3.5 Private-Company Alternative
ASC 810-10
15-17AD A legal entity need not be
evaluated by a private company (reporting entity) under the
guidance in the Variable Interest Entities Subsections if
all of the following criteria are met:
-
The reporting entity and the legal entity are under common control.
-
The reporting entity and the legal entity are not under common control of a public business entity.
-
The legal entity under common control is not a public business entity.
-
The reporting entity does not directly or indirectly have a controlling financial interest in the legal entity when considering the General Subsections of this Topic. The Variable Interest Entities Subsections shall not be applied when making this determination.
Applying this accounting alternative is an
accounting policy election. If a private company elects to
apply this accounting alternative, it shall apply this
alternative to all legal entities if criteria (a) through
(d) are met. A reporting entity that elects the accounting
alternative and, thus, does not apply the guidance in the
Variable Interest Entities Subsections shall continue to
apply other accounting guidance (including guidance in the
General Subsections of this Subtopic) unless another scope
exception from this Topic applies. A reporting entity
applying this alternative shall disclose the required
information specified in paragraphs 810-10-50-2AG through
50-2AI unless the legal entity is consolidated by the
reporting entity through accounting guidance other than VIE
guidance.
15-17AE To determine whether the
private company (reporting entity) and the legal entity are
under common control of a parent solely for the purpose of
applying paragraph 810-10-15-17AD(a), the private company
shall consider only the parent’s direct and indirect voting
interest in the private company and the legal entity. In
other words, only the guidance in the General Subsections of
this Topic shall be considered for determining whether a
parent has a direct or indirect controlling financial
interest in the private company and the legal entity as
required in paragraph 810-10-15-17AD(a). The guidance in the
Variable Interest Entities Subsections of this Topic shall
not be applied for making this determination. See paragraphs
810-10-55-205AU through 55-205AZ for illustrative
guidance.
15-17AF If any of the criteria in
paragraph 810-10-15-17AD for applying the accounting
alternative cease to be met, a private company shall apply
the guidance in the Variable Interest Entities Subsections
at the date of change on a prospective basis, except for
situations in which a reporting entity becomes a public
business entity. When a reporting entity becomes a public
business entity, it shall apply the guidance in the Variable
Interest Entities Subsections in accordance with Topic 250
on accounting changes and error corrections.
A reporting entity that is a private company can elect, as an
accounting alternative, to not apply the VIE guidance to legal entities under common
control as long as the reporting entity, the common-control parent, and the legal
entity being evaluated for consolidation are not public
business entities and meet the criteria in ASC 810-10-15-17AD. ASC
810-10-15-17AD allows a private company (reporting entity) not to apply the VIE
model if:
-
“The reporting entity and the legal entity are under common control.”
-
“The reporting entity and the legal entity are not under common control of a public business entity.”
-
“The legal entity under common control is not a public business entity.”
-
“The reporting entity does not directly or indirectly have a controlling financial interest in the legal entity when considering the General Subsections of this Topic [ASC 810]. The Variable Interest Entities Subsections shall not be applied when making this determination.”
ASC 810-10-15-17AE provides guidance on applying the first criterion
above, which requires a determination that the reporting entity and the legal entity
are under common control. Specifically, ASC 810-10-15-17AE states that solely
in the application of the first criterion, a private-company reporting entity should
consider only the voting interest entity model when making this
determination. That is, a private-company reporting entity should not consider the
VIE guidance when determining whether the first criterion of ASC 810-10-15-17AD is
met.
The example below illustrates the application of ASC
810-10-15-17AD.
Example 3-34
Parent has a 100 percent direct voting
interest in Entity A (the reporting entity) and a 70 percent
direct voting interest in Entity B. Entity A has a 30
percent direct voting interest in B and a 60 percent direct
voting interest in C. Third-Party Investor has a 40 percent
direct voting interest in C.
The respective voting interest of Parent, A,
and Third-Party Investor are summarized in the diagram
below.
Further assume the following:
-
None of the entities are public business entities; therefore, criteria (b) and (c) in ASC 810-10-15-17AD are met.
-
There are no contractual arrangements through which a third party controls B or C.
-
Third-Party Investor does not have substantive participating rights in C.
Parent has a controlling financial interest
in A, B, and C through its direct and indirect voting
interests. Therefore, A, B, and C are under common control
with respect to criterion (a) in ASC 810-10-15-17AD.
Entity A can apply the private-company scope
exception of ASC 810-10-15-17AD to B because A does not
directly or indirectly have a controlling financial interest
in B and therefore also meets criterion (d). However, A
cannot apply the scope exception to C because A
has a controlling financial interest in C and therefore does
not meet criterion (d).
The private-company scope exception is considered an accounting
policy that, if elected, should be applied consistently to all legal entities that
qualify for it. Because the scope exception is limited to the VIE guidance,
private-company reporting entities will continue to be required to evaluate the
consolidation guidance under the voting interest entity model to determine whether
they have a controlling financial interest. Such entities that apply the scope
exception but do not have a controlling financial interest under the voting interest
entity model will be required to provide enhanced disclosures (see ASC 810-10-50-2AG
through 50-2AI) that are similar to those required of entities that apply the VIE
guidance. See Section
11.2.4.3 for a discussion of the required disclosures.
Connecting the Dots
Common-Control
Considerations
As noted above, a reporting entity is permitted to apply the
private-company scope exception only if the reporting entity and
legal entity are under common control on the basis of a common-control
parent’s voting interest. In the illustration below, we would not expect
Subsidiary A (the reporting entity) to be eligible to apply the
private-company scope exception because Parent is the primary beneficiary of
Subsidiary A through a contractual arrangement and does not hold any voting
interest in Subsidiary A. Therefore, Subsidiary A (the reporting entity) and
Subsidiary B (the legal entity) are not under common control of Parent
solely on the basis of voting interest.
Applicability of the Private-Company Scope Exception to
Parent-Subsidiary Relationships
In paragraph BC69 of ASU 2015-02, the FASB explains that in
accordance with the VIE model, entities under common control include
“subsidiaries controlled (directly or indirectly) by a common parent, or a
subsidiary and its parent.”
Although paragraph BC69 of ASU 2015-02 highlights that a
parent and its subsidiary are entities under common control, we do not
believe that the private-company scope exception can be applied to
parent-subsidiary common-control relationships when the parent is the
reporting entity. To be under common control for the application of
criterion (a) in ASC 810-10-15-17AD, a parent must have a controlling
financial interest through its voting interest in both the reporting entity
and the legal entity. If the parent is also the reporting entity, criterion
(d) in ASC 810-10-15-17AD is not met because the reporting entity (in this
case, the parent) has a controlling financial interest in the legal entity
through its voting interest.