , Revenue From Contracts With Customers.

by Trevor Farber and Scott Streaser, Deloitte & Touche LLP FASB Accounting Standards Update No , Revenue From Contracts With Customers. July 2, 2014 Volume 21, Issue 17 Heads Up In This Issue: Background Key Accounting Issues Effective Date and Transition Challenges for Entities That Account for Real Estate Transactions Thinking Ahead

More information

Leases: A Comprehensive Update on the Joint Project

Leases: A Comprehensive Update on the Joint Project The Dbriefs Financial Reporting series presents: Leases: A Comprehensive Update on the Joint Project Bob Uhl, Deloitte & Touche LLP Trevor Farber, Deloitte & Touche LLP James Barker, Deloitte & Touche

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2018-15 6 December 2018 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects consumer products and retail entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Recent standard-setting activity...

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2016-11 14 April 2016 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the FASB s new leases standard will affect real estate entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 2 Scope and scope exceptions...

More information

In December 2003 the Board issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

In December 2003 the Board issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects. IFRS 16 Leases In April 2001 the International Accounting Standards Board (the Board) adopted IAS 17 Leases, which had originally been issued by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC)

More information

Edison Electric Institute and American Gas Association New Lease Standard

Edison Electric Institute and American Gas Association New Lease Standard Edison Electric Institute and American Gas Association New Lease Standard May 16, 2016 Disclaimer The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances

More information

SSAP 14 STATEMENT OF STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRACTICE 14 LEASES

SSAP 14 STATEMENT OF STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRACTICE 14 LEASES SSAP 14 STATEMENT OF STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRACTICE 14 LEASES (Issued October 1987; revised February 2000) The standards, which have been set in bold italic type, should be read in the context of the background

More information

The joint leases project change is coming

The joint leases project change is coming No. 2010-4 18 June 2010 Technical Line Technical guidance on standards and practice issues The joint leases project change is coming What you need to know The proposed changes to the accounting for leases

More information

The new accounting standard for leases. 27 March 2017

The new accounting standard for leases. 27 March 2017 The new accounting standard for leases 27 March 2017 Disclaimer Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity.

More information

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Continue Discussions on Lease Accounting. Key Facts. June 2014, No

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Continue Discussions on Lease Accounting. Key Facts. June 2014, No Defining Issues June 2014, No. 14-29 FASB and IASB Continue Discussions on Lease Accounting During the second quarter of 2014, the FASB and IASB (the Boards) continued redeliberations on the proposals

More information

Accounting. Overview of the New Revenue Recognition Standard. Fort Worth Chapter TSCPA Free CPE Day

Accounting. Overview of the New Revenue Recognition Standard. Fort Worth Chapter TSCPA Free CPE Day Accounting Update - 2015 Overview of the New Revenue Recognition Standard 1 Fort Worth Chapter TSCPA Free CPE Day 2015 1 ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers Issued in May 2014 Supersedes

More information

FASB Updates Business Definition

FASB Updates Business Definition On January 5, 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2017-01, s (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business. This definition is significant

More information

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Take Divergent Paths on Key Aspects of Lease Accounting. March 2014, No Key Facts

Defining Issues. FASB and IASB Take Divergent Paths on Key Aspects of Lease Accounting. March 2014, No Key Facts Defining Issues March 2014, No. 14-17 FASB and IASB Take Divergent Paths on Key Aspects of Lease Accounting At their March 18-19 meeting to redeliberate the proposals in their 2013 exposure drafts (EDs)

More information

Something Borrowed, Something New Get Ready for the New Lease Accounting Standard

Something Borrowed, Something New Get Ready for the New Lease Accounting Standard April 2016 Something Borrowed, Something New Get Ready for the New Lease Accounting Standard By Scott G. Lehman, CPA, and David E. Wentzel, CPA Audit / Tax / Advisory / Risk / Performance Smart decisions.

More information

Exposure Draft. Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 116 Leases. (Last date for Comments: August 31, 2017)

Exposure Draft. Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 116 Leases. (Last date for Comments: August 31, 2017) ED/Ind AS/2017/06 Exposure Draft Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 116 Leases (Last date for Comments: August 31, 2017) Issued by Accounting Standards Board The Institute of Chartered Accountants of

More information

Grant Thornton October Leases. Navigating the guidance in ASC 842

Grant Thornton October Leases. Navigating the guidance in ASC 842 Grant Thornton October 2018 Leases Navigating the guidance in ASC 842 This publication was created for general information purposes, and does not constitute professional advice on facts and circumstances

More information

RE: Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements (File Reference No )

RE: Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements (File Reference No ) KPMG LLP Telephone +1 212 758 9700 345 Park Avenue Fax +1 212 758 9819 New York, N.Y. 10154-0102 Internet www.us.kpmg.com 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT 06856-5116 RE: Proposed Accounting Standards

More information

GAAP Update SCHFMA 2016 Fall Institute

GAAP Update SCHFMA 2016 Fall Institute GAAP Update SCHFMA 2016 Fall Institute Ken Conner, CPA Shareholder Tiffany Brackett, CPA Senior Manager This material was used by Elliott Davis Decosimo during an oral presentation; it is not a complete

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2018-10 11 October 2018 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects airlines In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 2 Scope and scope exceptions... 2 Definition

More information

FASB Emerging Issues Task Force

FASB Emerging Issues Task Force EITF Issue No. 09-4 FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 09-4 Title: Seller Accounting for Contingent Consideration Document: Issue Summary No. 1, Supplement No. 1 Date prepared: August 21, 2009 FASB

More information

Annual Accounting and Auditing Update. 11 December 2015

Annual Accounting and Auditing Update. 11 December 2015 Annual Accounting and Auditing Update 11 December 2015 Disclaimer The views expressed by panelists are not necessarily those of Ernst & Young LLP. These slides are for educational purposes only and are

More information

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard-LKAS 17. Leases

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard-LKAS 17. Leases Sri Lanka Accounting Standard-LKAS 17 Leases -516- Sri Lanka Accounting Standard-LKAS 17 Leases Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 17 Leases is set out in paragraphs 1 69. All the paragraphs have equal

More information

Revenue / Lease Standard

Revenue / Lease Standard Revenue / Lease Standard Introduction: The IADC AIP Revenue and Lessor Subcommittee have sought to evaluate the revenue recognition standard under Topic 606 and the lease standard under Topic 842 for applicability

More information

In December 2003 the Board issued a revised IAS 40 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

In December 2003 the Board issued a revised IAS 40 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects. IAS 40 Investment Property In April 2001 the International Accounting Standards Board (the Board) adopted IAS 40 Investment Property, which had originally been issued by the International Accounting Standards

More information

Topic 842 Technical Corrections Summary of Comments Received

Topic 842 Technical Corrections Summary of Comments Received Contact(s) David Hoyer Co-Author Ext. 462 Andy Bologna Co-Author Ext. 356 Thomas Faineteau Co-Author Ext. 362 Chris Roberge Co-Author Ext. 274 Amy Park Co-Author Ext. 476 Shayne Kuhaneck Assistant Director

More information

Heads Up. FASB Draws a Bright Line Through Operating Leases Proposed ASU Revamps Lease. Accounting. The ED, released by the FASB as a proposed

Heads Up. FASB Draws a Bright Line Through Operating Leases Proposed ASU Revamps Lease. Accounting. The ED, released by the FASB as a proposed August 17, 2010 Volume 17, Issue 27 Heads Up In This Issue: Background Effective Date In a Nutshell Scope Lessee Accounting Lessor Accounting Presentation and Disclosures Transition The ED, released by

More information

MONITORDAILY SPECIAL REPORT. Lease Accounting Project Update as of May 25, 2011 Prepared by Bill Bosco, Leasing 101

MONITORDAILY SPECIAL REPORT. Lease Accounting Project Update as of May 25, 2011 Prepared by Bill Bosco, Leasing 101 MONITORDAILY SPECIAL REPORT Lease Accounting Project Update as of May 25, 2011 Prepared by Bill Bosco, Leasing 101 The high volume of comment letters (780+) and numerous outreach meetings had common criticisms

More information

LEASES WHERE ARE WE? Steve Rathjen

LEASES WHERE ARE WE? Steve Rathjen LEASES WHERE ARE WE? Steve Rathjen 267 256-3110 srathjen@kpmg.com Agenda Project status Lease definition and classification Lessee accounting Lessor accounting Presentation, disclosures, and transition

More information

Build-to-suit leases Issues In-Depth

Build-to-suit leases Issues In-Depth Build-to-suit leases Issues In-Depth US GAAP February 2017 kpmg.com/us/frv member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ( KPMG International ), a Swiss entity. NDPPS 64108. Contents Navigating

More information

New Zealand Equivalent to International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases (NZ IFRS 16)

New Zealand Equivalent to International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases (NZ IFRS 16) New Zealand Equivalent to International Financial Reporting Standard 16 Leases (NZ IFRS 16) Issued February 2016 This Standard was issued on 11 February 2016 by the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board

More information

How the lease accounting proposal might affect your company

How the lease accounting proposal might affect your company Applying IFRS How the lease accounting proposal might affect your company August 2013 Contents 1. Overview... 1 2. Identifying a lease... 2 2.1 Scope exclusions... 2 2.2 Definition of a lease... 3 2.2.1

More information

Miles CPA Review: FAR Updates

Miles CPA Review: FAR Updates Miles CPA Review: FAR - 2019 Updates Summary of updates: - FAR-4.4: s [ASC 842] effective fiscal years beginning after Dec 15, 2018 (for issuers) and effective fiscal years beginning after Dec 15, 2019

More information

Accounting Update. Anne Cloutier, CPA, FHFMA Principal March 27, 2015

Accounting Update. Anne Cloutier, CPA, FHFMA Principal March 27, 2015 Accounting Update Anne Cloutier, CPA, FHFMA Principal March 27, 2015 Current Accounting for Leases Capital leases - a lessee recognizes leased assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. Operating leases

More information

Exposure Draft 64 January 2018 Comments due: June 30, Proposed International Public Sector Accounting Standard. Leases

Exposure Draft 64 January 2018 Comments due: June 30, Proposed International Public Sector Accounting Standard. Leases Exposure Draft 64 January 2018 Comments due: June 30, 2018 Proposed International Public Sector Accounting Standard Leases This document was developed and approved by the International Public Sector Accounting

More information

CONTACT(S) Danielle Zeyher Patrina Buchanan

CONTACT(S) Danielle Zeyher Patrina Buchanan IASB Agenda ref 3B STAFF PAPER November 2013 FASB IASB Meeting Project Leases Paper topic Redeliberations Plan CONTACT(S) Danielle Zeyher dtzeyher@fasb.org +1 203 956 5265 Patrina Buchanan pbuchanan@ifrs.org

More information

Preview of the New Exposure Draft of the Lease Accounting Project Key elements and commentary

Preview of the New Exposure Draft of the Lease Accounting Project Key elements and commentary Preview of the New Exposure Draft of the Lease Accounting Project Key elements and commentary Prepared by Bill Bosco, Leasing 101 www.leasing-101.com The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and

More information

New leases standard ASC 842 Lessee - operating leases. Itai Gotlieb, Partner, Professional Practice July 2017

New leases standard ASC 842 Lessee - operating leases. Itai Gotlieb, Partner, Professional Practice July 2017 ASC 842 Lessee - operating leases Itai Gotlieb, Partner, Professional Practice July 2017 Overview Under Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 842, Leases, lessees recognize assets and liabilities for

More information

File Reference No Re: Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements

File Reference No Re: Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements Deloitte & Touche LLP 695 East Main Street Stamford, CT 06901-2141 Tel: + 1 203 708 4000 Fax: + 1 203 708 4797 www.deloitte.com Ms. Susan M. Cosper Technical Director Financial Accounting Standards Board

More information

Going global. Trouble ahead. Ongoing major projects. Where next?

Going global. Trouble ahead. Ongoing major projects. Where next? Where now for IFRS? Gavin Aspden FCA ICAEW Director, Qualifications Going global Trouble ahead Ongoing major projects Where next? 1 Going global Trouble ahead Ongoing major projects Where next? IFRS jurisdictions

More information

Accounting and Auditing. Norman Mosrie, CPA, FMFMA, CHFP James Sutherland, CPA

Accounting and Auditing. Norman Mosrie, CPA, FMFMA, CHFP James Sutherland, CPA Accounting and Auditing Norman Mosrie, CPA, FMFMA, CHFP James Sutherland, CPA Leases (ASU 2016-02; Topic 842) A lease contract conveys the right to use an asset (the underlying asset) for a period of time

More information

Effect of a Special-Purpose Entity's Powers to Sell, Exchange, Repledge, or Distribute Transferred Financial Assets under FASB Statement No.

Effect of a Special-Purpose Entity's Powers to Sell, Exchange, Repledge, or Distribute Transferred Financial Assets under FASB Statement No. Topic No. D-66 Topic: Effect of a Special-Purpose Entity's Powers to Sell, Exchange, Repledge, or Distribute Transferred Financial Assets under FASB Statement No. 125 Dates Discussed: November 20, 1997;

More information

IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 Webinar

IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 Webinar CPA Ireland Skillnet CPA Ireland Skillnet, is a training network that is funded by Skillnets, a state funded, enterprise led support body dedicated to the promotion and facilitation of training and up-skilling

More information

NEED TO KNOW. Leases A Project Update

NEED TO KNOW. Leases A Project Update NEED TO KNOW Leases A Project Update 2 LEASES - A PROJECT UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Existing guidance and the rationale for change 4 The IASB/FASB project to date 5 The main proposals 6 Definition

More information

New Accounting Rules for Revenue and Leases

New Accounting Rules for Revenue and Leases New Accounting Rules for Revenue and Leases CFMA Education Summit March 22, 2017 Presented by: Carole McNees, CPA, Partner, Plante & Moran, PLLC Recently released standards New guidance from the Financial

More information

Financial reporting developments. A comprehensive guide. Lease accounting. Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases.

Financial reporting developments. A comprehensive guide. Lease accounting. Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases. Financial reporting developments A comprehensive guide Lease accounting Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases January 2019 To our clients and other friends Accounting Standard Codification (ASC)

More information

ACCOUNTING. IASB releases six new standards. edition. may The IASB in mid-may released six new Accounting Standards.

ACCOUNTING. IASB releases six new standards. edition. may The IASB in mid-may released six new Accounting Standards. may 2011 www.bdo.com.au ACCOUNTING news IASB releases six new standards The IASB in mid-may released six new Accounting Standards. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is the result of the IASB s and FASB s

More information

Accounting and Auditing Update. Tennessee Chapter of hfma Spring Institute 2016 Presented by William C. Matheney FHFMA CPA and Meredith P.

Accounting and Auditing Update. Tennessee Chapter of hfma Spring Institute 2016 Presented by William C. Matheney FHFMA CPA and Meredith P. Accounting and Auditing Update Tennessee Chapter of hfma Spring Institute 2016 Presented by William C. Matheney FHFMA CPA and Meredith P. Cate Today s Objectives Present an overview of pertinent recently

More information

The New Lease Accounting Standard. Hunter Mink, CPA, CCIFP Brian Rosenberg, CPA, MBA

The New Lease Accounting Standard. Hunter Mink, CPA, CCIFP Brian Rosenberg, CPA, MBA The New Lease Accounting Standard Hunter Mink, CPA, CCIFP Brian Rosenberg, CPA, MBA 1 Agenda Introduction Lease Identification and Classification Lessee Accounting Other Considerations Disclosures Impact

More information

In December 2003 the IASB issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects.

In December 2003 the IASB issued a revised IAS 17 as part of its initial agenda of technical projects. International Accounting Standard 17 Leases In April 2001 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) adopted IAS 17 Leases, which had originally been issued by the International Accounting Standards

More information

Technical Line FASB final guidance

Technical Line FASB final guidance No. 2018-11 11 October 2018 Technical Line FASB final guidance How the new leases standard affects telecom and media and entertainment entities In this issue: Overview... 1 Key considerations... 2 Scope

More information

Proposed Accounting Standards Update (Revised)

Proposed Accounting Standards Update (Revised) Proposed Accounting Standards Update (Revised) Issued: May 16, 2013 Comments Due: September 13, 2013 Leases (Topic 842) a revision of the 2010 proposed FASB Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 840)

More information

2 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for all leases other than:

2 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for all leases other than: Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 17 Leases (This Indian Accounting Standard includes paragraphs set in bold type and plain type, which have equal authority. Paragraphs in bold type indicate the main

More information

GASB 87 - Leases. South Carolina Association of CPAs Fall Fest November 16, 2018 Mauldin & Jenkins

GASB 87 - Leases. South Carolina Association of CPAs Fall Fest November 16, 2018 Mauldin & Jenkins November 16, 2018 Mauldin & Jenkins 800-277-0050 www.mjcpa.com GASB 87 - Leases Effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2019 - December 31, 2020 or June 30, 2021 or September 30, 2021 Amends

More information

Center for Plain English Accounting AICPA s National A&A Resource Center available exclusively to PCPS members

Center for Plain English Accounting AICPA s National A&A Resource Center available exclusively to PCPS members Report April 19, 2017 Center for Plain English Accounting AICPA s National A&A Resource Center available exclusively to PCPS members Sale-Leaseback Transactions Involving Real Estate Navigating the Twists

More information

Current Developments. FASB, AICPA and SEC. Jim Brendel, CPA, CFE March 1, 2013

Current Developments. FASB, AICPA and SEC. Jim Brendel, CPA, CFE March 1, 2013 Current Developments FASB, AICPA and SEC Jim Brendel, CPA, CFE March 1, 2013 Agenda FASB Developments Selected Projects and Initiatives Revenue Recognition Leases Impairment of Intangible Assets Other

More information

Is Your Operating Lease An Asset or Liability? It s Now Both

Is Your Operating Lease An Asset or Liability? It s Now Both MFM Annual Conference Is Your Operating Lease An Asset or Liability? It s Now Both 23 May 2016-1:30 pm 2:20 pm Disclaimer These slides are for educational purposes only and are not intended, and should

More information

Captive and Vendor Leasing

Captive and Vendor Leasing Captive and Vendor Leasing Equipment Leasing Association Lease Accountants Conference September 18, 2006 Deborah Brady James S. Brzoska Alan L. Moose Key Equipment Finance IBM Global Financing John Deere

More information

July 17, Technical Director File Reference No Re:

July 17, Technical Director File Reference No Re: July 17, 2009 Technical Director File Reference No. 1680-100 Re: Financial Accounting Standards Board ( FASB ) and International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) Discussion Paper titled Leases: Preliminary

More information

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 40. Investment Property

Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 40. Investment Property Sri Lanka Accounting Standard LKAS 40 Investment Property LKAS 40 CONTENTS SRI LANKA ACCOUNTING STANDARD LKAS 40 INVESTMENT PROPERTY paragraphs OBJECTIVE 1 SCOPE 2 DEFINITIONS 5 CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

More information

Comment on the Exposure Draft Leases

Comment on the Exposure Draft Leases 15 December 2010 International Accounting Standards Board 30 Cannon Street London EC4M 6XH United Kingdom Financial Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk CT 06856-5116 United States

More information

Financial reporting developments. A comprehensive guide. Lease accounting. Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases.

Financial reporting developments. A comprehensive guide. Lease accounting. Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases. Financial reporting developments A comprehensive guide Lease accounting Accounting Standards Codification 842, Leases October 2018 To our clients and other friends Accounting Standard Codification (ASC)

More information

Lease Accounting Standard Update ASU Presented by: Nicholas Hoefel, CPA Manager, Audit Services Group

Lease Accounting Standard Update ASU Presented by: Nicholas Hoefel, CPA Manager, Audit Services Group Lease Accounting Standard Update ASU 2016-02 Presented by: Nicholas Hoefel, CPA Manager, Audit Services Group 1 Overview Introduction Background and current environment Effective dates and transition Key

More information

Deeper Dive Leases. Overview

Deeper Dive Leases. Overview Deeper Dive Leases Presented by: Shaun Johnson, CPA Dingus, Zarecor & Associates PLLC Overview Effective dates Big picture Objective, impact, and implementation Applicability and definition Initial recognition

More information

Financial Reporting Advisors, LLC 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2215 Chicago, Illinois September 10, 2013

Financial Reporting Advisors, LLC 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2215 Chicago, Illinois September 10, 2013 Financial Reporting Advisors, LLC 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2215 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.345.9101 www.finra.com September 10, 2013 VIA EMAIL TO: director@fasb.org Technical Director File Reference

More information

LEASES CONTINUING FORWARD IFRS NEWSLETTER

LEASES CONTINUING FORWARD IFRS NEWSLETTER IFRS NEWSLETTER LEASES Issue 15, June 2014 Despite the significant divergence on key aspects of their lease proposals earlier this year, the Boards appear determined to finalise this long running project

More information

Implementation: Revenue and Leases

Implementation: Revenue and Leases Implementation: Revenue and Leases Agenda Ref 12B FASB/IASB Joint Board Meeting June 19, 2018 This presentation has been prepared for discussion at a public meeting of the International Accounting Standards

More information

Accounting and Auditing Update. Paul Lundy

Accounting and Auditing Update. Paul Lundy Accounting and Auditing Update Paul Lundy Leases: Not Just for the Footnotes Anymore Significant Financial Statement Impact New lease standard generally requires all leases to be capitalized and recognized

More information

IFRS 15. Revenue from Contracts with Customers. Presented by CPA Dr. Peter Njuguna

IFRS 15. Revenue from Contracts with Customers. Presented by CPA Dr. Peter Njuguna IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers Presented by CPA Dr. Peter Njuguna Introduction Revenue is income from ordinary activities. A contract has rights and obligations between two or more parties.

More information