12.2 Classification of a Sublease
ASC 842-10
25-6 When classifying a sublease, an entity shall classify the sublease with reference to the underlying asset (for example, the item of property, plant, or equipment that is the subject of the lease) rather than with reference to the right-of-use asset.
In a manner consistent with that in other leases, the lessee/intermediate lessor
should classify the sublease on the basis of the criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2 (see
Section 9.2). In
applying these criteria, the lessee/intermediate lessor should look through the
sublease to the underlying asset (i.e., the lessee/intermediate lessor should not
classify the sublease by reference to the ROU asset that results from the head
lease). Paragraph BC116 of ASU 2016-02 explains the FASB’s rationale for using the
underlying asset in this assessment:
The Board decided that
when classifying a sublease, an entity (that is, the intermediate lessor) should
evaluate the sublease with reference to the underlying asset rather than the
right-of-use asset arising from the head lease. The lessee in a sublease may not
know the terms and conditions of the head lease, and, accordingly, referring to
the item of property, plant, and equipment that is subject to the lease should
be easier to apply than referring to the right-of-use asset arising from the
head lease. In addition, the Board noted that it may be difficult to understand
and explain why a lessor would account for similar leases differently. That
could occur if an entity were required to refer to the right-of-use asset when
classifying a sublease. For example, if subleases were classified with reference
to the right-of-use asset, a lessor that leases two similar assets on similar
terms for five years could account for those leases differently if the lessor
owned one of the two assets and leased the other.
Bridging the GAAP
Classification of Sublease Different Under IFRS 16
Unlike ASC 842, IFRS 16 requires the lessee/intermediate lessor to determine the
classification of the sublease with reference to the ROU asset arising from
the head lease rather than to the underlying asset. Therefore, because the
lease term of the ROU asset is typically less than the economic life of the
underlying asset, we generally believe that the lessee/intermediate lessor
may classify more subleases as sales-type or direct financing under IFRS
Accounting Standards than under U.S. GAAP.
Example 12-1
Company A, a lessee, enters into a building lease with a third party. The term
of the lease is 30 years, and the estimated economic
life of the building is 40 years. Immediately after
entering into the head lease arrangement, A
subleases the building to SubCo. The term of the
sublease is 25 years. As an accounting policy, A
uses a 75 percent threshold when evaluating the
“major part” of the economic life of the underlying
asset in accordance with the classification
criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(c).
ASC 842 Evaluation
From the head lease perspective, A (as the head lessee) will classify the lease
as a finance lease since the lease term is for a
“major part” of the remaining economic life of the
underlying asset (i.e., A is leasing the building
for 30 years — or 75 percent — of the 40-year
economic life). From the sublease perspective, A (as
the intermediate lessor) will classify the sublease
as an operating lease since the lease term does not
represent a “major part” of the remaining economic
life of the underlying asset (i.e., a sublease with
a lease term of 25 years, when evaluated against the
40-year economic life of the underlying asset, does
not meet the “major part” criterion). Remember that
in evaluating the sublease classification under ASC
842, an entity considers the remaining economic life
of the underlying asset (i.e., the building) that is
subject to the lease.
IFRS 16 Evaluation
From the head lease perspective, A (as the head lessee) will account for the
lease in a manner consistent with finance lease
accounting under U.S. GAAP, since classification is
not relevant for lessees under IFRS 16. From the
sublease perspective, A (as the intermediate lessor)
will classify the sublease as a finance lease since
the lease term represents a “major part” of the
remaining economic life of the ROU asset that was
recorded as a result of the head lease (i.e., a
sublease with a lease term of 25 years, when
evaluated against the 30-year term of the ROU asset
in the head lease, represents 83.3 percent of the
overall term and meets the “major part” indicator).
Remember that when evaluating the sublease
classification under IFRS 16, an entity considers
the term of the ROU asset that is subject to the
lease (versus the economic life of the underlying
asset itself).
12.2.1 Impact of Sublease Renewals on Head Lease Term
An entity must determine the lease term to perform lease
classification and measurement. ASC 842-10-30-1 requires an entity to determine
the lease term as follows:
An entity shall determine the
lease term as the noncancellable period of the lease, together with all of
the following:
-
Periods covered by an option to extend the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise that option
-
Periods covered by an option to terminate the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain not to exercise that option
-
Periods covered by an option to extend (or not to terminate) the lease in which exercise of the option is controlled by the lessor. [Emphasis added]
ASC 842-10-55-26 indicates that an entity should consider all
economic factors in determining whether it is reasonably certain that a renewal
option will be exercised. Further, an entity must consider a sublease in
determining the lease term of the head lease.
At the FASB’s November 30, 2016, meeting, the Board indicated
that the head lessee must determine whether the sublessee is reasonably certain
to exercise its renewal options because the head lessee must determine the lease
term for the head lease. If the exercise of the sublease renewal options is
reasonably certain, the renewal of the head lease is also reasonably certain.
However, if the head lessee determines that it is not reasonably certain that
the sublessee will exercise its renewal options, the head lessee should not
include additional renewal options that extend past the sublessee’s
noncancelable term in the absence of other economic factors. That is, the
sublease is one of many factors for an entity to consider in determining the
lease term of the head lease.
Note that the head lessee would reassess its lease term in
accordance with ASC 842-10-55-28 upon the occurrence of certain events,
including “[s]ubleasing the underlying asset for a period beyond the exercise
date of the option.” Therefore, upon notice by the sublessee that it is renewing
or extending its sublease, the head lessee must reassess the lease term of the
head lease, including whether the exercise of any remaining renewal options is
reasonably certain.
Example 12-2
Under a lease agreement (the “head
lease”), Company A leases equipment from Company B.
Under another lease agreement (the “sublease”), A
immediately leases the equipment to Company C. The
noncancelable lease period of the head lease is 10
years, with two 5-year renewals at A’s option for a
fixed amount. The sublease has a mirrored 10-year
noncancelable period, with two 5-year renewals at C’s
option. If C exercises its renewal option on the
sublease, A will be forced to renew the head lease.
If it is not reasonably certain that C
will exercise its renewal options, A could determine, in
the absence of other asset- or market-based factors,
that the lease term of the head lease is limited to 10
years (i.e., the noncancelable period). If and when C
renews its sublease, A must reassess the lease term by
including the first 5-year renewal and determining
whether C’s exercise of the second 5-year renewal option
is reasonably certain.