11.2 Lessee’s Involvement With an Asset Before Lease Commencement
ASC 842-40
55-1 A lessee may obtain legal title to the underlying asset before that legal title is transferred to the lessor and the asset is leased to the lessee. If the lessee controls the underlying asset (that is, it can direct its use and obtain substantially all of its remaining benefits) before the asset is transferred to the lessor, the transaction is a sale and leaseback transaction that is accounted for in accordance with this Subtopic.
55-2 If the lessee obtains legal title, but does not obtain control of the underlying asset before the asset is transferred to the lessor, the transaction is not a sale and leaseback transaction. For example, this may be the case if a manufacturer, a lessor, and a lessee negotiate a transaction for the purchase of an asset from the manufacturer by the lessor, which in turn is leased to the lessee. For tax or other reasons, the lessee might obtain legal title to the underlying asset momentarily before legal title transfers to the lessor. In this case, if the lessee obtains legal title to the asset but does not control the asset before it is transferred to the lessor, the transaction is accounted for as a purchase of the asset by the lessor and a lease between the lessor and the lessee.
ASC 842-40-55-1 and 55-2 clarify that the notion of control is used to determine
                whether a transaction is within the scope of the sale-and-leaseback guidance — if
                the lessee controls the underlying asset before transferring it to the lessor (and
                is thus the deemed owner), the transaction is accounted for in accordance with ASC
                842-40. Section
                    10.2.2.1 includes an example illustrating such a scenario.
When the lessee obtains legal title to the underlying asset before transferring
                title to the lessor (i.e., the lessee obtains “flash title”) and the lessee does not
                control the underlying asset before transferring the asset to the lessor, the
                transaction is not accounted for in accordance with ASC 842-40. This is consistent
                with ASC 606-10-55-37, which clarifies that an entity that obtains legal title to a
                good momentarily before the legal title is transferred to a customer does not
                necessarily control the specified good. ASC 842-40-55-2 provides an example of such
                a situation, in which an entity often obtains financing or a certain tax
                treatment.
These same concepts apply to the transfer of an asset under construction, as
                discussed in Section
                    11.3.
            Connecting the Dots
                    Control of the Underlying Asset
                                Before Lease Commencement in Arrangements That Involve Parties in
                                Addition to the Lessee and Lessor
                    Some lease arrangements may involve parties in addition to
                        the lessee and lessor. For example, an arrangement may involve an asset
                        manufacturer that manufactures the underlying asset and delivers it for
                        lease (e.g., an original equipment manufacturer or OEM), the entity that
                        will ultimately lease the equipment (i.e., the end customer), and a
                        financing entity (e.g., a bank) that purchases an asset at the inception of
                        the contract from the asset manufacturer with the explicit intent of leasing
                        out the asset to the end customer.
                    As discussed in Section 11.2, depending on the facts
                        and circumstances, the end customer (i.e., the lessee in the arrangement)
                        may obtain control of the underlying asset before lease commencement. Since
                        the eventual lease of the asset is between the financing entity and the end
                        customer, the applicability of the guidance in ASC 842-40 would depend on
                        whether the financing entity obtains control of the underlying asset from
                        the end customer (as opposed to from the asset manufacturer). In such
                        situations, we believe that an entity may need to apply the
                        principal-versus-agent guidance in ASC 606 to determine whether the end
                        customer is the principal in the sale of the underlying asset to the
                        financing entity (the ultimate lessor). See Chapter 10 of Deloitte’s Roadmap
                            Revenue Recognition for a
                        discussion of principal-versus-agent considerations.
                We encourage entities that identify such situations to consult with their accounting
                advisers.