Chapter 16 — Effective Date and Transition
Chapter 16 — Effective Date and Transition
16.1 Overview
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents
the transition and effective date information related to
Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases
(Topic 842) . . .
-
A public business entity, a not-for-profit entity that has issued or is a conduit bond obligor for securities that are traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over-the-counter market (with an exception for those entities that have not yet issued their financial statements or made financial statements available for issuance as described in the following sentence), and an employee benefit plan that files or furnishes financial statements with or to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those fiscal years. A not-for-profit entity that has issued or is a conduit bond obligor for securities that are traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over-the-counter market that has not yet issued financial statements or made financial statements available for issuance as of June 3, 2020 shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Earlier application is permitted.
-
All other entities shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. Earlier application is permitted. . . .
In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-10, which (1)
provided a framework for staggering the effective dates of future major accounting
standards and (2) amended the effective dates of certain major new accounting
standards to give implementation relief to certain types of entities. In June 2020,
the FASB issued ASU
2020-05, which further amended the effective dates to give
implementation relief to certain types of entities in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. ASU 2020-05 amended the effective dates of ASU 2016-02 as follows:
Public Companies1
|
Public NFPs2
|
All Other
Entities
| |
As originally issued (ASU 2016-02)
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2018, and interim periods therein
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2018, and interim periods therein
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2019, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2020
|
As amended by ASU 2019-10
|
No changes
|
No changes
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2020, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2021
|
As amended by ASU 2020-05
|
No changes
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2019, and interim periods therein
|
Fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2022
|
Bridging the GAAP
Comparison With IFRS 16
The effective date of IFRS 16 is similar to the effective date of ASU 2016-02 for PBEs. However,
the IASB decided that an entity would only be allowed to early adopt IFRS 16 if it has also
adopted IFRS 15 (the IASB’s revenue standard). The IASB decided to limit early adoption of IFRS
16 because, as noted in paragraph BC272 of IFRS 16, “some of the requirements in IFRS 16
depend on an entity also applying the requirements of IFRS 15 (and not the Standards that were
superseded by IFRS 15).”
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents
the transition and effective date information related to
Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases
(Topic 842) . . .
c. In the financial statements in which an entity
first applies the pending content that links to this
paragraph, the entity shall recognize and measure
leases within the scope of the pending content that
links to this paragraph that exist at the
application date, as determined by the transition
method that the entity elects. An entity shall apply
the pending content that links to this paragraph
using one of the following two methods:
1. Retrospectively to each
prior reporting period presented in the financial
statements with the cumulative effect of initially
applying the pending content that links to this
paragraph recognized at the beginning of the
earliest comparative period presented, subject to
the guidance in (d) through (gg). Under this
transition method, the application date shall be the
later of the beginning of the earliest period
presented in the financial statements and the
commencement date of the lease.
2. Retrospectively at the
beginning of the period of adoption through a
cumulative-effect adjustment, subject to the
guidance in (d) through (gg). Under this transition
method, the application date shall be the beginning
of the reporting period in which the entity first
applies the pending content that links to this
paragraph.
d. An entity shall adjust equity and, if the entity
elects the transition method in (c)(1), the other
comparative amounts disclosed for each prior period
presented in the financial statements, as if the
pending content that links to this paragraph had
always been applied, subject to the requirements in
(e) through (gg).
e. If a lessee elects not to apply the recognition
and measurement requirements in the pending content
that links to this paragraph to short-term leases,
the lessee shall not apply the approach described in
(k) through (t) to short-term leases.
See Examples 28 through 29 (paragraphs
842-10-55-243 through 55-254) for illustrations of the
transition requirements for an entity that applies the
pending content that links to this paragraph in accordance
with (c)(1). . . .
An entity adopts ASC 842 by using a modified retrospective
transition approach. Under this approach, the standard is effectively implemented
either (1) as of the earliest period presented and through the comparative periods
in the entity’s financial statements or (2) as of the effective date of ASC 842,
with a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity (see Section 16.1.1). The modified nature of
this transition approach is intended to maximize comparability while reducing the
complexity of transition compared with the full retrospective approach, under which
financial statements would be prepared as if ASC 842 was always effective.
ASC 842 provides for certain practical expedients in transition.
Depending on the expedients elected, certain aspects of ASC 842 will not be
implemented until the standard’s effective date, regardless of whether an entity
elects to recast comparative periods under ASC 842. The practical expedients are
intended to reduce the cost and complexity of adoption while maintaining financial
statement comparability after adoption.
Connecting the Dots
Modified Retrospective Transition
Under ASC 842 Differs From That Under ASC 606
An entity that elects the modified retrospective transition
option in ASC 606 is permitted to apply ASC 606 only to the current-year
financial statements (i.e., the financial statements for the year in which
ASC 606 is first implemented). Such an entity will record a
cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in
the year in which it first adopts ASC 606. By contrast, an entity that uses
the modified retrospective transition approach under ASC 842 may record an
adjustment as of the beginning of either the earliest year presented or the
first year of adoption.
16.1.1 Entities Permitted to Elect Not to Restate Comparative Periods in the Period of Adoption
In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, which amended certain
aspects of ASC 842 to provide relief from the costs of implementing the new
leasing standard. ASU 2018-11 allows an entity to elect not to recast its
comparative periods in the period of adoption when transitioning to ASC 842 (the
“Comparatives Under 840 Option”). Effectively, an entity would be permitted to
change its date of initial application to the beginning of the period of
adoption of ASC 842 (e.g., January 1, 2019, for a calendar-year-end PBE or
January 1, 2022, for a calendar-year-end non-PBE). In doing so, the entity
would:
-
Apply ASC 840 in the comparative periods.
-
Provide the disclosures required by ASC 840 for all periods that continue to be presented in accordance with ASC 840.
-
Recognize the effects of applying ASC 842 as a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the effective date (e.g., January 1, 2019, for a calendar-year-end PBE or January 1, 2022,3 for a calendar-year-end non-PBE); under the Comparatives Under 840 Option, this date would represent the date of initial application.
The entity would not:
- Restate comparative periods for the effects of applying ASC 842.
- Provide the disclosures required by ASC 842 for the comparative periods.
- Change how the transition requirements apply, only when the transition requirements apply.
Therefore, an entity that elects the Comparatives Under 840 Option under ASU 2018-11 may find transition (as well as navigating the complicated concepts in this chapter) easier.
Connecting the Dots
Implementation Challenges Remain When the Comparatives Under 840
Option Is Used
Although the Comparatives Under 840 Option does not change how an entity applies the transition requirements, the lease-related balances recorded as of the effective date may still differ from the balances that would be remaining as of that date if comparative periods had been restated for the effects of applying ASC 842.
The Board expects that the new transition election will relieve entities from the cost burdens that are associated with restating comparative periods for the effects of applying ASC 842. However, many entities will still need to enhance their lease-related IT systems as a result of ASC 842’s data requirements. In addition, ASC 842’s requirements related to judgments and estimations have not changed, and new processes and internal controls will still need to be instituted accordingly. Therefore, we do not think that entities should slow their implementation efforts because of the issuance of ASU 2018-11.
Throughout this chapter, we use the phrase “date of initial application” to mean either of the following:
- The beginning of the earliest comparative period presented — if the entity does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option.
- The date on which the entity adopts ASC 842 — if the entity elects the Comparatives Under 840 Option.
See Section 16.11
for additional discussion of the transition disclosures related to ASU 2018-11
and Section
17.3.1.4.1 for further discussion of this additional transition
method.
16.1.2 Adoption Timelines
16.1.2.1 PBE With a Calendar Year-End
Assumes no early adoption (and
no election of the Comparatives Under 840 Option)
16.1.2.2 Non-PBE With a Calendar Year-End
Assumes no early adoption (and no election of the Comparatives
Under 840 Option)
The above charts indicate the transition timelines for
calendar-year-end PBEs and non-PBEs, respectively, with two comparative periods
presented. Differences in assets and liabilities as of the earliest comparative
period are recognized as a cumulative-effect adjustment in equity at such time.
Lessors apply the modified retrospective transition approach similarly to how
lessees apply it.
Connecting the Dots
Meaning of “Earliest Comparative
Period Presented”
PBEs that present three years of income statements and
statements of cash flows must prepare the balance-sheet effect of the
adoption of ASC 842 as of January 1, 2017, even though they generally
provide only two years of balance sheets in their financial statements.
That is, PBEs need the balance sheet so that they can (1) prepare the
income statement in the earliest year presented and a statement of cash
flow reconciliation and (2) properly roll forward the balance sheet.
Modified Retrospective Transition
Method Required
Because the FASB wanted to limit the number of potential
transition methods that an entity could apply, full retrospective
transition is not permitted; rather, the modified retrospective
transition method is required. However, as discussed later in this
chapter, the level of modification depends on the extent to which an
entity elects optional practical expedients (see Section
16.5).
“Earliest Period Presented” for a
Non-PBE’s Stand-Alone Financial Statements
While PBEs are subject to the SEC’s public-company
reporting requirements, other entities may prepare single or multi-year
comparative financial statements in accordance with their own reporting
requirements. An entity that does not elect the Comparatives Under 840
Option must apply the modified retrospective transition approach to the
earliest period presented in its financial statements. If a non-PBE is
consolidated by a PBE, the PBE will technically have an “earliest period
presented” that is different from (earlier than) the period in which the
non-PBE will prepare financial statements for its users. Nonetheless, we
believe that in the PBE’s consolidated financial statements, the PBE is
required to determine its subsidiary’s lease balance as of the PBE’s
earliest period presented. We do not believe that the FASB intended for
the lease balances to be calculated as of multiple dates (one for the
parent and one for the subsidiary) in the PBE’s consolidated financial
statements.
Example 16-1
Roses Inc., a PBE that does not
elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option, prepares
its 2019 financial statements for which the
earliest comparative period begins on January 1,
2017. One of its consolidated subsidiaries, Free
LLC, prepares separate financial statements for
which the earliest comparative period begins on
January 1, 2018. Roses is required to determine
its lease balances as of January 1, 2017, which
include lease balances that roll up from Free.
Further, it would be acceptable for Free to use
the January 1, 2017, lease balances and roll
forward the balances to January 1, 2018, for
transition and disclosure purposes.
Footnotes
1
Public companies are PBEs, as well
as certain not-for-profit entities and employee
benefit plans as described above in ASC
842-10-65-1(a).
2
The deferral in ASU 2020-05 applied
to public NFPs that had not issued financial
statements or made financial statements available
for issuance as of June 3, 2020. Public NFPs that
have issued financial statements or have made
financial statements available for issuance before
that date must comply with the effective dates
prescribed for public companies above.
3
In accordance with ASU 2020-05.
16.2 Considerations Related to Applying Transition Guidance
ASC 842 requires all entities to apply the modified retrospective approach. The determination of lease
balances under this approach is generally based on the remaining lease payments and discount rate
as of the date of initial application. Under the full retrospective approach (which is not permitted),
by contrast, lease balances would be determined as of lease commencement and rolled forward. In
addition, an entity may elect various transition-related accounting policies under ASC 842, which could
affect its comparability to other entities.
Specifically, ASC 842 offers relief from implementing the transition provisions by permitting an entity
(lessee or lessor) to elect not to reassess:
- Whether any expired or existing contract is or contains a lease.
- The lease classification of any expired or existing leases.
- Initial direct costs for any existing leases.
An entity that elects this transition relief (i.e.,
the “practical expedient package”) is required to adopt all three relief provisions
and is prohibited from applying the relief on a lease-by-lease basis. In addition,
the entity must disclose that it has elected the practical expedient package.
Separately, the entity is also allowed to use hindsight in evaluating the lease term
(e.g., renewal, termination, and purchase options for existing leases) and
impairment of the ROU asset. As a result, when preparing for transition, entities
must consider the following transition and accounting policy elections:
Transition Elections
(Entity-Wide for All Leases)
|
Accounting Policy
Elections
|
---|---|
|
|
Connecting the Dots
Considerations Related to Selecting Expedients and Accounting
Policies
As companies prepare to implement ASU 2016-02 and assess its impact, the
appropriateness to their organization of policies
related to practical expedients may continue to
evolve. For example, although the practical
expedient package may be an efficient manner of
adopting the standard, an entity that elects this
package may miss the opportunity to reassess
whether a lease under ASC 840 would be outside the
scope of ASC 842. In addition, some may find the
income statement presentation of a finance lease
to be more favorable than that of an operating
lease and therefore may wish to assess lease
classification under ASC 842. We recommend that
companies work with various stakeholders at their
organizations (e.g., accounting, finance, real
estate, and IT professionals, as well as the audit
committee) to determine the impact and
costs/benefits of the above elections for each
stakeholder. Further, companies should consider
discussing the impact of the elections with their
professional advisers.
Hindsight Expedient May Increase Complexity
While the hindsight practical expedient only applies to
lease term and impairment considerations (see Section 16.5.1), we believe that the
expedient could make adoption more complex given that both of these matters
affect other aspects of lease accounting.
16.3 Lessee
The transition approach for lessees — except for reporting entities that elect,
as an accounting policy, to exclude short-term leases4 (see Section
5.2.4.3) — is to recognize all lease obligations and ROU assets on
the balance sheet. For leases previously classified as operating under ASC 840, this
approach represents a significant change because ASC 840 required that only capital
leases be included on the balance sheet. For leases previously classified as a
capital lease, the finance lease transition generally carries forward the previous
capital lease balances, subject to the application of the practical expedients
described in Section
16.5.
16.3.1 Lease Previously Classified as an Operating Lease Under ASC 840
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
k. A lessee shall initially recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability at the application date as determined in (c).
l. Unless, on or after the effective date, the lease is modified (and that modification is not accounted for
as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8) or the lease liability is required to be
remeasured in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-4, a lessee shall measure the lease liability at the
present value of the sum of the following, using a discount rate for the lease (which, for entities that are
not public business entities, can be a risk-free rate determined in accordance with paragraph 842-20-30-3) established at the application date as determined in (c):
1. The remaining minimum rental payments (as defined under Topic 840).
2. Any amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under a residual value guarantee. . . .
p. If a lessee does not elect the practical expedients described in (f), any unamortized initial direct costs that do not meet the definition of initial direct costs in this Topic shall be written off as an adjustment to equity unless the entity elects the transition method in (c)(1) and the costs were incurred after the beginning of the earliest period presented, in which case those costs shall be written off as an adjustment to earnings in the period the costs were incurred.
q. If a modification to the contractual terms and conditions occurs on or after the effective date, and the
modification does not result in a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8, or the
lessee is required to remeasure the lease liability for any reason (see paragraphs 842-20-35-4 through
35-5), the lessee shall follow the requirements in this Topic from the effective date of the modification or
the remeasurement date.
Leases previously classified as an operating lease under ASC 840 could be accounted for as either an
operating lease or a finance lease under ASC 842. The classification under ASC 842 depends on whether
an entity elects the practical expedient package (see Section 16.5.2.2). If so, the entity does not reassess
the ASC 840 classification (i.e., the classification is carried forward when the entity adopts ASC 842).
However, if the practical expedient package is not elected, the lease must be assessed under the ASC
842 classification criteria. Because there are only minor differences between the lease classification
criteria under ASC 840 and those under ASC 842, the lease classification conclusion often will remain
unchanged even if the practical expedient package is not elected.
The two transition scenarios for an operating
lease under ASC 840 are as follows:
As discussed further below, transition in both of these scenarios is the same with respect to (1) the timing of recognizing the ROU asset and lease liability, (2) the initial measurement of the lease liability, (3) unamortized initial direct costs that do not meet the definition of initial direct costs under ASC 842, and (4) modifications on or after the effective date of ASC 842. Sections 16.3.1.1 and 16.3.1.2 discuss these two scenarios and highlight how the accounting differs between the two with regard to the initial measurement of the ROU asset.
Timing of Recognition
In both scenarios, a lessee recognizes the ROU asset and lease liability at the later of the date of initial application or the commencement date of the lease.
Initial Measurement of the Lease Liability
The lease liability is measured in the same manner regardless of whether lease classification has changed. In both scenarios, the lease liability should represent the present value of the sum of:
- The remaining minimum rental payments (as defined under ASC 840).
- Any amounts that it is probable the lessee will owe under a residual value guarantee (see Section 6.7 for guidance on how to measure these amounts).
These amounts are measured at their present value by using a discount rate established at the later of (1) the date of initial application or (2) the commencement date of the lease. See Chapter 7 for more information on the identification of the appropriate discount rate.
Q&A 16-1 Identifying Minimum Rental Payments
In the transition to ASC 842, the lease obligation for an operating lease is typically measured by using the remaining minimum rental payments, as described in ASC 840.
Question
What is included in minimum rental payments?
Answer
Although ASC 840 does not define the term “minimum rental payments,” ASC 840-20-50-2 indicates that lessees must disclose future minimum rental payments as of the balance sheet date for operating leases that meet certain conditions:
For operating leases having initial or remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year, the lessee shall disclose both of the following:
- Future minimum rental payments required as of the date of the latest balance sheet presented, in the aggregate and for each of the five succeeding fiscal years
- The total of minimum rentals to be received in the future under noncancelable subleases as of the date of the latest balance sheet presented. [Emphasis added]
The FASB has confirmed that the intent of requiring, in transition, lessees to measure operating leases by using the ASC 840 minimum rental payments is to ease the burden of determining the lease liability in transition. That is, in referencing the above disclosure under ASC 840, a lessee should be able to determine the gross amounts due under the lease and discount those required payments to determine the initial lease liability under ASC 842. This is consistent with paragraph BC390 of ASU 2016-02, which states that the application of the term “minimum rental payments” should be similar to that under prior guidance.
We have noted diversity in practice related to two aspects of the disclosure of future minimum rental payments under ASC 840:
- Lease payments that depend on an index or rate — Some entities have included the most current rate as of the balance sheet date when disclosing future minimum rental payments, whereas other entities have included the rate in effect at the inception of the lease. ASC 840-10-25-4 and 25-5 define what does or does not constitute a minimum lease payment (as opposed to a minimum “rental” payment):25-4 This guidance addresses what constitutes minimum lease payments under the minimum-lease-payments criterion in paragraph 840-10-25-1(d) from the perspective of the lessee and the lessor. Lease payments that depend on a factor directly related to the future use of the leased property, such as machine hours of use or sales volume during the lease term, are contingent rentals and, accordingly, are excluded from minimum lease payments in their entirety. . . . However, lease payments that depend on an existing index or rate, such as the consumer price index or the prime interest rate, shall be included in minimum lease payments based on the index or rate existing at lease inception; any increases or decreases in lease payments that result from subsequent changes in the index or rate are contingent rentals and thus affect the determination of income as accruable.25-5 For a lessee, minimum lease payments comprise the payments that the lessee is obligated to make or can be required to make in connection with the leased property, excluding both of the following:
- Contingent rentals
- Any guarantee by the lessee of the lessor’s debt and the lessee’s obligation to pay (apart from the rental payments) executory costs such as insurance, maintenance, and taxes in connection with the leased property. [Emphasis added]
At the 2018 AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments (the “2018 AICPA Conference”), the SEC staff indicated that either historical approach is acceptable and that an entity may, depending on the facts and circumstances, deviate from its historical policy when measuring its leases as of the date of initial application. See Q&A 16-2 for further discussion of lease payments that fluctuate on the basis of a variable index or rate in the context of transition of a company’s operating leases under ASC 840 to the new leasing guidance under ASC 842. - Executory costs (i.e., insurance, property taxes, and CAM) — Some entities have concluded that executory costs are part of minimum rental payments under ASC 840 and other entities have not. A technical inquiry with the FASB staff has confirmed that either interpretation is acceptable under ASC 840. See Q&A 16-2A for additional information regarding the inclusion or exclusion of executory costs in the determination of a lessee’s lease liability for existing operating leases in transition, including considerations for entities that wish to change their historical approach under ASC 840.
Q&A 16-2 Operating Lease Payments That Fluctuate on the Basis of a Variable Rate or
Index — Transition Considerations
In transitioning its operating leases under ASC 840 to the new leasing guidance under ASC 842, a lessee must measure its lease liabilities as of the date of initial application by using the remaining minimum rental payments, as defined in ASC 840. Like ASC 842, ASC 840 contains guidance designed to address variable payments that depend on an index or rate, including how an entity should view these payment mechanisms when determining minimum rental payments for classification and measurement purposes. While ASC 842 is clear on the treatment of variable lease payments that depend on an index or rate, we are aware of diversity in practice related to how such payments have been treated under ASC 840, particularly with respect to the disclosure of future operating lease payments required by ASC 840-20-50-2(a) (commonly referred to as the “lease commitments table”). While ASC 840 appears clear on the treatment of such payments for classification and initial measurement purposes (if applicable), it is less clear on how the lease commitments table should be constructed in the required footnote disclosures. For classification and initial measurement purposes, ASC 840 requires lessees to compute the minimum rental payments on the basis of the index or rate existing at lease inception. However, ASC 840 does not discuss how to determine future lease payments for disclosure purposes, and some entities have used updated index/rate information for this purpose under the belief that the disclosure is primarily a liquidity disclosure and therefore should reflect updated information about an entity’s obligations as of each balance sheet date. Other entities have continued to present future lease payments for disclosure purposes by using the index or rate existing at lease inception.
Question 1
In making the transition to ASC 842, what date should a lessee in an operating lease use to determine the rate or index that it should employ to determine the lease payments that are included in the calculation of the lessee’s lease liability under ASC 842?
Answer
It depends. ASC 842-10-65-1(l) addresses the transition for operating leases and states, in part:
[A] lessee shall measure the lease liability at the present value of the sum of the following, using a discount rate for the lease . . . established at the application date . . .
- The remaining minimum rental payments (as defined under Topic 840).
- Any amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under a residual value guarantee.
As discussed in paragraph BC390 of ASU 2016-02, the FASB intended for a lessee to effectively “run off” leases existing under ASC 840 upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e., the lessee should use its minimum rental payment table disclosed under ASC 840 as the basis for initially measuring its operating lease liabilities under ASC 842). However, the transition guidance in ASC 842-10-65 is silent on the index or rate that should be used to determine lease payments in transition, other than via the reference to minimum rental payments under ASC 840, which, as described above, has been interpreted differently in practice for purposes other than classification and initial measurement. For this reason, stakeholders have expressed two potential alternatives:
- Alternative 1 — Use the index or rate that was employed to calculate the lessee’s minimum lease payments as of lease inception.
- Alternative 2 — Use the index or rate existing as of the date of initial application of ASC 842.
At the 2018 AICPA Conference, the SEC staff stated that it would be acceptable for a lessee to use the same approach for initial application as it has historically used for disclosure purposes under ASC 840. In other words, if a lessee used the inception rate for its ASC 840 disclosure, it would be acceptable for the lessee to apply Alternative 1 upon adopting ASC 842. Likewise, if a lessee used an updated index or rate for its ASC 840 disclosure, it would be acceptable for the lessee to apply Alternative 2 upon adopting ASC 842. The SEC staff indicated that it considers the definition of minimum rental payments in ASC 840 — for purposes other than classification and initial measurement — to be ambiguous and that it is therefore acceptable either to use the original index/rate or to update the index/rate for ASC 840 disclosure purposes. The SEC staff also indicated that it views the historical approach related to developing the ASC 840 disclosure as a policy election and therefore would generally expect an entity to apply its chosen approach consistently when making the transition to ASC 842. However, an entity may be able to change its historical approach on the basis of various factors, including the materiality of the historical policy to the overall financial statements, the direction of the change (e.g., changing from inception rate to initial application rate or vice versa), and the basis for making the change. The following are considerations related to each of these factors:
- Materiality5 — An entity should first assess the significance of its policy (the use of the inception rate as opposed to an updated rate) in the context of the overall financial statements. We generally believe that an entity can change its historical approach to the extent that the policy is immaterial to the overall financial statements.
- Direction of the change — We believe that an entity can change from using an updated rate to using the inception rate when determining its lease liabilities upon adopting ASC 842. A change in this direction is consistent with formal feedback received from the FASB staff regarding the requirements of ASC 840, and many entities have relied on such feedback as part of their implementation processes. Such a change is also more consistent with a literal read of the definition of minimum lease payments in ASC 840. Therefore, we do not believe that an entity would be required to apply the accounting guidance in ASC 250-10 when making such a change. However, we also believe that, under certain circumstances, a company can change from using the inception rate to using an updated rate when determining its lease liabilities upon adopting ASC 842. An entity wishing to do so may be subject to the preferability requirements in ASC 250-10, as discussed in the next bullet.
- Basis for the change — If an entity that has historically used the inception rate for its ASC 840 disclosure wishes to change the rate (i.e., wishes to use the rate as of the date of initial application) to determine its lease liabilities upon adopting ASC 842, it may be able to do so if the change is appropriate on the basis of the guidance in ASC 250-10 on accounting changes. In other words, if the historical approach represents a material policy and the entity wants to change its historical treatment, it would be subject to the preferability requirements in ASC 250-10-45-2(b). In this regard, the SEC staff stated in its prepared remarks at the 2018 AICPA Conference that “it would be reasonable for a registrant to consider as part of its Topic 250 analysis, if the lease obligation that results from using current index or rate values represents a better measurement of the registrant’s current lease obligations.” Therefore, we believe that the SEC staff would generally view the use of an updated index/rate as preferable.
The table below summarizes our understanding of the SEC staff’s and FASB staff’s
views on whether it is acceptable for an entity to change its
historical disclosure approach upon transition to ASC 842 when
calculating its initial lease liability under ASC 842.
Historical ASC 840 Disclosure Approach | ASC 842 Transition Approach |
Views on Acceptability
|
---|---|---|
Inception rate | Inception rate | SEC staff views as acceptable |
Updated rate | Updated rate | SEC staff views as acceptable |
Inception rate | Updated rate | Assess preferability6 — SEC staff |
Updated rate | Inception rate | FASB staff views as acceptable |
Question 2
If an entity changes its accounting policy from using the rate at lease inception to using an updated rate when calculating its lease liability upon adopting ASC 842, must that change be reflected retrospectively in accordance with ASC 250?
Answer
It depends. If the use of an inception rate (as opposed to an updated rate)
represents a material accounting policy, the change to an updated
rate would need to be preferable and retrospective application would
be required in accordance with ASC 250. However, if the policy is
not deemed material to the overall financial statements, an entity
could make the change without establishing preferability and would
not be required7 to reflect the change in prior periods.
As discussed in Question 1, on the basis of prepared remarks by the SEC staff at the 2018 AICPA Conference, we understand that it would generally be preferable to use an updated rate since the use of such a rate results in better information regarding a lessee’s future commitments upon adoption of the new guidance.
Question 3
The discussion above refers to the appropriate rate for an entity to use in making the transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842 for operating lease liabilities. Does an entity’s decision to change its approach (i.e., use a different rate for adoption) affect its recognition of lease liabilities in transition for capital/finance leases?
Answer
It depends. We generally believe that the analysis in Questions 1 and 2 is limited to an entity’s operating lease portfolio and would not affect the measurement of capital/finance lease liabilities in transition. An exception to this rule could arise for entities that do not elect the “practical expedient package” and that have capital leases under ASC 840 that become operating leases under ASC 842.
When the practical expedient package is elected or when classification of a capital lease otherwise remains unchanged upon adoption of ASC 842, we would not expect a change related to the measurement of operating leases to affect the measurement of capital/finance leases. We do not believe that a policy choice (inception rate vs. updated rate) existed for capital leases under ASC 840. ASC 840 is clear on the initial measurement of capital lease liabilities and does not require (or allow) remeasurement for changes in an index/rate. Since the initial measurement of capital lease liabilities is clear and footnote disclosures of total outstanding capital lease liabilities under ASC 840 are tied directly to the balance sheet, there is no ambiguity in the index/rate used to meet the disclosure requirements for capital leases under ASC 840. Furthermore, the transition guidance in ASC 842 for capital/finance leases indicates that they should be recognized at the carrying amount of the lease asset and capital lease liability immediately before adoption (i.e., the balances are simply carried forward).
When the practical expedient package is not elected and the classification of a lease changes from capital to operating, the lessee is required to derecognize the previous capital lease recorded under ASC 840 and record the new operating lease under ASC 842 by measuring an operating lease liability and ROU asset. We believe that, in such circumstances, an entity should measure its lease liability in a manner consistent with its other operating lease liabilities recognized upon transition. In doing so, the entity should consider a change in the index/rate used to measure these liabilities in transition, if applicable.
Q&A 16-2A Approaches to Accounting for Executory Costs for Operating Leases in Transition
Under ASC 840, executory costs include three primary components: (1) property taxes, (2) insurance, and (3) maintenance (e.g., CAM). Since ASC 840 does not distinguish between these three components, a historically acceptable approach has been to fully include executory costs in (or fully exclude them from) disclosures about remaining rental payments provided under ASC 840. However, under ASC 842, maintenance is considered a nonlease component while property taxes and insurance are considered neither a lease component nor a nonlease component; instead, the consideration attributable to property taxes and insurance is allocated to the components in the arrangement.
As described above and further discussed in Q&A 16-1, it was
acceptable under ASC 840 for executory costs to be included in or
excluded from the disclosure of minimum rental payments for
operating leases. Further, the FASB has generally indicated that a
lessee (1) would use its ASC 840 disclosure to determine the lease
payments when calculating the lease liability upon adopting ASC 842
and (2) would “run off” the balance.8 In addition, at the 2018 AICPA Conference, the SEC staff
stated that it “did not object to registrants consistently applying
their historical accounting policy regarding the composition of
minimum rental payments when concluding whether executory costs
should be included in remaining minimum rental payments for purposes
of establishing the lease liability in transition.”
However, given the differences in how these costs are treated under ASC 842, questions have arisen about whether it would be acceptable for an entity, upon adopting ASC 842, to treat executory costs differently when calculating the lease liability in transition than it has historically treated the costs for disclosure purposes (e.g., changing from including executory costs in, to excluding them from, the determination of lease payments).
Question 1
Is it acceptable for an entity’s treatment of executory costs to differ from historical practice when the entity is initially measuring the lease liability as part of its transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842?
Answer
It depends. On the basis of remarks made by the SEC staff at the 2018 AICPA
Conference, if an entity’s policy on executory costs has a material
impact9 on the entity’s financial statements, a change in whether
executory costs are included in minimum rental payments meets the
definition of an “accounting change” and would be subject to the
preferability requirements in ASC 250-10-45-2(b). ASC 250-10-20
defines a “change in accounting principle,” in part, as a “change
from one generally accepted accounting principle to another
generally accepted accounting principle when there are two or more
generally accepted accounting principles that apply.” Thus, a
lessee’s change in the treatment of executory costs as of the
effective date of ASC 842 represents a change from its historical
policy under ASC 840.
In assessing preferability, an entity must conduct a well-reasoned analysis and should consider, among other factors, the prospective accounting policy of the lessee under ASC 842, including an entity’s election to combine lease and nonlease components. We believe that an entity may elect the practical expedient for either (1) both the existing lease population and new or modified leases or (2) only new or modified leases. For example, if a lessee plans to elect the practical expedient to account for the nonlease components in a contract as part of the single lease component to which they are related under ASC 842 for new or modified leases only (i.e., the entity is not choosing to elect the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components for existing leases), this election would generally be a factor supporting the preferability of changing from excluding executory costs from minimum rental payments under ASC 840 to including them under ASC 842 for the existing lease population (see Question 3). We also understand that a change from including executory costs to excluding such costs would be viewed negatively by the SEC staff, and would generally not be preferable, if the change is made solely to reduce the lease liability at transition.
Further, we believe that when an entity makes the transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842 and elects both (1) to change its historical practice related to accounting for executory costs on the basis of the preferability requirement in ASC 250 and (2) the Comparatives Under 840 Option, the change must be applied retrospectively. The change in this historical practice is an elective accounting policy change made on the basis of ASC 250 and is not required by ASC 842. Therefore, the historical financial statement disclosures (i.e., the future minimum rental payments required by ASC 840-20-50-2(a), commonly referred to as the “lease commitments table”) that will be presented when an entity adopts ASC 842 by using the Comparatives Under 840 Option should take into account the accounting change made in accordance with ASC 250.
In summary, when making the transition to ASC 842, a lessee may be allowed to change the approach it has historically used under ASC 840 to include or exclude executory costs. If the existing approach under ASC 840 has a material impact on the financial statements, a change would need to be made on the basis that it is preferable. On the other hand, if an entity’s historical approach related to executory costs does not have a material impact on the financial statements, the entity may change its historical approach under ASC 840 and would not be required to assess preferability. In developing the transition requirements, the FASB expected that a lessee could “run off” its existing minimum rental payments. Therefore, in making the transition to ASC 842, a lessee should consider the following principles in determining its approach related to executory costs:
- It was acceptable for an entity to either include executory costs in, or exclude them from, a disclosure of minimum rental payments; therefore, diversity in practice has arisen. Either historical approach would have never affected measurement of operating leases (because of off-balance-sheet treatment under ASC 840), and the historical policy may have never been material to the financial statement disclosures.
- If the inclusion (exclusion) of executory costs does not have a material impact on the financial statements, a lessee may change its treatment of executory costs before or upon adopting ASC 842 without assessing preferability and would not be required10 to reflect the ASC 840 policy change in prior periods, since those periods would continue to be presented under ASC 840 if the entity is electing the Comparatives Under 840 Option. If a lessee has explicitly disclosed in its financial statements its approach for including (excluding) executory costs under ASC 840, such disclosure may be an indication that the policy is material.
- As discussed above, a choice between two acceptable methods of presenting disclosure information is an accounting principle for which a change in method must be preferable under ASC 250-10-45-11 through 45-13 if an entity’s policy on executory costs has a material impact on its financial statements. This change must be retrospectively applied to all periods presented under ASC 840. Practically, the only impact of retrospective application should be a revision of the lease commitments table disclosure for the year ended immediately before the date of initial application. This historical table must be included again in the financial statements (quarterly and annual) in the year of adoption if the Comparatives Under 840 Option is elected.
Question 2
When making the transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842, how should an entity treat executory costs if the entity elects, as a practical expedient, to combine lease and nonlease components for existing leases at transition?
Answer
A lessee may elect, as an accounting policy for each underlying asset class,11 not to separate lease and nonlease components (including
executory costs) on the effective date. We believe that a lessee may
elect such a policy for both the existing lease population and new
or modified leases, since the lessee may prefer comparability and
consistent application for all leases regardless of whether they
commenced before the effective date.
The guidance on the practical expedient under which a lessee may elect not to separate lease and nonlease components is silent on the treatment of noncomponents in a contract (i.e., executory costs such as property taxes and insurance). Specifically, ASC 842-10-15-37 only discusses lease and nonlease components, stating the following:
As a practical expedient, a lessee may, as an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset, choose not to separate nonlease components from lease components and instead to account for each separate lease component and the nonlease components associated with that lease component as a single lease component.
When the practical expedient is elected, any portion of the consideration in the contract that would otherwise be allocated to the nonlease components is instead accounted for as part of the related lease component for classification, recognition, and measurement purposes. In addition, any payments related to noncomponents would be accounted for as part of the related lease component (i.e., the associated payments would not be allocated between the lease and nonlease components since they are all treated as a single lease component). Therefore, an entity electing the practical expedient would do so for both the nonlease components and noncomponents of the contract (e.g., executory costs). An entity that elects this accounting policy for existing leases would therefore account for all executory costs as part of its lease payments, regardless of whether the entity had included or excluded executory costs when determining the minimum rental payments (i.e., the “lease commitments table”) under ASC 840.
As discussed in Question
1, the SEC staff indicated in prepared remarks at the
2018 AICPA Conference that a change in whether executory costs are
included in minimum rental payments meets the definition of a
“change in accounting principle,” and would be subject to the
preferability requirements in ASC 250-10-45-2(b), if an entity’s
policy on executory costs has a material impact on its financial
statements. However, we do not believe that the same requirement
would apply when an entity elects the practical expedient to combine
lease and nonlease components, including noncomponents of a contract
(e.g., executory costs), for existing leases at transition. The
question raised to the SEC staff that it discussed at the 2018 AICPA
Conference involved a registrant’s ability to change its treatment
of executory costs but was not premised on the election of the
practical expedient. We believe that an entity can elect to apply
the practical expedient in transition to all existing leases,
regardless of the entity’s prior treatment of executory costs,
without being subject to the preferability requirement in ASC
250-10-45-2(b).
Question 3
When making the transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842, how should an entity treat executory costs if the entity elects, as a practical expedient, to combine lease and nonlease components for new or modified leases only?
Answer
As discussed in Question 2, a lessee may elect, as an accounting policy for each underlying asset class, not to separate lease and nonlease components (including executory costs) on the effective date. We believe that the lessee may elect such a policy for either (1) both the existing lease population and new or modified leases or (2) only new or modified leases. With respect to new or modified leases, this election only applies to those that commence or are modified on or after the effective date of ASC 842. When this election is made for new or modified leases only, a lessee that has historically excluded executory costs from its minimum rental payment disclosures under ASC 840 may be able to change to including executory costs under ASC 842 for the existing lease population, as described below.
As discussed in Question
1, the SEC staff indicated in prepared remarks at the
2018 AICPA Conference that a change in whether executory costs are
included in “minimum rental payments” meets the definition of a
“change in accounting principle,” and would be subject to the
preferability requirements in ASC 250-10-45-2(b), if an entity’s
policy on executory costs has a material impact on its financial
statements. We believe that this requirement would apply when an
entity does not elect the practical
expedient to combine lease and nonlease components, including
noncomponents of a contract (e.g., executory costs), for the existing lease population at transition
(i.e., the entity elects the practical expedient for new or modified
leases only) but wishes to change from excluding executory costs
under ASC 840 to including executory costs when determining the
opening lease liability under ASC 842. See Question 4 below for
considerations that may be relevant to the evaluation of
preferability. As discussed in Question 2, if the entity had
elected to apply the practical expedient in transition to all
existing leases, a change regarding the entity’s prior treatment of
executory costs would not be subject to the preferability
requirement in ASC 250-10-45-2(b).
Question 4
In what situations is it appropriate for an entity to change its ASC 840 disclosure approach for executory costs for existing leases at transition?
Answer
We do not believe that it would be appropriate (depending on the materiality of the impact under ASC 840) for a lessee to change its ASC 840 disclosure approach for executory costs, as discussed in Question 1, in a manner that reduces comparability to its ASC 842 accounting, including the impact of the lessee’s election to include or exclude nonlease components.
We expect that one of the scenarios below will apply to an entity that wishes to change its disclosure approach for executory costs in transition. We further expand on whether we believe it may be appropriate for an entity to change its ASC 840 disclosure approach for existing leases at transition, depending on the scenario.
- Scenario 1 — An entity historically excluded executory costs from its minimum rental payment disclosures under ASC 840 but intends to elect the practical expedient related to combining lease and nonlease components for new or modified leases only (see Question 3). The entity may prefer to change from excluding executory costs under ASC 840 to including them under ASC 842 for the existing lease population. Such an entity will be subject to the preferability determination discussed in Question 1 if the inclusion/exclusion of executory costs under ASC 840 has a material impact on the financial statements.
- Scenario 2 — An entity historically excluded executory costs from its minimum rental payment disclosures under ASC 840 and intends to elect the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components for both existing and new or modified leases. The entity will then include nonlease components under ASC 842 in the calculation of the lease liability for the existing lease population at transition. Such an entity will not be subject to the preferability determination, as discussed in Question 2, when the entity elects the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components, including noncomponents of a contract (e.g., executory costs), for existing leases at transition.
- Scenario 3 — An entity historically included executory costs in its minimum rental payment disclosures under ASC 840 and does not intend to elect the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components for new or existing leases. The entity wishes to exclude executory costs for existing leases when initially calculating its lease liability upon adopting ASC 842. Such an entity will be subject to the preferability determination discussed in Question 1 if the inclusion/exclusion of executory costs under ASC 840 has a material impact on the financial statements. An entity in this scenario should also contemplate the makeup of the executory costs under ASC 840 as follows:
- Scenario 3A — The entity’s executory costs under ASC 840 predominantly consist of maintenance costs, which are considered a nonlease component under ASC 842. In this situation, changing from including executory costs under ASC 840 to excluding executory costs in the transition to ASC 842 generally enhances comparability between existing and new or modified leases.
- Scenario 3B — The entity’s executory costs under ASC 840 predominantly consist of property taxes and insurance (i.e., noncomponents under ASC 842). In this situation, changing from including executory costs under ASC 840 to excluding executory costs in the transition to ASC 842 generally does not enhance comparability between existing and new or modified leases.
Achieving perfect comparability between ASC 840 and ASC 842 may be difficult
(unless all lease and nonlease components are combined for new and
existing leases) because “executory costs” is an ASC 840 concept and
the components of executory costs are characterized differently
under ASC 842, as described above. In the above scenarios, the
entity’s treatment of costs for property taxes, insurance, and
maintenance upon adoption of ASC 842 changes from the historical
treatment under ASC 840. We believe that such a change should
enhance comparability between ASC 840 and ASC 842, as illustrated in
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3A above. Scenario 3B will
not enhance comparability since property taxes and insurance
(i.e., noncomponents) are greater than
maintenance. Therefore, when assessing preferability, lessees should
carefully consider the significance of property taxes and insurance
compared with that of maintenance.
As indicated above, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for an entity to change its ASC 840 disclosure approach in a manner that reduces comparability to its ASC 842 election to include or exclude nonlease components. Consider the following additional scenario in which comparability is not enhanced:
- Scenario 4 — An entity historically included executory costs in its minimum rental payment disclosures under ASC 840 and intends to elect the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components for new or modified leases. The entity wishes to change its treatment to exclude executory costs when initially calculating its lease liability upon adopting ASC 842 for the existing lease population. An entity electing to do so would be subject to the preferability determination, as discussed in Question 1, if the inclusion/exclusion of executory costs under ASC 840 has a material impact on the financial statements. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for such an entity to change its treatment of executory costs for existing leases upon adoption of ASC 842, since doing so would reduce comparability between ASC 840 and ASC 842.
The table below summarizes whether (1) the scenarios above enhance comparability between the disclosure approach under ASC 840 and the measurement approach under ASC 842; (2) an entity in these scenarios is required to determine preferability under ASC 250 to change its historical approach of accounting for costs related to property taxes, insurance, and maintenance; and (3) the change in treatment of such costs is appropriate.
Enhances Comparability?
|
Preferability Determination
Required Under ASC 250?12
|
Change in Treatment of
Executory Costs Appropriate?13
| |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario 1 | Yes | Yes | Generally yes, subject to a well-reasoned preferability analysis |
Scenario 2 | Yes | No | Yes |
Scenario 3A | Yes | Yes | Generally yes, subject to a well-reasoned preferability analysis |
Scenario 3B | No | Yes | Generally no |
Scenario 4 | No | Yes | Generally no |
Because executory costs are characterized differently under ASC 840 than they are under ASC 842, the following are generally true:
- The lease liability in a gross lease of real estate that excludes executory costs under ASC 840, and for which the lessee elects to separate nonlease components, will be lower if the lease commences before the effective date of ASC 842 than it will if the lease commences on or after the effective date of ASC 842. The reason for the lower liability in this case is that property taxes and insurance would be excluded under ASC 840 but would be allocated primarily (or totally) to the lease component under ASC 842.
- Conversely, the lease liability in a gross lease of real estate that includes executory costs under ASC 840, and for which the lessee elects to separate nonlease components, will be higher if the lease commences before the effective date of ASC 842 than it will if the lease commences on or after the effective date of ASC 842. The reason for the higher liability in this case is that maintenance would be included under ASC 840 but would represent a nonlease component under ASC 842.
- The chosen approach for including or excluding executory costs under ASC 840 in a triple net lease should not have a significant impact, because the executory costs are typically variable (and reimbursed, or paid directly, by the lessee) and therefore are not included in the minimum rental payments.
Q&A 16-2B Determining the Lease Term at Transition
On January 1, 2010, Company W enters into a lease that includes a noncancelable
period of 10 years with two, five-year renewal options. At lease
inception, the lease term is determined to be 10 years. In 2016, W
completes significant leasehold improvements and, as a result, it is
reasonably certain that W will exercise the first five-year renewal
option. Under ASC 840, the installment of leasehold improvements
does not trigger a reassessment of the lease term. Company W has
elected the Comparatives Under 840 Option (see Section
16.1.1), and its ASC 842 adoption date is January 1,
2019; however, W has not elected the “use-of-hindsight” practical
expedient.
Question
How should W determine the lease term at transition?
Answer
Because W did not elect the use-of-hindsight practical expedient, it would be inappropriate
for W to reconsider the remaining lease term at transition. Although the addition of leasehold
improvements would be a reassessment event under ASC 842-10, the renewal options should
not be reassessed since the event occurred before the ASC 842 adoption date. Rather, W would
determine the ROU asset and lease liability on the basis of the remaining minimum rental
payments for the remaining term, as was determined under ASC 840 (i.e., the lease term at
transition would be the one year that is remaining in the original lease term).
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the FASB’s overall objective with
transition is to allow lessees to run off their existing leases by
using the assumptions that were in place under ASC 840. For this
reason, the “remaining minimum rental payments” under ASC 840 are
used to initially measure the lease liability in transition (the
amounts that are included in the lease commitments table). This is
consistent with the discussion in paragraph BC390 of ASU
2016-02, which states, in part:
Entities will, in
effect, “run off” existing leases, as described, unless
the lease is either modified (and that modification is
not accounted for as a separate contract) or, for
lessees only, the lease liability is remeasured in
accordance with the subsequent measurement guidance in
Subtopic 842-30[14]
on or after the effective date. To
ensure that the financial statements provide relevant and
reliable financial information, lessees and lessors should
apply the subsequent measurement guidance in Topic 842
beginning on the effective date. For lessees, this includes the subsequent
measurement guidance in Subtopic 842-30[15] on lease term and purchase option
reassessments and assessing impairment of right-of-use
assets. [Emphasis added]
Paragraph BC390 of ASU 2016-02 highlights that transition is designed to allow entities to “run
off” their legacy leases unless there is (1) a modification or (2) a liability remeasurement event
on or after the effective date of ASC 842. We believe that this conclusion would also apply
to the determination of lease term. Therefore, it does not appear appropriate to revise the
lease term to reflect events or changes in facts and circumstances that occurred before the
application date of ASC 842. On the other hand, if an entity elects the use-of-hindsight practical
expedient, the lease term (and assessment of impairment) should be evaluated by using facts
and circumstances up to the effective date of the standard. (See Section 16.5.1 for discussion
of the use-of-hindsight practical expedient.) We do not believe that the determination of
lease term, as discussed above, would be affected by whether the entity elected the practical
expedient package. (See Section 16.5.2 for more information about the practical expedient package.) For example, if the practical expedient package is not elected, an entity is required to
reassess, upon transition, (1) lease classification, (2) whether a contract is or contains a lease,
and (3) initial direct costs. In performing this reassessment, an entity would not reevaluate the
lease term unless it elects the use-of-hindsight practical expedient. Likewise, if an entity elects
the practical expedient package, the lease term would not be reassessed unless the use-of-hindsight
practical expedient is elected.
Connecting the Dots
Hindsight Impact Related to Lease Term and Liability
Measurement (Lease Classified as an Operating Lease Under
ASC 840)
The measurement of the lease liability is affected by the identification of the lease term. If a
lessee elects the hindsight practical expedient, any changes to expectations regarding renewals
during the comparative period should be reflected in the measurement of the lease liability
as of the date of initial application or at lease commencement, if later. (See Section 16.5.1 for more
information on the hindsight practical expedient.) Further, an entity must identify the amounts
that it is probable will be owed under a residual value guarantee as of the later of the date of
initial application or the lease commencement date. This amount should be measured on the
basis of the facts and circumstances as of that date, which should include the impact of any change in lease term.
Q&A 16-2C Transition for Leasehold Improvements With Amortization
Period Greater Than Remaining Lease Term
In some cases under ASC 840, leasehold improvements installed significantly
after lease inception or acquired in a business combination can have
an amortization period greater than the remaining lease term. As a
result, questions have arisen about whether the amortization period
for such leasehold improvements existing as of the date of initial
application of ASC 842, when that period is greater than the
remaining lease term, should be retained or whether it should be
updated to align with the “lease term,” as defined under ASC 842.
ASC 840-10-35-6 states:
Leasehold improvements in operating leases that are placed in service significantly after and not
contemplated at or near the beginning of the lease term shall be amortized over the shorter of the
following terms:
- The useful life of the assets
- A term that includes required lease periods and renewals that are deemed to be reasonably assured (as used in the context of the definition of lease term) at the date the leasehold improvements are purchased. [Emphasis added]
In addition, ASC 840-10-35-9 states:
Paragraph 805-20-35-6 requires that leasehold improvements acquired in a
business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit
entity be amortized over the shorter of the useful life of
the assets or a term that includes
required lease periods and renewals that are deemed to
be reasonably assured (as used in the definition of
[the] lease term) at the date of acquisition.
[Emphasis added]
The above guidance suggests that the period for amortization of certain leasehold
improvements under ASC 840 could differ from the “lease term” used for lease classification
and disclosure of remaining rental payments. That is, notwithstanding the requirement to
determine the appropriate amortization period for leasehold improvements (1) placed in service
significantly after the beginning of the lease term or (2) acquired in a business combination, ASC
840 does not permit lessees to reassess the lease term related to accounting for the lease itself.
Upon the adoption of ASC 842, the above guidance is superseded.
Example
Company X, a public company with a calendar-year-end, acquires 100 store leases
as part of a business combination transaction on
January 1, 2018. The acquiree’s remaining lease
term immediately before the transaction is three
years, which represents the remaining
noncancelable term of the lease and excludes one
lease renewal option of five years (exercise of
the option was originally determined not to be
reasonably assured as of lease inception).
However, upon acquiring the store leases in a
business combination, X determines that the
exercise of the five-year renewal option is
reasonably assured. The lease does not transfer
ownership of the leased stores to X at the end of
the lease term, and X does not have the option of
purchasing the stores. The leases are classified
as operating leases under ASC 840.
In accordance with ASC 840-10-25-27, X did not revisit the lease term and classification of the store
leases acquired in the business combination. Therefore, X considers the remaining lease term of the
100 store leases to be three years (i.e., X continues to exclude the five-year renewal option from the
lease term, even though exercise of the renewal option is now reasonably assured).
Each of the stores also includes certain leasehold improvements that have a useful life of 10 years. In
determining the amortization period of the leasehold improvements, X concludes that the renewal is
reasonably assured. In accordance with ASC 840-10-35-9, X determines that the amortization period
for the acquired leasehold improvements should be eight years, because this period represents
the lesser of (1) the useful life of the improvements (10 years) or (2) eight years (i.e., the remaining
noncancelable lease term of three years plus the five-year renewal option whose exercise is deemed
reasonably assured as of the acquisition date).
On January 1, 2019, X adopts ASC 842 by using the “Comparatives Under 840 Option” transition
method (i.e., elects not to restate comparative periods under ASC 842). Company X elects the
“package of three” practical expedients in ASC 842-10-65-1(f) and therefore does not reassess
the lease classification of its existing leases, including the 100 store leases acquired on January 1,
2018. However, X does not elect the hindsight practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(g) related to
reassessing the lease term.
Question
Upon adopting ASC 842, over what period should X amortize the leasehold improvements
related to the 100 store leases previously acquired in the business combination?
Answer
ASC 842-20-35-12 states:
Leasehold improvements shall be amortized over the shorter of the useful life of those leasehold
improvements and the remaining lease term, unless the lease transfers ownership of the underlying
asset to the lessee or the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the
underlying asset, in which case the lessee shall amortize the leasehold improvements to the end of
their useful life.
Further, ASC 842-20-35-13 states:
Leasehold improvements acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit
entity shall be amortized over the shorter of the useful life of the assets and the remaining lease term
at the date of acquisition.
Under ASC 842 (after transition), any leasehold improvements installed after
commencement or purchased in a business combination would be
reassessed in conjunction with a reassessment of the lease term used
for measuring the lease. That is, there will be no disconnect
between the “lease term” for measuring the lease and the
amortization period for leasehold improvements arising after the
initial application of ASC 842, because both are reassessed.
However, since lease term is not reassessed under ASC 840, it is
less clear whether the previous amortization periods should be
conformed to the remaining lease term used for measuring the lease
liability in transition. The following two approaches have
emerged:
-
Approach A — Under this approach, X should retain the amortization period in place at the time of adoption. We do not believe that the FASB intended to shorten the amortization period of leasehold improvements in situations in which a lessee elects not to apply hindsight in determining the lease term upon adopting ASC 842. Further, use of the amortization period already in place at the time of adoption better reflects the economics of the arrangement and the fact that the leasehold improvements will continue to be used for a period longer than the remaining lease term under ASC 842; therefore, under this approach, it is acceptable to use the longer amortization period of seven years.
-
Approach B — Under this approach, X should shorten the amortization period as of the date of initial application of ASC 842 so that it is aligned with the remaining lease term for measuring the lease, because only a single remaining lease term is contemplated in ASC 842-20-35-12. Therefore, if X uses this approach, upon adopting ASC 842, it would shorten the amortization period of the leasehold improvements to align it with the remaining lease term.16In the example above, because X did not elect the hindsight practical expedient, the remaining lease term upon the adoption of ASC 842 is two years (i.e., three years as of the date of the business combination less one year that has passed before the adoption of ASC 842). We believe that because ASC 842-10-65-1 does not specifically address amortization of leasehold improvements, a lessee applying Approach B may recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings for the change in amortization period. In the example above, X amortized one-eighth of the leasehold improvements as of the effective date of ASC 842, but if the amortization period would have always been consistent with the three-year remaining lease term at the time of the business combination, one-third of the leasehold improvements would have been amortized before the effective date.
We believe that either of the above approaches is acceptable, provided that it is applied consistently as an accounting policy.
Q&A 16-3 Discount Rate Considerations in Transition
In transition, the present value of the lease liability is determined by using a discount rate
“established at the application date.”
Question
On what date should entities identify the discount rate applied to measure the minimum rental
payments used in the lease liability?
Answer
The discount rate (generally, for the lessee, its incremental borrowing rate) used to
measure the lease liability is established as of the later of the (1) date of initial application or
(2) commencement date of the lease. This has been consistently interpreted as meaning that a
lessee should use the interest rate environment as of the appropriate later-of date. Factors
that affect the interest rate environment include, but are not limited to, the credit standing of
the lessee and the economic environment on the initial measurement date (see Chapter 7 for
additional information on determining the appropriate discount rate). However, an incremental
borrowing rate is also affected by the lease term (i.e., the length of the borrowing) and the
lease payments (i.e., how much is being borrowed). Questions have arisen about whether
(1) the original lease term and lease payments should be determined and incorporated into the
discount rate calculation or (2) those inputs should be determined as of the same date on which
the interest rate environment is considered (i.e., whether the remaining lease term and lease
payments should be considered).
On the basis of a technical inquiry with the FASB staff, we believe that either approach is
acceptable as an accounting policy choice. Although the lease term and lease payments
should be higher under approach 1 (resulting in a higher discount rate), we expect that the
information an entity needs to apply approach 2 will be more readily available. In addition, the
SEC staff confirmed this position at the 2017 AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB
Developments, stating that “the selection of either of these rates, that is either the rate based on
the original lease term or the remaining lease term, is reasonable” and that the staff “ultimately
did not object to a registrant’s consistent application of either approach to determine the
lessee’s lease liabilities in transition.”
Connecting the Dots
Hindsight Impact on Discount Rate
When hindsight is applied, any impact on the lease term will indirectly affect the discount rate (e.g., a longer term will generally result in a higher discount rate). As discussed above, an entity must also consider the credit standing of the lessee, the nature and quality of the security provided, and the economic environment in which the transaction occurs. Because these factors are unrelated to the lease term, we do not believe that an entity can elect to apply hindsight when evaluating them.
Unamortized Initial Direct Costs Not Capitalized Under ASC 842
The accounting for initial direct costs when the practical expedient package is not elected is the same regardless of whether classification changes upon an entity’s adoption of ASC 842. ASC 842 reduces the types (and therefore amounts) of costs that qualify as initial direct costs. As discussed in Section 16.5.2.3, lessees that elect the practical expedient package do not need to reassess previously capitalized initial direct costs. However, if the practical expedient package is not elected, previously capitalized initial direct costs that no longer meet the definition of initial direct costs under ASC 842 must be accounted for as follows:
- Any costs incurred before the date of initial application should be recognized as an adjustment to equity.
- Any costs incurred on or after the date of initial application should be recognized in earnings for the respective comparative period under ASC 842, if applicable.
Modifications and Reassessment of Lease Liability in Comparative Periods (Only Applicable if the Comparatives Under 840 Option Is Not Elected)
The transition guidance is clear that the provisions of ASC 842 should be applied to modifications on or after the effective date as well as to any reassessments of the lease liability (see Section 8.5). However, the guidance is less clear on the framework for modifications and potential reassessments that occur during the transition period. Entities may therefore encounter significant complexities in transition, since the modification and reassessment guidance in ASC 842 significantly differs from that in ASC 840. For leases previously classified as operating leases under ASC 840, the transition paragraphs ASC 842-10-65-1(k)–(q) do not mention modifications or reassessments during the transition period. However, the transition guidance for capital leases does provide some insight into the potential framework. Specifically, ASC 842-10-65-1(r)(4) indicates that if a capital lease under ASC 840 is classified as a finance lease under ASC 842 (i.e., classification did not change), the lease should be subsequently measured in accordance with ASC 840 during the transition period. In contrast, ASC 842-10-65-1(s)(4) stipulates that if a capital lease under ASC 840 is classified as an operating lease under ASC 842 (i.e., classification changed), the lease should be subsequently measured under ASC 842 during the transition period.
On the basis of these insights, we believe that the modification and reassessment guidance should generally be governed by whether lease classification changes when an entity adopts ASC 842. That is, if lease classification changes upon the adoption of ASC 842 (which can only occur if the practical expedient package is not elected), an entity should apply ASC 842 modification and reassessment guidance throughout the transition period. However, if lease classification does not change upon the adoption of ASC 842 (irrespective of whether the practical expedient package was elected), an entity should apply ASC 840’s guidance on modifications and reassessment.
We note that there is no “measurement” guidance in ASC 840 for operating leases because they are off-balance-sheet. Therefore, although an entity would apply the ASC 840 modification guidance to determine whether lease classification has changed, the general ASC 842 measurement principles
would be applied to the revised lease payments. That is, unless lease classification changes as of the
earliest period presented (e.g., a company that does not elect the practical expedient package and has
a lease whose classification changes from operating to finance), this framework creates a mixed model
in transition. The lease classification and impact on the income statement during transition is governed
by previous ASC 840 treatment. However, the balance sheet is governed by the ASC 842 measurement
principles applied to the minimum rental payments, as described in Q&A 16-1.
16.3.1.1 Lease Is an Operating Lease Under ASC 840 and ASC 842
The graphic below outlines the steps lessees should perform in transition for leases that were
previously classified as operating leases and that are considered operating leases under ASC 842
because either (1) an entity elected the practical expedient package and therefore would not reassess
lease classification or (2) classification was assessed in transition to ASC 842 and the lease retains its
classification as an operating lease. In this transition scenario (i.e., operating lease classification was
retained), the election of the practical expedient package only affects the amounts that qualify as initial
direct costs for inclusion in the ROU asset.
Example 29 from ASC 842 illustrates the measurement of the lease liability and
ROU asset in transition.
ASC 842-10
Illustration of Lessee Transition — Existing Operating Lease
55-248 Example 29 illustrates lessee accounting for the transition of existing operating leases when an entity elects the transition method in paragraph 842-10-65-1(c)(1).
Example 29 — Lessee Transition — Existing Operating Lease
55-249 The effective date of the guidance in this Topic for Lessee is January 1, 20X4. Lessee enters into a
five-year lease of an asset on January 1, 20X1, with annual lease payments payable at the end of each year.
Lessee accounts for the lease as an operating lease. At lease commencement, Lessee defers initial direct costs
of $500, which will be amortized over the lease term. On January 1, 20X2 (and before transition adjustments),
Lessee has an accrued rent liability of $1,200 for the lease, reflecting rent that was previously recognized as
an expense but was not yet paid as of that date. Four lease payments (1 payment of $31,000 followed by 3
payments of $33,000) and unamortized initial direct costs of $400 remain.
55-250 January 1, 20X2 is the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements in which Lessee first applies the guidance in this Topic. On January 1, 20X2, Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 6 percent. Lessee has elected the package of practical expedients in paragraph 842-10-65-1(f). As such, Lessee accounts for the lease as an operating lease, without reassessing whether the contract contains a lease or whether classification of the lease would be different in accordance with this Topic. Lessee also does not reassess whether the unamortized initial direct costs on January 1, 20X2, would have met the definition of initial direct costs in this Topic at lease commencement.
55-251 On January 1, 20X2, Lessee measures the lease liability at $112,462, which is the present value of 1 payment of $31,000 and 3 payments of $33,000 discounted using the rate of 6 percent. The right-of-use asset is equal to the lease liability before adjustment for accrued rent and unamortized initial direct costs, which were not reassessed because Lessee elected the practical expedients in paragraph 842-10-65-1(f).
55-252 On January 1, 20X2, Lessee recognizes a lease liability of $112,462 and a right-of-use asset of $111,662 ($112,462 – $1,200 + $400).
55-253 From the transition date (January 1, 20X2) on, Lessee will continue to measure and recognize the lease liability at the present value of the sum of the remaining minimum rental payments (as that term was applied under Topic 840) and the right-of-use asset in accordance with this Topic.
55-254 Beginning on the effective date of January 1, 20X4, Lessee applies the subsequent measurement guidance in Section 842-20-35, including the reassessment requirements.
The following is a summary of the steps a lessee
would perform in calculating the lease liability and the ROU asset in the
scenario above:
Step 1: Measure the Lease
Liability as of the Earliest Period Presented
Step 2: Measure the ROU
Asset
Lease liability – accrued rent + unamortized
initial direct costs
$112,462 – $1,200 + 400 = $111,662
Step 3: Record the Journal
Entries
16.3.1.1.1 Lease Is an Operating Lease Under ASC 840 and ASC 842 — Initial Measurement of Lease Liability
In transition, when a lease is an operating lease under ASC 840 and ASC 842, the lease liability is
calculated as the present value of the minimum rental payments and expected payment under any
residual value guarantee discounted by the rate determined at the later of the date of initial application
or the lease commencement date.
16.3.1.1.2 Lease Is an Operating Lease Under ASC 840 and ASC 842 — Initial Measurement of ROU Asset
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
m. For each lease classified as an operating lease in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through
25-3, a lessee shall initially measure the right-of-use asset at the initial measurement of the lease liability
adjusted for both of the following:
1. The items in paragraph 842-20-35-3(b), as applicable.
2. The carrying amount of any liability recognized in accordance with Topic 420 on exit or disposal cost
obligations for the lease. . . .
In transition, when a lease is an operating lease under ASC 840 and ASC 842, the ROU asset is calculated
as follows:
- The sum of:
- The lease liability calculated in accordance with the guidance in Section 16.3.1.1.1.
- Prepaid rent (i.e., any amounts prepaid but not yet expensed under ASC 840).
- Unamortized initial direct costs — after consideration of whether the practical expedient package is applied in the manner described in Section 16.5.2.3.
- Less the sum of:
- Accrued rent (i.e., any amounts previously recognized under ASC 840 but not yet paid).
- Lease incentives (i.e., recorded and not yet expensed in accordance with ASC 840-20-25-6 and 25-7).
- Impairment (as described below).
- The carrying amount of any ASC 420 liability (as described below).
Q&A 16-3A Initial Measurement in Transition of an
Operating Lease When the ROU Asset Would Be Reduced Below Zero
Because of Accrued Rent
In the transition to ASC 842, the ROU asset is
measured at the amount of the lease liability adjusted by (1)
accrued or prepaid rents, (2) remaining unamortized initial
direct costs and lease incentives, (3) impairments of the ROU
asset, and (4) the carrying amount of any liability recognized
under ASC 420. An accrued rent balance would have been
established when escalating lease payments are present for a
portion of the lease term (e.g., fixed lease payments in early
years are lower than those in later years). In a long-term lease
with escalating lease payments (e.g., a 40-year ground lease),
the accrued rent balance can be greater than the lease liability
balance as of the date of initial application. Therefore, if the
full amount of the accrued rent were applied against the lease
liability, the ROU asset in transition would be negative (i.e.,
the measurement exercise described in ASC 842-10-65-1(m) would
yield an amount below zero).
Question
When applying the transition guidance related to
an operating lease, how should a lessee account for the ROU
asset when the accrued rent balance is greater than the lease
liability as of the date of initial application?
Answer
We believe that when the ROU asset would be
reduced below zero because the accrued rent balance is greater
than the lease liability, the ROU asset should be reclassified
and presented as a liability as of the date of initial
application. This presentation would be retained until the
balance of the ROU asset returns to a positive amount, at which
point the balance should be presented as an ROU asset rather
than as a liability. We think that this approach is appropriate
because we do not believe that it is appropriate to present a
negative ROU asset, thereby offsetting other positive ROU
assets. Similarly, we do not believe that it would be
appropriate to adjust the discount rate (i.e., impute a lower
discount rate) in these situations to “solve” for this problem
(i.e., disallow the ROU asset from becoming negative). See
Section 8.4.3.2.1 for
a discussion of accrued rent balances that would result in a
negative ROU asset after the date of initial application (which
could apply to leases that commenced before or after the
adoption date), along with a discussion of the subsequent
accounting and an illustrative example.
Impairment
The ROU asset should initially be measured net of impairment. However, several implementation
questions have arisen regarding how impairment should be measured during the transition period,
if at all, because the ROU asset will generally be included with other assets in a preexisting asset group.
On the basis of the Q&As below, an entity is generally not required to consider the ROU asset separately
for impairment in the comparative periods presented under ASC 842, if applicable. See also Section
16.5.1.2 for a discussion of the impact of electing the hindsight practical expedient.
Q&A 16-4 Reallocating Prior Impairment Losses Within
an Asset Group
ASC 360 provides guidance on identifying,
recognizing, and measuring an impairment of a long-lived
asset or asset group that is held and used. Under the ASC
360 impairment testing model, a lessee is required to test a
long-lived asset (asset group) for impairment when
impairment indicators are present. Under this testing
approach, a lessee would be required to test the asset
(asset group) for recoverability and, when necessary,
recognize an impairment loss that is calculated as the
difference between the carrying amount and the fair value of
the asset (asset group).
A lessee must subject an ROU asset to
impairment testing in a manner consistent with its treatment
of other long-lived assets (i.e., in accordance with ASC
360). Also, upon transition, a lessee is required to include
any associated impairment losses in its initial measurement
of an ROU asset (see Q&A
16-4A).
If the ROU asset related to an operating
lease is impaired, the lessee would amortize the remaining
ROU asset in accordance with the subsequent-measurement
guidance that applies to finance leases — typically, on a
straight-line basis over the remaining lease term. Thus, the
operating lease would no longer qualify for the
straight-line treatment of total lease expense. However, in
periods after the impairment, a lessee would continue to
present the ROU asset amortization and interest expense
together as a single line item.
Question
Upon transition to ASC 842, is a lessee
required to reallocate prior impairment losses of an asset
group to the ROU asset?
Answer
No. An ROU asset will typically be added to
a preexisting asset group under ASC 360. However, the effect
of recognizing an ROU asset on an asset group’s allocation
of a prior impairment loss is an indirect effect of a change
in accounting principle. In accordance with ASC 250-10-45-3
and ASC 250-10-45-8, indirect effects of a change in
accounting principle should not be recognized.
At the FASB’s November 30, 2016, meeting,
the Board indicated that on the effective date of ASC 842
and in all comparative periods presented under ASC 842 (if
applicable), a lessee should not revisit prior impairment
loss allocations within the asset group. In addition, the
Board indicated that a lessee should not include in the
initial measurement of an ROU asset at transition any
allocation of prior impairment losses recognized within the
asset group. Therefore, lessees should not revisit any
impairment losses that were allocated to the asset group
before the effective date of the standard regardless of
whether an impairment loss was recognized in a comparative
period.
Q&A 16-4A Accounting for Impairment (Including
“Hidden” Impairments) Upon Adoption of ASC 842
Questions have arisen regarding whether the
guidance in Q&A 16-4
implies that a lessee may never recognize an impairment
related to a newly created ROU asset as an adjustment to
equity upon adopting ASC 842. That is, because operating
leases were not previously subject to an impairment test
under ASC 360, stakeholders have questioned whether an ROU
asset should only be reduced in transition if the lessee
previously recognized a liability under ASC 840 or ASC 420.
Although that is generally the implication, there are
limited situations in which an impairment to an ROU asset
may need to be recognized as of the effective date17 of ASC 842 (i.e., as an adjustment to equity).
For example, a retailer may have fully
impaired all of the long-lived assets (e.g., leasehold
improvements) in an asset group (e.g., an individual store)
before adopting ASC 842. That is, long-lived assets in an
asset group may have been previously written down to their
individual fair values (which may have been zero). In those
instances, it is not uncommon for unrecorded “hidden”
impairments to exist as of the previous impairment date for
the asset group. A hidden impairment can occur because of
the mechanics of the ASC 360 impairment test. If an asset
group is tested for recoverability (see ASC 360-10-35-21)
and the undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying
amount of the asset group, the impairment loss is measured
as the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset
group exceeds its fair value (see ASC 360-10-35-17).
However, the impairment loss recorded is limited to the
carrying value of the long-lived assets in the asset group,
and individual long-lived assets within that asset group
cannot be written down below their individual fair values
(see ASC 360-10-35-28). As a result of these limitations,
additional economic impairment could have been previously
measured but not previously recognized as a loss in the
income statement.
Question 1
Should a lessee consider whether impairment
indicators exist for ROU assets recognized upon the adoption
of ASC 842?
Answer
Yes. A lessee should consider whether events
or changes in circumstances exist that indicate that the
carrying value of the asset group (which includes or solely
consists of an ROU asset) is not recoverable as part of the
adoption of ASC 842. That is, the lessee should determine
whether impairment indicators exist upon adoption.
The requirement to consider whether
impairment indicators exist is not equivalent to a
requirement to perform the two-step impairment test in ASC
360. ASC 360 does not require an entity to perform the ASC
360 impairment test for all asset groups. Rather, ASC 360
requires entities to consider whether there are indicators
that the carrying value of an asset group may not be
recoverable (i.e., the asset group may be impaired). When
such indicators are identified, the entity must perform the
recoverability test (step 1) for any affected asset group
and would be required to evaluate fair value in step 2 of
the test if the asset group does not pass step 1. (See
Section 8.4.4.2
for additional considerations related to performing the ASC
360 impairment test.)
ASC 360-10-35-21 lists examples of
indicators of potential impairment. In addition, decisions
to sublease or cease use of an asset under lease (even if
the conditions for recognizing a liability in accordance
with ASC 420 have not been met) may be indicators of
potential impairment because, in both cases, future cash
flows may not be sufficient to cover the contractual lease
payments. Further, previous impairments to asset groups are
indicators of potential impairment when the assets subject
to ASC 360 in the asset group were written down to their
fair values (which may have been zero) and an additional
unrecognized economic impairment remained. (See Question
5 for more information.)
Questions
2, 3,
and 4 below only apply
to asset groups that existed before adoption (i.e., they do
not solely consist of a newly recognized ROU asset). Asset
groups that solely consist of newly recognized ROU assets
would not have existed as of the reporting date immediately
before the adoption of ASC 842. See Question
5 for further considerations related to
situations in which an asset group solely consists of a
newly recognized ROU asset.
Question 2
As of which date should a lessee consider
whether impairment indicators exist for preexisting asset
groups that include newly recognized ROU assets (“asset
groups”)?
Answer
ASC 842 must be applied as of the first day
of an entity’s fiscal year of adoption. However, while ASC
842 requires lessees to recognize new assets at adoption, it
does not introduce any new requirements for how the lessee
should consider asset groups for potential impairment.
Therefore, a lessee should evaluate whether impairment
indicators exist for asset groups as of the last day of the
lessee’s reporting period before the adoption of ASC 842, as
the entity otherwise would have been required to do under
ASC 360.
Accordingly, at the end of the reporting
period immediately before the adoption of ASC 842, a lessee
should follow its normal processes and procedures (as
supported by relevant internal controls) in an effort to
determine whether there have been events or changes in
circumstances indicating that the carrying value of an asset
group may not be recoverable.
Question 3
If no impairment indicators for a
preexisting asset group are identified as of the reporting
date immediately before the adoption of ASC 842, or if
indicators existed but the asset group’s carrying value was
determined to be recoverable, is a lessee required to test
the asset group for impairment upon the adoption of ASC
842?
Answer
No. A lessee does not need to test the asset
groups for recoverability on the adoption date when there
are no impairment indicators or when the lessee concluded
that the asset group’s carrying value was recoverable at the
end of the previous reporting period. The addition of an ROU
asset to an asset group should not change the conclusion
that the asset group’s carrying value is recoverable (i.e.,
recognition of adoption-date ROU assets is a neutral event
in the determination of whether the asset group’s carrying
value is recoverable). This is because a lessee will either
(1) include the corresponding lease liability in the asset
group in such a way that the net carrying value of the asset
group is unchanged (because the ROU asset and lease
obligation would generally offset) and the net undiscounted
cash flows would not decrease or (2) exclude the lease
liability from the asset group and adjust the cash outflows
used in performing the step 1 impairment test to exclude the
corresponding lease payments in such a way that the
increased carrying value of the asset group is offset by an
increase in future net cash flows. See Section 8.4.4.2 for
considerations related to including or excluding the lease
liability in an asset group for both finance and operating
leases.
Question 4
Are there situations in which impairment
indicators exist for a preexisting asset group as of the
reporting date immediately before the adoption of ASC 842
but the lessee would not be required to test the asset group
for impairment upon the adoption of ASC 842?
Answer
Yes. A lessee would not be required to test
asset groups for impairment on the adoption date of ASC 842
when the lessee performed the ASC 360 test as of the
reporting date immediately before the adoption of ASC 842
and concluded either of the following:
-
The asset group was not impaired because there were sufficient net future cash flows to recover the asset group’s carrying value or the fair value of the asset group exceeded its carrying value.
-
There was an impairment to the asset group but the assets subject to ASC 360 in the asset group were not fully written down to their respective fair values, or such assets were written down to their respective fair values and there was no additional unrecognized economic impairment (i.e., no hidden impairment).
In these situations, a carrying value (which
may be the fair value of individual assets in the asset
group when an impairment is recognized) related to the asset
group generally remains and this remaining carrying value is
recoverable. Therefore, despite the existence of impairment
indicators, we do not believe that a lessee would be
required to test asset groups for impairment upon the
adoption of ASC 842 in these circumstances for the reasons
noted in the answer to Question 3. That is,
the recognition of new ROU assets is generally expected to
be a neutral event that should not change the conclusion
that the asset group’s carrying value is recoverable.
Question 5
Provided that a lessee adopts ASC 842 by
using the Comparatives Under 840 Option (rather than
presenting comparative periods under ASC 842), are there
situations in which it would be appropriate for a lessee to
recognize an impairment of a newly created ROU asset as an
adjustment to equity upon adopting ASC 842?
Answer
Yes. We believe that a lessee will generally
only have an impairment of an ROU asset upon the adoption of
ASC 842, and thus recognize a transition-period adjustment
to equity, in either of the following situations:
-
There was a hidden impairment, as discussed above and illustrated in the retail example below. That is, the lessee previously fully impaired all of the long-lived assets in the asset group that now includes the ROU asset (e.g., fully impaired leasehold improvements for an individual retail store), and an additional economic impairment was measured but was not previously recognized as a loss in the income statement. Further, the events and conditions that resulted in the previous impairment (an impairment that was not recognized to the extent that it was measured) continue to exist as of the ASC 842 adoption date.
-
The ROU asset represents its own asset group under ASC 360 and is determined to be impaired as of the effective date of ASC 842. That is, impairment indicators existed before (and continue to exist upon) the adoption of ASC 842, but because there were no ROU assets recognized for operating leases under ASC 840 and there are no other long-lived assets in the asset group, no impairment exercise was performed and no impairment charge was recognized in the lessee’s historical financial statements.
In these situations, when impairment
indicators continue to exist, we believe (as discussed
above) that a lessee must apply the ASC 360 impairment
guidance (as described in Section
8.4.4.2) as of the effective date of ASC
842.18 If an impairment exists, the lessee should recognize a
reduction of the ROU asset in transition that is equal to
the lesser of (1) an amount to adjust the ROU asset
to its fair value or (2) an amount to adjust the asset
group’s excess carrying value to fair value. This
impairment should generally be recognized as an adjustment
to equity on the date of adoption, unless the impairment
conditions did not exist as of the reporting date
immediately before the adoption of ASC 842.
Although expected to be rare, there may be
events or changes in circumstances occurring on the adoption date that indicate
that the carrying value of the asset group may not be
recoverable. Because such events or changes in circumstances
occurred after the adoption of ASC 842, if an asset group is
impaired as a result, the associated impairment charge
should be recognized through earnings (i.e., not through
equity).
Example
Retailer A leases two store
locations under operating leases. The two stores
are separate asset groups under ASC 360. Retailer
A uses the Comparatives Under 840 Option to adopt
ASC 842 on January 1, 2019.
Store
1
Store 1 has had and continues
to have robust sales and positive cash flows and
is located in a metropolitan area in which the
real estate market is (and has been) strong. In
addition, Store 1 has had no prior impairments. As
of December 31, 2018, because there were no events
or changes in circumstances to suggest that Store
1’s carrying value is not recoverable, Retailer A
did not test Store 1 for recoverability in
accordance with ASC 360. When Retailer A adopts
ASC 842 on January 1, 2019, and recognizes an
adoption-date ROU asset, it would be reasonable
for Retailer A to conclude that there is no reason
to test the asset group containing the
adoption-date ROU asset for impairment.
Store
2
Store 2 is located in a
depressed economic area and has had significantly
reduced sales and cash flows. In 2017, on the
basis of impairment indicators at that time,
Retailer A tested Store 2 for recoverability under
ASC 360 and concluded that Store 2 was impaired.
Retailer A reduced the long-lived assets
(consisting completely of leasehold improvements)
to zero, but an excess unrecognized impairment
remained. Sales and cash flows have not
sufficiently recovered since 2017 and, although
impairment indicators existed as of December 31,
2018, no impairment testing was performed because
there were no additional assets in the asset group
that could be reduced in accordance with ASC
360.
Because of Store 2’s hidden
impairment and conditions (i.e., impairment
indicators) that continue to exist as of the date
of adoption of ASC 842, Retailer A should test
Store 2 for recoverability at adoption. That is,
because the recoverability test is a new test
(rather than a reallocation of a previous
impairment), Retailer A should perform the ASC 360
test for the asset group as of January 1, 2019
(i.e., the asset group should include the ROU
asset).19 Further, because (1) the events and
conditions that led to the recognition of the
adoption-date impairment existed before the
adoption date and (2) Retailer A elected the
Comparatives Under 840 Option, any impairment
should be recognized as an adjustment to Retailer
A’s beginning equity on January 1, 2019.
The decision tree below summarizes the
discussion in this Q&A regarding how to determine
whether an asset group containing a newly created ROU asset
should be evaluated for impairment upon the adoption of ASC
842, provided that an entity elects the Comparatives Under
840 Option.
As noted above, throughout this Q&A, we
have assumed that the lessee used the Comparatives Under 840
Option to adopt ASC 842 and, therefore, does not present
comparative periods under ASC 842. However, the same
concepts would apply if the lessee presented comparative
periods under ASC 842 upon adoption.
We generally believe that, if the lessee
presents comparative periods under ASC 842, the timing of
recognizing the hidden impairment should be based on an
assessment of when the impairment economically
occurred/existed. Therefore, the lessee should consider
whether the incremental impairment should be recognized as
(1) an adjustment to equity as of the beginning of the
earliest period presented or (2) an impairment loss in the
income statement for a comparative period. Nevertheless, on
the basis of discussions with the FASB staff, we also
believe that it would be permissible for a company to
recognize those impairments (whether related to (1) or (2)
in the preceding sentence) in the income statement as of the
effective date (e.g., January 1, 2019, for a
calendar-year-end public company). We think that such an
approach is consistent with Q&A
16-4 and may limit the need for entities to
search for previous “hidden” impairments as well as new
impairment indicators during the comparative periods, which
could be numerous for some entities. Under this approach,
the impact of the impairments would be recorded as a charge
to income in the first period after the effective date
(e.g., January 1, 2019, for a calendar-year-end public
company), since it would be inappropriate to record an
adjustment to equity on that date when the date of initial
application (the only date on which an equity adjustment
would be appropriate) is January 1, 2017. This approach is
meant to simplify the transition accounting and is
restricted to entities that choose to recast the comparative
periods upon adoption. That is, we generally do not believe
that it would be appropriate for a company that elects the
Comparatives Under 840 Option to record an impairment charge
to earnings on January 1, 2019, if the impairment
economically occurred/existed on December 31, 2018. If a
company is contemplating an alternative approach to the
recognition of an impairment charge in these circumstances,
discussion with the company’s accounting advisers and
auditors is highly encouraged.
Transition for Cease-Use Liabilities and Sublease Liabilities
ASC 420 required entities to recognize a liability for the cost associated with an exit or disposal activity, including operating leases when an entity ceases to use a leased asset and the underlying asset has no remaining benefit to the entity. ASC 420-10-25-11 describes “contract termination costs” as either of the following:
- Costs to terminate the contract before the end of its term
- Costs that will continue to be incurred under the contract for its remaining term without economic benefit to the entity.
Entities accrue for the remaining costs to be incurred under the lease and, if applicable, the cost of terminating the lease contract. Therefore, to the extent that such balances were recognized, the balances should reduce the ROU asset balance as of transition. This balance should be recognized against the ROU asset as of the later of the date of initial application or the date the ASC 420 liability was recognized.
Consider the example below from ASC 420.20
ASC 420-10
55-12 An entity leases a facility under an operating lease that requires the entity to pay lease rentals of $100,000 per year for 10 years. After using the facility for five years, the entity commits to an exit plan. In connection with that plan, the entity will cease using the facility in 1 year (after using the facility for 6 years), at which time the remaining lease rentals will be $400,000 ($100,000 per year for the remaining term of 4 years). In accordance with paragraphs 420-10-30-7 through 30-9, a liability for the remaining lease rentals, reduced by actual (or estimated) sublease rentals, would be recognized and measured at its fair value at the cease-use date (as illustrated in the following paragraph). In accordance with paragraphs 420-10-35-1 through 35-4, the liability would be adjusted for changes, if any, resulting from revisions to estimated cash flows after the cease-use date, measured using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate that was used to measure the liability initially (as illustrated in paragraph 420-10-55-15).
55-13 Based on market rentals for similar leased property, the entity determines that if it desired,
it could sublease the facility and receive sublease rentals of $300,000 ($75,000 per year for the
remaining lease term of 4 years). However, for competitive reasons, the entity decides not to sublease
the facility (or otherwise terminate the lease) at the cease-use date. The fair value of the liability at
the cease-use date is $89,427, estimated using an expected present value technique. The expected
net cash flows of $100,000 ($25,000 per year for the remaining lease term of 4 years) are discounted
using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 8 percent. In this case, a risk premium is not considered in
the present value measurement. Because the lease rentals are fixed by contract and the estimated
sublease rentals are based on market prices for similar leased property for other entities having
similar credit standing as the entity, there is little uncertainty in the amount and timing of the expected
cash flows used in estimating fair value at the cease-use date and any risk premium would be
insignificant. In other circumstances, a risk premium would be appropriate if it is significant. Thus, a
liability (expense) of $89,427 would be recognized at the cease-use date.
55-14 Accretion expense would be recognized after the cease-use date in accordance with the
guidance beginning in paragraph 420-10-35-1 and in paragraph 420-10-45-5. (The entity will recognize
the impact of deciding not to sublease the property over the period the property is not subleased. For
example, in the first year after the cease-use date, an expense of $75,000 would be recognized as the
impact of not subleasing the property, which reflects the annual lease payment of $100,000 net of the
liability extinguishment of $25,000).
55-15 At the end of one year, the competitive factors referred to above are no longer present. The
entity decides to sublease the facility and enters into a sublease. The entity will receive sublease
rentals of $250,000 ($83,333 per year for the remaining lease term of 3 years), negotiated based on
market rentals for similar leased property at the sublease date. The entity adjusts the carrying amount
of the liability at the sublease date to $46,388 to reflect the revised expected net cash flows of $50,000
($16,667 per year for the remaining lease term of 3 years), which are discounted at the credit-adjusted
risk-free rate that was used to measure the liability initially (8 percent). Accretion expense would be
recognized after the sublease date in accordance with the guidance beginning in paragraph 420-10-35-1 and in paragraph 420-10-45-5.
On the basis of the facts in the above example,
the entity would have recorded the following (assume that rental
payments and sublease income receipts are paid at the beginning of
each year):
Only the initial measurement of the ROU asset should be affected by any ASC 420 liability
associated with the lease. Therefore, if the ASC 420 liability is recorded before the date of
initial application, the balance as of the date of initial measurement should be recognized as a
reduction to the ROU asset.
Assume that the entity is a calendar-year-end public company, it did not elect
the Comparatives Under 840 Option, and that January 1, 2017, is the
beginning of Year 8 in the example above. The entity would initially
measure the ROU asset reduced by the ASC 420 liability balance
(including any true-ups) as of December 31, 2016. Further assume a
discount rate of 14 percent.
Measurement of the ROU Asset as of January 1,
2017
Reclassification of Incremental ASC 420
Liability During the Periods Ended December 31, 2017, and
December 31, 2018
Connecting the Dots
Impact of Hindsight Practical Expedient on ASC 420
Liabilities Versus That on Impairment
We do not believe that the hindsight practical expedient can be applied to ASC 420 liabilities. For example, if an entity ceases use of a leased asset during the comparative periods, it would not be appropriate to push back that conclusion to the earliest period presented. While the impact of incorporating ASC 420 liabilities is similar to the impact of an impairment, they are nonetheless not the same, because the triggering event for an ASC 420 liability is related to terminating or ceasing use of the property, which should not be moved into a reporting period different from that in which the event occurred.
Q&A 16-5A Transition Considerations Related to Lease
Measurement When an Entity Ceases Use of a Leased Asset
Before the Adoption of ASC 842
Under ASC 840, when an entity ceases use of
an asset subject to an operating lease, the entity applies
the guidance in ASC 420 to determine whether to recognize a
liability for its costs related to terminating the operating
lease and costs that will continue to be incurred without
economically benefiting the entity. Provided that the
criteria in ASC 420 related to recognizing a liability are
met, the liability is measured as the difference between the
remaining lease costs to be paid by the lessee, offset by an
assumption for sublease income. In accordance with ASC
420-10-30-8, an entity would record the liability in this
manner regardless of whether the lessee has the intent to
sublease the asset. ASC 420-10-30-8 states:
If the contract is an operating
lease, the fair value of the liability at the
cease-use date shall be determined based on the
remaining lease rentals, adjusted for the effects of
any prepaid or deferred items recognized under the
lease, and reduced by estimated
sublease rentals that could be reasonably obtained
for the property, even if the entity does not
intend to enter into a sublease. Remaining
lease rentals shall not be reduced to an amount less
than zero. [Emphasis added]
Therefore, under ASC 420 and ASC 840, an
entity is considered to have ceased use of an asset even if
the entity has the intent and ability to sublease the asset.
However, under ASC 842, the cease-use determination is no
longer relevant; rather, an entity must determine whether
the leased asset is abandoned in accordance with ASC 360.
Under ASC 842, if an entity plans to abandon
the leased asset, we believe that the entity should change
the useful life of the ROU asset prospectively in such a way
that the ROU asset is fully amortized by the abandonment
date.
Question
1
Under ASC 842, is an ROU asset considered
abandoned if an entity has ceased use of the underlying
asset but is currently subleasing (or plans to sublease) the
asset?
Answer
No. Under ASC 842, an ROU asset is
recognized during the period in which an entity has the
right to use an asset subject to a lease. One of the
conditions for a lease is that the entity must obtain
substantially all of the economic benefits from the use of
the underlying asset. In a sublease scenario, although the
entity itself is not using the asset, the entity’s receipt
of sublease payments would be considered as obtaining
economic benefits from use of the underlying asset under ASC
842. ASC 842-10-15-17 provides evidence for this notion and
states, in part:
A customer can
obtain economic benefits from use of an asset
directly or indirectly in many ways, such as by
using, holding, or subleasing the asset. The
economic benefits from use of an asset include its
primary output and by-products (including potential
cash flows derived from these items) and other
economic benefits from using the asset that could be
realized from a commercial transaction with a third
party. [Emphasis added]
Because the entity is still obtaining
economic benefits from use of the asset through subleasing
the asset, we do not believe that a lessee has abandoned an
asset if an entity has both the intent and ability to
sublease. This holds true even if the lessee has not yet
identified a sublessee before the lessee ceases use of the
asset.
Question
2
If an entity ceases use of a leased asset
before adopting ASC 842 and does not have the intent and
ability to sublease the asset, should the entity recognize
an ROU asset upon adopting ASC 842?
Answer
No. We do not believe that it is appropriate
to recognize an ROU asset upon adopting ASC 842 if an entity
both (1) has ceased using an asset before the adoption date
of ASC 842 and that designation has not changed as of the
adoption date and (2) does not have the intent and ability
to sublease the asset. However, the entity would still be
required to recognize a lease liability equal to the present
value of the remaining lease payments under the contract.
Normally, the entity would recognize a corresponding ROU
asset; however, in this situation, any liabilities
previously recognized under ASC 420 (e.g., cease-use
liabilities) would be recognized as a reduction to the
carrying amount of the ROU asset. Furthermore, to the extent
that the ASC 420 liability is less than the carrying amount
of the ROU asset that would otherwise be recognized to
offset the corresponding lease liability, any remaining
portion of the ROU asset not offset by the ASC 420 liability
would be written off as an adjustment to equity. We believe
that it is appropriate to record the adjustment through
equity because the cease-use event occurred before the date
of initial application of ASC 842. See the Q&A below for
discussion of the effect of a previously recognized ASC 420
liability that exceeds the lease liability that must be
recognized in transition.
Q&A 16-5B Initial Measurement of an ROU Asset When a
Previously Recognized ASC 420 Liability Exceeds the Lease
Liability Recognized in Transition
Before adopting ASC 842, a lessee may have
recognized, in accordance with ASC 420, a liability for the
cost associated with an exit or disposal activity related to
an operating lease. Specifically, ASC 420-10-30-9 states
that a “liability for costs that will continue to be
incurred under a contract for its remaining term without
economic benefit to the entity shall be [recognized and]
measured at its fair value” when the entity ceases using the
right conveyed by the contract. In addition, ASC 420-10-30-8
indicates that “[i]f the contract is an operating lease, the
fair value of the liability at the cease-use date shall be
determined based on the remaining lease rentals.”
Under ASC 840, a lessee may have included
amounts related to maintenance (including CAM), insurance,
and property taxes in the measurement of its ASC 420
liability. The lessee would have done so regardless of
whether such costs were fixed or variable, in which case
they would be estimated.
When a lessee is applying the transition
requirements in ASC 842, to the extent that ASC 420
liabilities were recognized, such balances should reduce the
carrying amount of the ROU asset in accordance with ASC
842-10-65-1(m)(2), which states, in part:
For each lease classified as an
operating lease in accordance with paragraphs
842-10-25-2 through 25-3, a lessee shall initially
measure the right-of-use asset at the initial
measurement of the lease liability adjusted for both
of the following: . . .
2. The carrying amount of any liability
recognized in accordance with Topic 420 on exit or
disposal cost obligations for the lease.
In certain circumstances, the carrying
amount of a lessee’s ASC 420 liability immediately before
the ASC 842 effective date for an existing operating lease
may exceed the amount that will be recognized for the lease
liability as of the effective date (e.g., if the lessee’s
ASC 420 liability included CAM, insurance, and property
taxes). Consequently, measuring the ROU asset, including the
full adjustment for an ASC 420 liability in accordance with
ASC 842-10-65-1(m)(2), may result in an ROU asset carrying
amount below zero.
Question
How should a lessee account for a lease at
transition in which the existing ASC 420 liability exceeds
the ROU asset that would otherwise be recognized at
transition?
Answer
We do not believe that it would be
appropriate for a lessee to recognize a negative ROU asset
at transition. Although ASC 842 does not provide clear
guidance on this situation, we think that it would be
acceptable for a lessee to use one of the following
approaches:
-
Approach 1: Retain the ASC 420 liability for amounts that exceed the initial ROU asset — An entity could reduce the ROU asset to zero, with a corresponding decrease to the ASC 420 liability. The remaining portion of the ASC 420 liability would be retained and would be accounted for after the effective date in the same manner as it was accounted for before the effective date (i.e., in accordance with ASC 420). We believe that this approach is acceptable because it would allow a lessee to effectively “run off” its remaining liability. As part of this approach, an entity would not be required to recognize those costs through the income statement a second time (i.e., once when the ASC 420 liability was established before the effective date and again when those costs are actually incurred after the effective date).
-
Approach 2: Retain the portion of the ASC 420 liability related to the executory costs — As discussed in Q&A 16-5A, if an entity (1) has ceased using an asset before the adoption date of ASC 842 and that designation has not changed as of the adoption date and (2) does not have the intent and ability to sublease the asset as of the adoption date, we do not believe that it is appropriate for an entity to recognize an ROU asset upon adoption. Accordingly, the application of Approach 2 will depend on an entity’s intent and ability to sublease.
-
Approach 2(a) — If the entity has the intent and ability to sublease, the entity could reduce the ROU asset by the portion of the ASC 420 liability related to the lease costs. An entity would also reduce the ASC 420 liability by a corresponding amount and retain the portion of the ASC 420 liability to the extent that it is related to executory costs.
-
Approach 2(b) — If the entity does not have the intent and ability to sublease, the entity could reduce the ROU asset to zero, with a corresponding decrease to the ASC 420 liability, retaining the ASC 420 liability only for the remaining portion related to executory costs.
In both Approach 2(a) and Approach 2(b), the ASC 420 liability that remains would be accounted for after the effective date in the same manner as it was accounted for before the effective date (i.e., in accordance with ASC 420). As with Approach 1, we believe that this approach is acceptable because it would allow a lessee to effectively “run off” its remaining liability. As part of this approach, an entity would not be required to recognize those costs through the income statement a second time (i.e., once when the ASC 420 liability was established before the effective date and again when those costs are actually incurred after the effective date). -
-
Approach 3: Derecognize any remaining ASC 420 liability, after the ROU asset is written to zero, through an adjustment to equity — An entity could reduce the ASC 420 liability by the same amount that reduced the ROU asset to zero. The remaining portion of the ASC 420 liability could be written off with an adjustment through equity. The costs underlying the amount that would be adjusted to equity would be recognized through the income statement in future periods as an expense since they are incurred after the effective date. Accordingly, under this approach, a lessee will recognize certain costs through the income statement twice (i.e., once in periods before the adoption of ASC 842 when the ASC 420 liability was established with its corresponding expense, and again when those costs are incurred after the adoption of ASC 842, because an offsetting liability on the balance sheet no longer exists). Although we do not think that this is an intended outcome of the transition guidance in ASC 842 or a desirable outcome for lessees, we do believe that this approach is acceptable because it would allow the removal of the existing ASC 420 liability, as contemplated under the ASC 842 transition guidance.
Q&A 16-5C Treatment of Existing Sublease Liabilities
Under ASC 840 Upon Transition to ASC 842
Under ASC 842, when the costs expected to be
incurred under an operating sublease exceed the expected
related revenue, a sublessor should consider whether the ROU
asset of the head lease is impaired in accordance with ASC
842-20-35-9. However, under ASC 840, the sublessor would
have instead recognized a sublease liability for this
anticipated loss. Specifically, ASC 840-20-25-15 states:
If costs expected to be incurred
under an operating sublease (that is, executory
costs and either amortization of the leased asset or
rental payments on an operating lease, whichever is
applicable) exceed anticipated revenue on the
operating sublease, a loss shall be recognized by
the sublessor.
The transition guidance in ASC
842-10-65-1(m) states:
For each lease classified as an
operating lease in accordance with paragraphs
842-10-25-2 through 25-3, a lessee shall initially
measure the right-of-use asset at the initial
measurement of the lease liability adjusted for both
of the following:
-
The items in paragraph 842-20-35-3(b), as applicable.
-
The carrying amount of any liability recognized in accordance with Topic 420 on exit or disposal cost obligations for the lease.
Therefore, the ROU asset is established in
transition and adjustments are made for items in ASC
842-20-35-3(b), including “impairment of the [ROU] asset”
and the carrying amount of ASC 420 liabilities.
Question
How should a sublessor account for an
existing sublease liability recognized under ASC
840-20-25-15 upon transition to ASC 842?
Answer
ASC 842 does not provide explicit guidance
on accounting for existing sublease liabilities upon
transition. The ASC 842 transition guidance states that the
initial ROU asset recognized in transition should be net of
ASC 420 liabilities and ROU impairment but does not mention
existing sublease liabilities. In the absence of explicit
guidance, we believe that the following are acceptable
approaches for a sublessor to use in accounting for an
existing sublease liability upon transition:
-
Approach A — The sublessor writes off the existing sublease liability upon transition to ASC 842, with a credit to equity. Contemporaneously, the sublessor must test the asset group containing the ROU asset for impairment in accordance with ASC 842 (see Q&A 16-4A), because subleasing at an amount less than the head lease payments may be an indicator of impairment. If the ROU asset is impaired, any impairment would also be an adjustment to equity in transition.
-
Approach B — The sublessor nets the existing sublease liability recognized under ASC 840-20-25-15 against the ROU asset established upon transition to ASC 842. Under this approach, the existing sublease liability is considered akin to an impairment loss. As a result, in accordance with ASC 842-20-25-7, the sublessor would subsequently amortize the remaining ROU asset balance on a straight-line basis; accordingly, the sublessor would not recognize total lease expense on a straight-line basis (see Section 8.4.4 for additional discussion of subsequent measurement of the ROU asset after an impairment is recognized).
A sublessor should elect one of the above
approaches and apply it consistently to all existing
sublease liabilities in transition.
16.3.1.1.3 Subsequent Measurement
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
n. For each lease classified as an operating lease in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2
through 25-3, a lessee shall subsequently measure
the right-of-use asset throughout the remaining
lease term in accordance with paragraph
842-20-35-3(b). If the initial measurement of the
right-of-use asset in (m) is adjusted for the
carrying amount of a liability recognized in
accordance with Topic 420 on exit or disposal cost
obligations for the lease, the lessee shall apply
the recognition and subsequent measurement
guidance in Sections 842-20-25 and 842-20-35,
respectively, when the right-of-use asset has been
impaired. . . .
For operating leases whose balance neither reflects an impairment nor includes
an ASC 420 liability upon transition, the ROU asset and liability should
be subsequently measured in accordance with ASC 842-20-35-3(b). A
lessee’s expense recognition pattern for lease payments is the same
under ASC 840 as it is under ASC 842 (i.e., generally straight-line).
Therefore, during the comparative periods under ASC 842 (if applicable),
the expense recognized under ASC 840 does not need to be altered. For
operating leases whose balance reflects an impairment21 or includes an ASC 420 liability, the lessee should subsequently
measure the ROU asset and liability in accordance with ASC 842-20-25 and
ASC 842-20-35 as if the ROU asset had been impaired. The ROU asset
should be amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining lease
term, unless a more systematic basis is more representative of the
pattern in which the lessee expects to consume the remaining economic
benefits from its right to use the underlying asset. The entity should
accrete the lease liability initially measured at the amount that
produces a constant periodic discount rate related to the remaining
balance of that liability.
Further, as discussed in Section 16.3.1, an entity should apply the provisions of ASC 842 to the
accounting for modifications and the reassessment of the lease liability on and after the effective
date. During the comparative periods presented under ASC 842 (if applicable), the accounting for
modifications and the reassessment of the lease liability should be in line with the provisions of ASC 840
(if lease classification did not change upon the adoption of ASC 842) or ASC 842 (if lease classification did
change upon the adoption of ASC 842).
16.3.1.2 Lease Is a Finance Lease Under ASC 842 (Operating Lease Under ASC 840)
The graphic below outlines the steps lessees should perform in transition for leases that were previously
classified as operating leases and are considered finance leases under ASC 842.
16.3.1.2.1 Initial Measurement of Lease Liability
For more information about the initial measurement of the lease liability, see Section 16.3.1.1. For
leases classified as operating under ASC 840, the initial measurement of lease liabilities in transition is
the same, regardless of whether classification changes.
16.3.1.2.2 Initial Measurement of ROU Asset
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
o. For each lease classified as a finance lease in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-2, a lessee shall measure the right-of-use asset as the applicable proportion of the lease liability at the commencement date, which can be imputed from the lease liability determined in accordance with (l). The applicable proportion is the remaining lease term at the application date as determined in (c) relative to the total lease term. A lessee shall adjust the right-of-use asset recognized by the carrying amount of any prepaid or accrued lease payments and the carrying amount of any liability recognized in accordance with Topic 420 for the lease. . . .
The measurement of the ROU asset is intended to reflect the proportion of the
ROU asset that would have remained if the lease had always been
classified as a finance lease, including any prepaid (or accrued)
balances and ASC 420 liabilities. However, the guidance above
indicates that this amount “can be imputed from the lease liability
determined in accordance with (l).” This appears to be an
accommodation, because the calculation of the lease liability under
ASC 842-10-65-1(l) only takes into account remaining lease payments
as of the date of initial application for any lease that commences
before that time. That is, a true calculation of the lease liability
as of the commencement date would include payments that were made
before the date of initial application. ASC 842 does not provide
additional guidance on how a lessee may impute the lease liability
without using all the payments since lease commencement. However,
the 2013 ED of the leases standard did illustrate how this may be
done. Under the approach discussed in the ED, an entity would
average the remaining minimum rental payments from the calculation
in ASC 842-10-65-1(l) and would assume that those average payments
existed for the entire lease term. This calculation could materially
differ from a true calculation of the original lease liability at
lease commencement. For example, this could occur if the lease
payments significantly differed from those on a straight-line basis
(e.g., step rents or significant deferred payments). Therefore, we
believe that a lessee could either calculate the original lease
liability at lease commencement (Alternative 1 below) or develop a
policy that is consistent with imputing the amount related to the
components from the calculation in ASC 842-10-65-1(l) (Alternative 2
below).
Example 16-2
Assume the same facts as in Example 29 of ASC 842 (see Section 16.3.1.1) except that the lessee did not elect
the practical expedient package and the lease was determined to be a finance lease in transition. Further
assume that the entity did not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option and that the remaining balance of
initial direct costs as of the earliest period presented is $250 because of the exclusion of certain initial direct
costs capitalized under ASC 842. Finally, assume that the payment made in 20X1 was $31,000.
Step 1: Measure the Lease Liability as of the Earliest Period Presented
Alternative 1
Step 2: Measure the ROU Asset
Calculate the present value of the lease payments from lease commencement and multiply this amount by the
remaining lease term divided by the original lease term.
Step 3: Record the Journal Entries
Alternative 2
Step 2: Measure the ROU
Determine the average lease payments over the remaining term as of the earliest
period presented, as calculated in step 1 (31,000
+ 33,000 + 33,000 + 33,000) ÷ 4 = $32,500.
Calculate the present value of the average lease payments imputed over the entire lease term and multiply this amount by the remaining lease term divided by the original lease term.
Step 3: Record the Journal Entries
16.3.1.2.3 Subsequent Measurement
There are no separate paragraphs in the transition guidance on subsequent measurement for a lease that was an operating lease under ASC 840 and becomes a finance lease upon the adoption of ASC 842. However, since the lease classification in this scenario changed to a finance lease in accordance with ASC 842, the finance lease must be subsequently measured in accordance with ASC 842 after the date of initial application.
16.3.2 Lease Previously Classified as a Capital Lease Under ASC 840
Leases previously classified as a capital lease under ASC 840 could be accounted for as either a finance lease or an operating lease under ASC 842. The classification considerations related to the practical expedient package are the same as those for leases previously classified as operating leases (see Section 16.3.1).
The two transition scenarios for
a capital lease under ASC 840 are as follows:
16.3.2.1 Lease Is a Finance Lease Under ASC 842 (Capital Lease Under ASC 840)
The graphic below illustrates how an entity should recognize the ROU asset and
lease liability for leases that were previously classified as capital leases
and are considered finance leases under ASC 842 because either (1) an entity
elected the practical expedient package so that lease classification would
not be reassessed or (2) classification is assessed in transition to ASC 842
and the lease is determined to be a finance lease.
In short, other than changing the characterization of the asset (to an ROU asset) and obligation (to a
lease liability), the lessee does not record any entries as part of the transition from a capital lease to
a finance lease, except the impact of any nonqualifying initial direct costs, if any, when the practical
expedient package is not applied. Example 28 in ASC 842 illustrates this transition as follows:
ASC 842-10
Illustration of Lessee Transition — Existing Capital Lease
55-243 Example 28 illustrates lessee accounting for the transition of existing capital leases when an entity elects the transition method in paragraph 842-10-65-1(c)(1).
Example 28 — Lessee Transition — Existing Capital Lease
55-244 The effective date of the guidance in this Topic for Lessee is January 1, 20X4. Lessee enters into a
7-year lease of an asset on January 1, 20X1, with annual lease payments of $25,000 payable at the end of
each year. The lease includes a residual value guarantee by Lessee of $8,190. Lessee’s incremental borrowing
rate on the date of commencement was 6 percent. Lessee accounts for the lease as a capital lease. At lease
commencement, Lessee defers initial direct costs of $2,800, which will be amortized over the lease term. On
January 1, 20X2 (and before transition adjustments), Lessee has a lease liability of $128,707, a lease asset of
$124,434, and unamortized initial direct costs of $2,400.
55-245 January 1, 20X2 is the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial
statements in which Lessee first applies the guidance in this Topic. Lessee has elected the package of practical
expedients in paragraph 842-10-65-1(f). As such, Lessee accounts for the lease as a finance lease, without
reassessing whether the contract contains a lease or whether classification of the lease would be different
in accordance with this Topic. Lessee also does not reassess whether the unamortized initial direct costs on
January 1, 20X2, would have met the definition of initial direct costs in this Topic at lease commencement.
55-246 On January 1, 20X2, Lessee recognizes a lease liability at the carrying amount of the capital lease
obligation on December 31, 20X1, of $128,707 and a right-of-use asset at the carrying amount of the capital
lease asset of $126,834 (which includes unamortized initial direct costs of $2,400 that were included in the
capital lease asset). Lessee subsequently measures the lease liability and the right-of-use asset in accordance
with Subtopic 840-30 until the effective date.
55-247 Beginning on the effective date, Lessee applies the subsequent measurement guidance in Section
842-20-35, including the reassessment requirements, except for the requirement to reassess amounts
probable of being owed under residual value guarantees. Such amounts will only be reassessed if there is a
remeasurement of the lease liability for another reason, including as a result of a lease modification (that is, not
accounted for as a separate contract).
16.3.2.1.1 Initial Measurement of Lease Liability and ROU Asset
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
r. For each lease classified as a finance lease in accordance with this Topic, a lessee shall do all of the following:
1. Recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability at the carrying amount of the lease asset and the capital lease obligation in accordance with Topic 840 at the application date as determined in (c).
2. Include any unamortized initial direct costs that meet the definition of initial direct costs in this Topic in the measurement of the right-of-use asset established in (r)(1).
3. If a lessee does not elect the practical expedients described in (f),
write off any unamortized initial direct costs
that do not meet the definition of initial direct
costs in this Topic and that are not included in
the measurement of the capital lease asset under
Topic 840 as an adjustment to equity unless the
entity elects the transition method in (c)(1) and
the costs were incurred after the beginning of the
earliest period presented, in which case those
costs shall be written off as an adjustment to
earnings in the period the costs were incurred. .
. .
If a lease was previously classified as a capital lease under ASC 840 and the
lease remains a finance lease, the entity should recognize an ROU asset
and lease liability in transition at their existing carrying amounts as
lease assets and capital lease obligations, respectively. That is, the
transition guidance for a capital lease that is classified as a finance
lease under ASC 842 results in the carryforward of existing assets and
liabilities recognized under ASC 840.22 The amounts should be recognized at the later of the date of
initial application or the commencement date of the lease.
In addition, any unamortized initial direct costs (after an entity considers the
ASC 842 definition, unless the practical expedient described in
Section
16.5.2.3 is applied) should be added to the ROU
asset.
Connecting the Dots
Hindsight Impact Related to Lease Term and Liability
Measurement (Lease Classified as a Capital Lease Under
ASC 840)
The measurement of the lease liability is affected by the identification of the lease term. If an entity elects the hindsight practical expedient, any changes to the lease term during the comparative period should be reflected in the measurement of the lease liability as of the later of the date of initial application or lease commencement. Therefore, a different initial measurement of the finance lease could be required in transition, since balances under ASC 840 will reflect a different lease term assumption. See Section 16.5.1 for more information on the hindsight practical expedient.
For capital leases that are finance leases under ASC 842, the only difference between electing and
not electing the practical expedient package is that an entity that does not apply the package would
only include in its ROU asset initial direct costs that qualify as such costs under ASC 842. Previously
capitalized initial direct costs that no longer meet the definition of initial direct costs under ASC 842
must be accounted for as follows:
- Any costs incurred before the date of initial application should be recognized as an adjustment to equity.
- Any costs incurred on or after the date of initial application should be recognized in earnings for the respective comparative period under ASC 842, if applicable.
16.3.2.1.2 Subsequent Measurement
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
r. For each lease classified as a finance lease in accordance with this Topic, a lessee shall do all of the
following: . . .
4. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(1), subsequently measure the right-of-use asset and the lease liability in accordance with Section 840-30-35 before the effective date.
5. Regardless of the transition method selected in (c), apply the
subsequent measurement guidance in paragraphs
842-20-35-4 through 35-5 and 842-20-35-8 after the
effective date. However, when applying the pending
content in paragraph 842-20-35-4, a lessee shall
not remeasure the lease payments for amounts
probable of being owed under residual value
guarantees in accordance with paragraph
842-10-35-4(c)(3).
6. Classify the assets and liabilities held under capital leases as right-of-use assets and lease liabilities
arising from finance leases for the purposes of presentation and disclosure. . . .
t. If a modification to the contractual terms and conditions occurs on or after the effective date, and the
modification does not result in a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8, or the
lessee is required to remeasure the lease liability in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-4, the lessee
shall subsequently account for the lease in accordance with the requirements in this Topic beginning on
the effective date of the modification or the remeasurement date. . . .
A finance lease must be subsequently measured in accordance with ASC 840 in the comparative periods
before the effective date. That is, if classification does not change as of the earliest period presented, the
ASC 840 reassessment, modification, and measurement principles should be retained (other than those
related to the classification of the assets and liabilities as ROU assets and lease liabilities, respectively,
for presentation and disclosure purposes). On and after the effective date, an entity must apply the ASC
842 subsequent-measurement guidance, including that on modifications and reassessment of the lease
liability.
Connecting the Dots
Lessee Does Not Remeasure Residual Value Guarantee Upon
Transition
Under ASC 840, a lessee includes in its minimum lease payments the entire amount
of the residual value guarantee; however, under ASC 842, a
lessee only includes in its lease payments those amounts that it
is probable the lessee will owe under the residual value
guarantee at the end of the lease term. As a result, the ROU
asset and lease liability recognized on the lessee’s balance
sheet for a new lease under ASC 842 will generally be lower than
it would have been had the same lease been classified as a
capital lease under ASC 840.
However, for existing leases that were classified as capital leases under ASC 840 and that will be classified as finance leases under ASC 842, ASC 842 specifically states that a lessee is not allowed to “remeasure [upon transition] the lease payments for amounts probable of being owed under residual value guarantees.” As a result, a lessee’s lease payments would not be reduced only to reflect the change in the amount of the residual value guarantee that is included in lease payments under the two standards.
16.3.2.2 Lease Is an Operating Lease Under ASC 842 (Capital Lease Under ASC 840)
For leases that were previously classified as capital leases
and are considered operating leases under ASC 842 (which can only occur if
the practical expedient package is not elected), the lessee must derecognize
the previous capital lease amounts at the later of the date of initial
application or the commencement date. Upon derecognition of the previous
capital lease amounts, the lease is accounted for as an operating lease
under ASC 842, as discussed further below.
16.3.2.2.1 Initial Measurement
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents
the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No.
2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
s. For each lease classified as an operating
lease in accordance with this Topic, a lessee
shall do the following:
1. Derecognize the
carrying amount of any capital lease asset and
capital lease obligation in accordance with Topic
840 at the application date as determined in (c).
Any difference between the carrying amount of the
capital lease asset and the capital lease
obligation shall be accounted for in the same
manner as prepaid or accrued rent.
2. If an entity elects
the transition method in (c)(1) and the lease
commenced before the beginning of the earliest
period presented in the financial statements or if
the entity elects the transition method in (c)(2),
recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease
liability in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-3
at the application date as determined in (c).
3. If an entity elects
the transition method in (c)(1) and the lease
commenced after the beginning of the earliest
period presented in the financial statements,
recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease
liability in accordance with paragraph 842-20-30-1
at the commencement date of the lease. . . .
5. Write off any
unamortized initial direct costs that do not meet
the definition of initial direct costs in this
Topic as an adjustment to equity unless the entity
elects the transition method in (c)(1) and the
costs were incurred after the beginning of the
earliest period presented, in which case those
costs shall be written off as an adjustment to
earnings in the period the costs were incurred. .
. .
The lessee should measure the ROU asset and lease
liability under ASC 842-20-30-1 as of the later of the date of initial
application or the date the lease commenced. Before measuring the ROU
asset and lease liability, the lessee would need to identify and
allocate the consideration to the separate lease and nonlease components
in the contract (see Chapter 4). Because the lessee could not have elected
the practical expedient package if the classification of a lease changes
upon the adoption of ASC 842, any unamortized initial direct costs that
would not be capitalized under the changed definition of such costs in
ASC 842 should be written off as an (1) adjustment to equity if the
costs are incurred before the date of initial application or (2) expense
in the period in which the costs are incurred, which is only applicable
if the Comparatives Under 840 Option is not elected.
16.3.2.2.2 Subsequent Measurement
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents
the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No.
2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
s. For each lease classified as an operating
lease in accordance with this Topic, a lessee
shall do the following: . . .
4. Account for the
operating lease in accordance with the guidance in
Subtopic 842-20 after initial recognition in
accordance with (s)(2) or (s)(3). . . .
After the commencement date, the lessee should
subsequently measure the operating lease under ASC 842 in a manner
similar to how it would measure any other operating lease that commenced
after the effective date (see Section 8.4.3.2). That is, since
lease classification changed upon the adoption of ASC 842, an entity
should apply all of the guidance on subsequent measurement (including
that on modifications and reassessment of the lease liability) under ASC
842 during the comparative periods presented (if applicable) and on or
after the effective date.
Footnotes
4
We do not believe that the short-term lease exemption
applies to leases that, upon transition, have a remaining term of 12 months
or less if the original term was greater than 12 months. The ASC master
glossary defines a short-term lease as “[a] lease that, at the commencement
date, has a lease term of 12 months or less and does not include an option
to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to
exercise.” While a lease may have a remaining lease term of less than 12
months at transition, it would not meet the definition of a short-term lease
if the lease term as of the original commencement date would have been
greater than 12 months.
5
An entity is not required to
apply U.S. GAAP to immaterial items; therefore,
materiality is always a consideration in the
preparation of financial statements. The
assessment of materiality is company-specific and
involves qualitative and quantitative
considerations. A company’s explicit financial
statement disclosure of its historical approach
under ASC 840 may serve as qualitative evidence
that the policy is material.
6
A preferability determination
is required under ASC 250 if an entity that is
making the transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842
wishes to change from using an inception rate to
using an updated rate to calculate its lease
liability, provided that the historical policy has
a material impact on the financial statements.
7
While an entity is not required to reflect
the change in historical periods in this circumstance, we
believe that an entity is permitted to do so since the
change would increase comparability.
8
Paragraph BC390 of ASU 2016-02 states, in
part, that the “practical effect of the modified
retrospective transition method, particularly when combined
with the practical expedients that are offered, is that an
entity will ‘run off’ those leases
existing at the beginning of the earliest comparative
period presented in accordance with previous GAAP”
(emphasis added).
9
See footnote 5.
10
While not required to reflect
the change in the historical periods in this
circumstance, we believe that an entity is
permitted to do so since the change would increase
comparability.
11
Depending on an entity’s election (made by
underlying asset class) to combine lease and nonlease
components, all or a portion of an entity’s leases may be
affected by this election. In contrast, an entity’s ASC 840
policy choice for including or excluding executory costs is
an entity-wide election. Accordingly, inconsistencies
between ASC 840 and ASC 842 may arise in such
circumstances.
12
The preferability
determination is required under ASC 250 if an
entity wishes to treat executory costs differently
than historical practice when making the
transition from ASC 840 to ASC 842 and the
inclusion (exclusion) of executory costs has a
material impact on the financial statements (see
Question 1).
13
An entity should perform a
well-reasoned preferability analysis to determine
whether a change in executory costs is appropriate
(see Question 1). The
fact that the change enhances comparability
between ASC 840 and ASC 842 is not solely
determinative of whether a change in policy is
preferable. Other factors to consider in a
preferability analysis include, but are not
limited to, whether the change in policy is
consistent with guidance under ASC 842, the
composition of costs associated with expected
leasing activity after adoption, comparability
with relevant peer companies, and whether the
change results in relevant measurement of the
liability upon adoption of ASC 842.
[14]
ASC 842-20, not ASC 842-30, contains
the subsequent-measurement guidance for lessees; we
believe that this is a typographical error.
[15]
See footnote 14.
16
Since this approach uses the
remaining lease term as of the date of initial
application of ASC 842 as the revised amortization
period of the leasehold improvements, it would not
be appropriate to fully write off leasehold
improvements that have remaining utility through
equity as of the date of initial application of
ASC 842.
17
Throughout this Q&A, we have
assumed that the lessee used the Comparatives Under
840 Option to adopt ASC 842 and therefore does not
present comparative periods under ASC 842. However,
the same concepts would apply if the lessee
presented comparative periods under ASC 842 upon
adoption. See Question 5 for
more information.
18
We do not believe that it would be
appropriate for a lessee to impair the ROU asset
simply because it would have been previously
impaired if it existed at the time that a
historical impairment was recognized for the asset
group. A lessee should only recognize an impairment
of the ROU asset as of the date of initial
application of ASC 842 if an economic impairment
exists as of that date.
19
See Section 8.4.4.2 for additional
information regarding testing the asset group that
is or includes an ROU asset.
20
ASU 2016-02 supersedes the four paragraphs
below.
21
As discussed in Q&A 16-5C, we believe
that netting an existing sublease liability against an ROU asset
in transition (i.e., Approach B in the Q&A) is akin to an
impairment loss and thus should result in the same subsequent
measurement as an impairment.
22
We believe that in addition to carrying forward
the existing assets and liabilities recognized under ASC 840, an
entity should also carry forward the discount rate used under
ASC 840.
16.4 Lessor
The table below summarizes the ASU’s modified retrospective transition requirements
for lessors (and assumes that the practical expedient package has not been
elected).
16.4.1 Lease Classified as an Operating Lease Under Both ASC 840 and ASC 842
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
v. For each lease classified as an operating lease in accordance with this Topic, a lessor shall do all of the
following:
1. Continue to recognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset and any lease assets or
liabilities at the application date as determined in (c) as the same amounts recognized by the lessor
immediately before that date in accordance with Topic 840.
2. Account for previously recognized securitized receivables as secured borrowings in accordance with
other Topics.
3. If a lessor does not elect the practical expedients described in (f), write off any unamortized initial direct costs that do not meet the definition of initial direct costs in this Topic as an adjustment to equity unless the entity elects the transition method in (c)(1) and the costs were incurred after the beginning of the earliest period presented, in which case those costs shall be written off as an adjustment to earnings in the period the costs were incurred. . . .
For leases that were previously classified as operating leases and are considered operating leases under
ASC 842 either because the practical expedient package was elected and lease classification therefore
was not reassessed or because classification was assessed in transition to ASC 842 and the lease
retained its classification as an operating lease, the lessor must continue to recognize any underlying
assets and liabilities (e.g., the leased asset, deferred or accrued rent, and initial direct costs) on the later
of the date of initial application or the lease commencement date. The amounts recognized should
be the same as those under ASC 840. The lessor will continue to account for previously recognized
securitized receivables as secured borrowings in accordance with other GAAP because operating leases
are still not recognized financial assets for the lessor under ASC 842. In this transition scenario (i.e.,
operating lease classification was retained), the election of the practical expedient package only affects
what amounts qualify as initial direct costs. If the lessor did not elect the practical expedient package,
any unamortized initial direct costs that would not be capitalized under the changed definition of such
costs in ASC 842 should be written off as an (1) adjustment to equity if they are incurred before the date
of initial application or (2) an expense in the comparative period in which they were incurred if the lessor
does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option.
Connecting the Dots
Effect of Hindsight Practical Expedient on Lease Term and
Straight-Line Rent Revenue
The hindsight practical expedient may affect a lessor’s measurement of lease
component revenue. If an entity elects hindsight, the lease may include
a renewal term whose exercise was not previously considered reasonably
certain (or exclude a term whose exercise is no longer reasonably
certain but was deemed reasonably certain at lease commencement). When
there is level rent in both the initial term and renewal term, there may
be no practical effect on the measurement of lease component revenue.
However, if a lessor receives uneven rent payments (e.g., escalating
payments), the lessor may need to adjust its straight-line rent revenue
recognized (and any lease-related balance sheet items).
Example 16-3
Hummingbird Inc., a public calendar-year-end entity, leases an office building
to a tenant beginning on January 1, 2014, and
receives $12,000 per annum with a 2 percent annual
increase for a four-year noncancelable term as
well as one four-year renewal option at a 2
percent annual increase. As of lease commencement,
it is not reasonably certain that the lessee will
exercise its renewal option. On January 1, 2018,
the lease is renewed. Also, Hummingbird did not
elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option under
which it would not restate its comparative-period
financial statements under ASC 842 in the period
of adoption. Assume the following:
16.4.2 Lease Is a Direct Financing Lease or a Sales-Type Lease Under ASC 842 (Operating Lease Under ASC 840)
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards
Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
w. For each lease classified as a direct financing or a sales-type lease in accordance with this Topic, the
objective is to account for the lease, beginning on the application date as determined in (c) as if it had
always been accounted for as a direct financing lease or a sales-type lease in accordance with this Topic.
Consequently, a lessor shall do all of the following:
1. Derecognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset at the application date as determined in (c).
2. Recognize a net investment in the lease at the application date as determined in (c) as if the lease
had been accounted for as a direct financing lease or a sales-type lease in accordance with Subtopic
842-30 since lease commencement.
3. Record any difference between the amounts in (w)(1) and (w)(2) as
follows:
i. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(1), as an adjustment to equity (if the commencement
date of the lease was before the beginning of the earliest period presented or if the lease was
acquired as part of a business combination; see also (h)(3)) or earnings (if the commencement
date of the lease was on or after the beginning of the earliest period presented).
ii. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(2), as an adjustment to equity.
4. Account for the lease in accordance with this Topic after the application date as determined in (c). . . .
An entity that has not elected the practical expedient package must reassess the
classification of its leases under ASC 842. As noted above, for leases that were
previously classified as operating leases under ASC 840 but that are accounted
for as direct financing leases or sales-type leases under ASC 842, an entity
must “account for the lease, beginning on the application date . . . as if it had always been accounted for as a direct
financing lease or a sales-type lease” (emphasis added). That is, if the
lease classification changes for a lease that commenced before the date of
initial application, the lessor will be required to retrospectively determine
the lease balances as of lease commencement so that it can roll those balances
forward to the date of initial application. As of this date, the underlying
asset subject to the lease should be derecognized, a net investment in the lease
should be recognized, and any difference between the two balances should be
reflected as an adjustment to equity (or earnings if the lease commenced during
the comparative periods and the lessor does not elect the Comparatives Under 840
Option). After the initial recognition date, the lessor should subsequently
account for the lease (including any modifications) in accordance with ASC 842.
See Chapter 9 for
more information on the lessor’s accounting for sales-type and direct financing
leases.
Example 16-4
Company B, a calendar-year-end PBE, did not elect the practical expedient
package and, in transition, a lease of real estate that
was classified as an operating lease under ASC 840 was
determined to be a sales-type lease under ASC 842.
Further, B did not elect the practical expedient that
permits it not to restate its comparative-period
financial statements in the period of adoption. The
lease commenced in 2012. As of the date of the earliest
comparative period presented, the carrying amount of the
leased asset was $3 million. The net investment in the
lease was determined to be $3.5 million, which
represents the present value of the lease payments and
unguaranteed residual value determined as of the
commencement date and then rolled forward to the
earliest period presented. Company B would record the
following transition-related journal entry on January 1,
2017:
Connecting the Dots
Hindsight Practical Expedient May Affect Lease
Classification
The hindsight practical expedient may affect a lessor’s
classification test if the practical expedient package is not elected.
If an entity elects hindsight, the lease may include a renewal term
whose exercise was not previously considered reasonably certain (or
exclude a term whose exercise is no longer reasonably certain but was
deemed reasonably certain at lease inception), which could affect the
lease classification. Specifically, the lease term is relevant to the
determination of whether the lease term represents a major part of the
remaining economic life of the asset and whether the present value of
the lease payments exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the
underlying asset. We believe that this is only possible if the practical
expedient package is not elected. We believe that if that package is
elected, it is appropriate to retain the ASC 840 classification
regardless of the potential for hindsight to alter the lease term
assumptions used in that lease classification.
16.4.3 Lease Classified as a Direct Financing Lease or a Sales-Type Lease Under ASC 840 (and Is Still Classified as a Direct Financing Lease or a Sales-Type Lease Under ASC 842)
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards
Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
x. For each lease classified as a direct financing lease or a sales-type lease in accordance with this Topic, do
all of the following:
1. Continue to recognize a net investment in the lease at the application date as determined in (c) at
the carrying amount of the net investment at that date. This would include any unamortized initial
direct costs capitalized as part of the lessor’s net investment in the lease in accordance with Topic
840.
2. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(1), before the effective date, a lessor shall account for
the lease in accordance with Topic 840.
3. Regardless of the transition method selected in (c), beginning on the effective date, a lessor shall
account for the lease in accordance with the recognition, subsequent measurement, presentation,
and disclosure guidance in Subtopic 842-30.
4. Beginning on the effective date, if a lessor modifies the lease (and
the modification is not accounted for as a
separate contract in accordance with paragraph
842-10-25-8), it shall account for the modified
lease in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-16 if
the lease is classified as a direct financing
lease before the modification or paragraph
842-10-25-17 if the lease is classified as a
sales-type lease before the modification. A lessor
shall not remeasure the net investment in the
lease on or after the effective date unless the
lease is modified (and the modification is not
accounted for as a separate contract in accordance
with paragraph 842-10-25-8). . . .
As noted above, if the lease was classified as a direct financing lease or a
sales-type lease under ASC 840 and continues to be classified as a direct
financing lease or a sales-type lease under ASC 842, the lessor should
“[c]ontinue to recognize a net investment in the lease at the application date .
. . at the carrying amount of the net investment at that date.” In other words,
the lessor should generally carry over its ASC 840 accounting during the
transition period. The only exception to this general rule concerns initial
direct costs. If the lessor does not elect the practical expedient package, any
unamortized initial direct costs not capitalizable under ASC 842 must be written
off to equity (if the lease commenced before the date of initial application) or
earnings in the comparative period in which they were incurred, which is only
applicable if the lessor does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option.
The lessor should subsequently measure the lease (including modifications)
during the transition period in accordance with ASC 840. Beginning on the
effective date, the lessor should apply the subsequent measurement,
presentation, and disclosure guidance in ASC 842-30 as well as the modification
guidance in ASC 842-10-25 (see Section 9.3.4 for guidance on modifications).
Connecting the Dots
Impact of Hindsight on Lease Classification and Measurement of
Direct Financing Leases or Sales-Type Leases
The use of hindsight may affect the lease term and, in turn, the measurement of
direct financing or sales-type leases, because a different lease term
will typically result in different lease payments with respect to
determining the net investment in the lease.
Note that the use of hindsight will not affect lease classification if the lessor applies the practical expedient package, because that election precludes a reassessment of ASC 840 lease classification determinations.
16.4.4 Lease Is an Operating Lease Under ASC 842 (Direct Financing or Sales-Type Lease Under ASC 840)
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
y. For each lease classified as an operating lease in accordance with this Topic, the objective is to account for the lease, beginning on the application date as determined in (c), as if it had always been accounted for as an operating lease in accordance with this Topic. Consequently, a lessor shall do all of the following:
1. Recognize the underlying asset at what the carrying amount would have been had the lease been classified as an operating lease under Topic 840.
2. Derecognize the carrying amount of the net investment in the lease.
3. Record any difference between the amounts in (y)(1) and (y)(2) as follows:
i. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(1), as an adjustment to equity (if the commencement date of the lease was before the beginning of the earliest period presented or if the lease was acquired as part of a business combination) or earnings (if the commencement date of the lease was on or after the beginning of the earliest period presented).
ii. If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(2), as an adjustment to equity.
4. Subsequently account for the operating lease in accordance with this Topic and the underlying asset in accordance with other Topics. . . .
An entity that has not elected the practical expedient package must reassess
lease classification under ASC 842. For leases previously classified as
sales-type or direct financing leases under ASC 840 that are operating leases
upon the adoption of ASC 842, the lessor should perform the steps in ASC
842-10-65-1(y) above. Further, as discussed in the Q&A below, although this
transition guidance does not specifically address other lease-related balances,
we believe that the broad objective would apply to all balances that would have
otherwise been recognized had the lease always been accounted for as an
operating lease.
Q&A 16-6 Accounting for Other Lease-Related Balances When
Transitioning From a Direct Financing Lease or Sales-Type Lease to an
Operating Lease
Example
On October 1, 2010, Company A acquired an office building that had various leases in place; as a
result, A became a lessor of office space. The lease agreements with the existing tenants included
escalating lease payments over the contract period. On the basis of the lease classification criteria
in ASC 840, A determined that the existing leases should be classified as direct financing leases.
Therefore, on the acquisition date, A recognized a net investment in the leases and accounted for
them in accordance with ASC 840.
On January 1, 2019, A adopts ASC 842 and does not elect the practical expedients
in ASC 842-10-65-1(f) or the Comparatives Under
840 Option. As a result, A evaluates the
classification criteria in ASC 842 and concludes
that its existing direct financing leases should
be classified as operating leases under ASC 842.
Such an outcome could arise for various reasons,
including use of hindsight that results in a
different assumption regarding the lease term.
Assume that the lease had been classified as an operating lease in accordance with ASC 840. As a
result of the rent escalations in the lease agreement, A then would have recognized a “straight-line
rent receivable” of $25,000 as of the earliest period presented. Similarly, as of lease commencement, A
would have recognized an in-place lease intangible, net of amortization, of $55,000, which represents
the inherent value associated with full occupancy of the property by tenants on the acquisition date.
Question
Should A recognize the straight-line rent receivable and the in-place lease intangible asset when
the lease’s classification changes from a direct financing lease under ASC 840 to an operating
lease under ASC 842?
Answer
Yes. The straight-line rent receivable and the in-place lease intangible should be established in
transition as if they had always been recorded in connection with the operating lease.
The transition method in ASC 842 is not a full retrospective approach. However, the objective
under ASC 842-10-65-1(y) is to account for a lease as if it had always been accounted for as an
operating lease in accordance with ASC 842. Therefore, while the transition guidance discusses
only certain balances (e.g., the recognition of the underlying asset at what the carrying amount
would have been had the lease been classified as an operating lease under ASC 840), we believe
that the guidance is not intended to be all-inclusive and that the broad objective would apply to
all balances that would have otherwise been recognized had the lease always been accounted
for as an operating lease.
Straight-Line Rent Receivable
On the basis of the analysis above, when A transitions to ASC 842, it should do the following as of the beginning of the earliest period presented (i.e., January 1, 2017):
- Derecognize the net investment in the lease.
- Recognize the underlying asset at what its carrying amount would have been if the lease were always accounted for as an operating lease under ASC 840.
- Recognize a straight-line rent receivable balance in the amount at which it would have been recorded if the lease was always accounted for as an operating lease under ASC 842 (i.e., $25,000, which is the build-up of a straight-line rent receivable from lease commencement to the earliest period presented when A makes the transition to ASC 842).
In addition, A should recognize any resulting difference as an adjustment to opening equity and subsequently account for the operating lease in accordance with ASC 842.
In-Place Lease Intangible
Company A should apply the guidance in ASC 805-20-25-10A and recognize an in-place lease intangible as of January 1, 2017 (i.e., the beginning of the earliest period presented). That is, A should determine what the in-place lease intangible would have been as of October 1, 2010 (the date of initial acquisition), and factor in amortization of the intangible through January 1, 2017, the beginning of the earliest year presented. The resulting amount would be the in-place lease intangible amount that would have been recognized if the lease had always been accounted for as an operating lease. Company A should recognize an in-place lease intangible of $55,000 and amortize it over the remaining lease term.
The response to this question was informally discussed with the FASB staff, which agreed with the overall conclusion reached.
Connecting the Dots
Principle Related to Accounting for the Operating Lease in
Transition
Although the scenario in the example above may not be common for many entities upon transition, we believe that the principle outlined therein — account for the operating lease in transition as if it had always been an operating lease — is critical. Specifically, we think that it is important to consider the objective of the transition guidance in each relevant paragraph of ASC 842-10-65-1.
For example, while ASC 842-10-65-1(h) describes the applicability of the
guidance as depending on whether “an entity has previously recognized an
asset or a liability in accordance with Topic 805 on business
combinations relating to favorable or unfavorable terms of an operating
lease acquired as part of a business combination,” we believe that it
would be similarly necessary to consider and carry forward other
lease-related balances that would have been recognized, such as in-place
lease intangibles.
16.4.5 Leveraged Leases
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
z. For leases that were classified as leveraged leases in accordance with Topic 840, and for which the
commencement date is before the effective date, a lessor shall apply the requirements in Subtopic 842-50. If a leveraged lease is modified on or after the effective date, it shall be accounted for as a new lease
as of the effective date of the modification in accordance with the guidance in Subtopics 842-10 and
842-30.
1. A lessor shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph to a leveraged lease that meets
the criteria in (z) that is acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity
on or after the effective date. . . .
Leveraged lease accounting is a special type of accounting that a lessor can
apply under ASC 840 for certain direct financing leases that meet specific
criteria (see ASC 840-10-25-43(c)). The unique economic effect of leveraged
lease accounting stems from a combination of nonrecourse financing and a cash
flow pattern that typically enables the lessor to recover its investment in the
early years of the lease (as a result of tax benefits generated by depreciation,
interest, and ITC deductions) and, thereafter, affords it the temporary use of
funds from which additional income can be derived.
The accounting for leveraged leases is complex but is based on two basic
premises:
-
The lessor’s balance sheet reflects the lessor’s equity in the property on an after-tax basis, net of the related debt.
-
The lessor’s income statement reflects an after-tax constant rate of return on the lessor’s net investment. During periods in which the net investment is zero or below zero, no income is recognized.
Although ASC 842 removed leveraged lease accounting, leases that met the definition of a leveraged
lease under ASC 840 and commenced before the effective date of ASC 842 are grandfathered in and are
addressed in ASC 842-50 (see Section 9.5). A leveraged lease that is modified on or after the effective
date (including an extension option whose exercise was not previously reasonably assured) must be
accounted for as a new lease in accordance with ASC 842 (i.e., because leveraged lease accounting has
been discontinued).
16.4.6 Leases for Which a Lessor Elects the Practical Expedient Related to Not Separating Lease and Nonlease Components
ASC 842-10
65-2 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements:
- An entity that has not yet adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 shall apply the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-2, by class of underlying asset, to all new and existing leases when the entity first applies the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 and shall apply the same transition method elected for the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1.
- An entity that has adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph, by class of underlying asset, to all new and existing leases either:
- In the first reporting period following the issuance of the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-2
- At the original effective date of this Topic for that entity as determined in paragraph 842-10-65-1(a) and (b).
- An entity that has adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph, by class of underlying asset, to all new and existing leases either:
- Retrospectively to all prior periods beginning with the fiscal years in which the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 was initially applied
- Prospectively.
In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, which provided a
practical expedient under which lessors can elect, by class of underlying asset,
not to separate lease and nonlease components when certain criteria are met. The
effective date of ASU 2018-11 was aligned with that of ASU 2016-02.23
Entities that early adopted ASU 2016-02 before the issuance of ASU 2018-11 could
apply the lessor practical expedient to all new and existing leases either
retrospectively or prospectively and could elect to apply it as of either (1)
the lessor’s first reporting period (interim or annual) after the issuance of
ASU 2018-11 or (2) the mandatory effective date of ASC 842 (i.e., January 1,
2019, for calendar-year-end public entities). For example, an entity that early
adopted ASU 2016-02 and elected the practical expedient may have decided not to
recast past periods already presented under ASC 842, thereby choosing
prospective application. However, from its date of initial application forward,
the election would apply to all existing and new leases.
A lessor electing the practical expedient would be required to apply it to all
new and existing transactions within a class of underlying assets that qualify
for the expedient as of the date elected. That is, a lessor would not be
permitted to apply the practical expedient only to new or modified transactions
within a class of underlying assets. (See Sections 4.3.3.2 and 17.3.1.4.2 for further
discussion of this practical expedient.)
16.4.7 ASU 2018-20 on Narrow-Scope Improvements for Lessors
ASC 842-10
65-3 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-20, Leases (Topic 842): Narrow-Scope Improvements for Lessors:
- An entity that has not yet adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph [842-10-65-3] to all new and existing leases when the entity first applies the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 and shall apply the same transition method elected for the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1.
- An entity that has adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 before the issuance of the pending content that links to this paragraph shall adopt the pending content that links to this paragraph to all new and existing leases at the original effective date of this Topic for that entity as determined in paragraph 842-10-65-1(a) through (b). Alternatively, an entity that has adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 may adopt the pending content that links to this paragraph to all new and existing leases either:
-
In the first reporting period ending after the issuance of the pending content that links to this paragraph
-
In the first reporting period beginning after the issuance of the pending content that links to this paragraph
-
- An entity that has adopted the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 before the issuance of the pending content that links to this paragraph shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph to all new and existing leases either:
-
Retrospectively to all prior periods beginning with the fiscal years in which the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 was initially applied
-
Prospectively.
-
In December 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-20, which
addresses certain requests made by stakeholders regarding implementation issues
associated with ASU 2016-02, specifically the accounting for the following by
lessors:
-
“Sales taxes and other similar taxes collected from lessees.”
-
Lessor costs paid by a lessee directly to a third party.
-
“Recognition of variable payments for contracts with lease and nonlease components.”
See Section
17.3.1.5 for detailed discussion of this ASU.
The effective date of ASU 2018-20 was aligned with that of ASU 2016-02.
If an entity had already adopted ASU 2016-02 as of the date of issuance of ASU
2018-20, the entity could adopt ASU 2018-20 by using the mandatory effective
dates of ASU 2016-02. Alternatively, an entity could elect to apply ASU 2018-20
as of either (1) the first reporting period ending after the issuance of the ASU
or (2) the first reporting period beginning after the issuance of the ASU. In
addition, entities that elected to early adopt the ASU could apply it either (1)
prospectively or (2) retrospectively to all prior periods beginning with the
fiscal years in which ASC 842 was initially applied.
All entities should consistently apply the amendments to all leases existing as of the date on which ASU 2018-20 is initially applied and to new leases entered into after that date.
16.4.8 ASU 2019-01 on Codification Improvements
ASC 842-10
65-4 The following represents
the transition and effective date information related to
Accounting Standards Updates No. 2019-01, Leases
(Topic 842): Codification Improvements, No.
2019-10, Financial Instruments — Credit Losses (Topic
326), Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), and
Leases (Topic 842): Effective Dates, and No.
2020-05, Revenue From Contracts With Customers (Topic
606) and Leases (Topic 842): Effective Dates for
Certain Entities:
-
All entities within the scope of paragraph 842-10-65-1(a) shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years (with an exception for those entities that have not yet issued their financial statements or made financial statements available for issuance as described in the following sentence). A not-for-profit entity that has issued or is a conduit bond obligor for securities that are traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over-the-counter market that has not yet issued financial statements or made financial statements available for issuance as of June 3, 2020 shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. All other entities shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. Earlier application is permitted.
-
An entity shall apply the pending content that links to this paragraph as of the date that it first applied the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 and shall apply the same transition method elected for the pending content that links to paragraph 842-10-65-1 in accordance with paragraph 842-10-65-1(c).
In March 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-01, which makes
Codification improvements related to the following three issues under ASC 842:
- Determination of the fair value of the underlying asset by lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers.
- Presentation in the statement of cash flows for sales-type and direct financing leases by lessors within the scope of ASC 942.
- Clarification of interim disclosure requirements during transition.
See Section 17.3.1.7 for detailed
discussion of this ASU.
The ASU became effective for (1) public companies for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods therein; (2) public
NFP entities (that have not issued or made financial statements available for
issuance as of June 3, 2020) for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019,
and interim periods therein; and (3) all other entities for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2021, and interim periods beginning after December
15, 2022. Early adoption was permitted.
All entities should consistently apply the transition method elected for ASU
2016-01 and its subsequent amendments when adopting the guidance in this ASU.
Footnotes
23
ASU 2019-10 delayed the effective date of ASU 2016-02
for all nonpublic companies. ASU 2020-05 further delayed the effective
date for all nonpublic companies as well as for certain public NFPs.
(See further discussion in Section 16.1.) The new effective
date for nonpublic companies was annual periods beginning after December
15, 2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2022. The effective date for public NFPs that qualify for
the deferral under ASC 842-10-65-1(a) was annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2019, and interim periods therein. The effective date for
all other public companies remained unchanged. The delayed effective
date for nonpublic companies also applied to all other ASUs associated
with ASU 2016-02.
16.5 Transition Relief
Under ASC 842’s modified transition approach, an entity must apply the standard
as of the earliest period presented (or as of the effective date if the Comparatives
Under 840 Option is elected). In addition, the standard contains practical
expedients that an entity may elect when adopting the standard as well as other
transition guidance intended to make adoption easier. For example, the so-called
run-off approach described in the Background Information and Basis for Conclusions
of ASU 2016-02 was meant to make the transition from providing ASC 840 disclosures
to recognizing a lease under ASC 842 less cumbersome. Specifically, paragraph BC390
of ASU 2016-02 states, in part:
The practical effect of the modified retrospective
transition method, particularly when combined with the practical expedients
that are offered, is that an entity will “run off” those leases existing at
the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in accordance
with previous GAAP with the exception that, for operating leases, a
lessee will present a lease liability in the statement of financial position
at each reporting date equal to the present value of the remaining
minimum rental payments (as that term was applied in previous
GAAP) and a right-of-use asset that is derived from the lease liability in
the manner described in paragraph 842-20-35-3. Entities will, in effect,
“run off” existing leases, as described, unless the lease is either
modified (and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract)
or, for lessees only, the lease liability is remeasured in accordance with
the subsequent measurement guidance in [ASC 842-3024] on or after the effective date.
In theory, a lessee should be able to measure its lease obligations on the basis of the amounts disclosed in its future minimum rental payments table under ASC 840 (see Q&A 16-1 for additional discussion). Similarly, a lessor should be able to run off its existing leases by using its ASC 840 allocation to income streams deemed within the scope of the leasing standard. The transition relief of the run-off approach for preparers is premised on the fact that the entity prepared its previous ASC 840 disclosures completely and accurately.
16.5.1 Hindsight Practical Expedient
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following
represents the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No.
2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
g. An entity also may elect a practical
expedient, which must be applied consistently by
an entity to all of its leases (including those
for which the entity is a lessee or a lessor) to
use hindsight in determining the lease term (that
is, when considering lessee options to extend or
terminate the lease and to purchase the underlying
asset) and in assessing impairment of the entity’s
right-of-use assets. This practical expedient may
be elected separately or in conjunction with
either one or both of the practical expedients in
(f) and (gg). . . .
As noted above, as part of its transition to ASC 842, an entity may elect to use hindsight “in determining the lease term . . . and in assessing impairment” of ROU assets. The hindsight practical expedient does not need to be elected in conjunction with the practical expedient package (see Section 16.5.2).
Q&A 16-7 Application of the Use-of-Hindsight Practical
Expedient
Paragraph BC394 of ASU 2016-02 states, in part:
While an entity does not need to use hindsight, the FASB contends
that using hindsight in transition results in better information for
users.
[T]he Board considered that a similar practical
expedient related to the use of hindsight in determining the
transaction price (that is, estimating variable consideration)
was provided in the transition requirements in Topic 606.
Similar to the rationale for that expedient, the Board decided
that reflecting expectations that an entity knows at the time of
reporting are incorrect does not provide useful information to
users. In the context of this practical expedient, the Board
considered that it would generally not provide useful
information to recognize a lease liability on the basis of a
lease term that assumes the entity is reasonably certain to
exercise an option to extend the lease when at the time of
reporting the entity knows that it did not exercise that option.
Question 1
When applying the use-of-hindsight practical expedient,
should an entity consider only discrete events (e.g., the lessee’s
renewal of the lease) that occurred between the original lease
commencement date and the date of adoption?
Answer
No. In addition to discrete events, an entity that
applies the use-of-hindsight practical expedient should consider changes
in facts and circumstances from commencement through the effective date
of ASC 842 when determining the lease term and assessing the impairment
of the ROU asset. For example, in addition to known events, such as the
lessee’s exercise of renewal options, an entity should consider other
events and changes, as discussed in ASC 842-10-55-26 (e.g., a strategic
shift in business, changes in market rentals, evolution of the industry
as a whole), that may affect whether it is reasonably certain that the
lessee will exercise (or not exercise) any remaining renewal options.
The response to this question was informally discussed with the FASB
staff, which agreed with the overall conclusion reached.
Question 2
To which date does the hindsight assessment extend when
an entity applies the use-of-hindsight practical expedient?
Answer
When performing its hindsight assessment, an entity must
consider events and circumstances that occurred up to the effective date
of ASC 842.
Example
In 2003, Company A entered into
a 15-year lease of a store that included three
5-year renewal options. None of the renewals were
deemed reasonably assured to be exercised at
inception. On January 1, 2019, when A adopts ASC
842, it elects to apply the use-of-hindsight
practical expedient. Since the execution of the
lease, the following events occurred:
-
On November 9, 2017, A exercised the first of the three 5-year renewal options.
-
During 2018, the market rent in the area had increased to a point such that A’s rent is now significantly discounted.
-
On January 15, 2019, A’s CEO decided on a strategic shift in business such that the company would exit brick-and-mortar retail and move to online only.
When applying hindsight in
determining the lease term, A should consider the
events that occurred up to the effective date of
ASC 842. Therefore, since A adopted ASU 2016-02 as
of January 1, 2019, A should consider (1) that it
exercised the first renewal option in 2017 and (2)
the effect of the significant increase in market
rent in 2018 in its assessment of whether it would
exercise additional renewal options. Company A
should not consider its decision to exit
brick-and-mortar retail when evaluating the lease
term, since this event occurred after the
effective date of ASC 842.
16.5.1.1 Impact of Hindsight on the Lease Term
The use of hindsight in transition may affect the lease term (see Section 5.2 for a discussion of lease term).
If the practical expedient package described in Section 16.5.2 is not elected, the
impact of the hindsight practical expedient on lease term could affect lease
classification (e.g., a renewal option that is assumed to be exercised
results in a longer lease term and therefore higher lease payments, both of
which increase the likelihood that a lease is a finance lease or sales-type
lease). Regardless of whether lease classification is affected, an entity’s
application of hindsight in establishing the lease term may affect the
initial measurement of a lease. Any change in the lease term as a result of
applying the use-of-hindsight practical expedient should be reflected in the
measurement of the related lease assets and lease liabilities (i.e., any
lease assets or liabilities should be adjusted as if the lease term
determined by using hindsight had always applied). For example, when
operating lease payments are not even throughout the lease term, the
application of a different lease term would have changed the cumulative
straight-line income or expense recognized as of the date of initial
application of ASC 842. This cumulative difference should be reflected in
the lease assets and liabilities as of the date of initial application of
ASC 842, with a corresponding cumulative-effect adjustment to equity. This
is consistent with the overall objective of the use-of-hindsight practical
expedient, which, as described in paragraph BC394 of ASU 2016-02, is to
provide “more accurate, updated information to users.”
Example 16-5
Retailer, a calendar-year-end PBE, enters into a 10-year operating lease of
retail space on January 1, 2014. Annual lease
payments are $50,000 for the first five years and
$60,000 for the next five years. Retailer has a
five-year renewal option for $70,000 per year, for
which exercise is not reasonably assured as of lease
inception. Therefore, as of the adoption date of ASC
842 on January 1, 2019, Retailer has recorded
cumulative straight-line lease expense of $275,000
and has a deferred rent balance of $25,000.
Retailer elects the Comparatives Under 840 Option and the use-of-hindsight practical expedient. Because significant leasehold improvements have been installed in 2018, Retailer concludes that exercise of
the renewal option is reasonably certain as of January 1, 2019. Accordingly, Retailer recalculates the deferred rent balance as if the lease
term had always been 15 years. Since the cumulative straight-line lease expense would have been $300,000
instead of $275,000, Retailer increases the deferred rent balance in transition from $25,000 to $50,000 (which
is then subtracted from the opening ROU asset balance), with a corresponding debit to equity.
Q&A 16-7A Impact of Hindsight on Lease Classification
Question
If an entity elects both the use-of-hindsight practical expedient and the “package of three” practical expedients, is the entity required or permitted to reassess lease classification when the lease term changes as a result of applying the use-of-hindsight practical expedient?
Answer
No. We believe that the “package of three” practical expedients has priority over the use-of-hindsight practical expedient with respect to lease classification. Because one of the practical expedients in the “package of three” allows an entity not to reassess lease classification for existing leases, a change in the lease term resulting from the use-of-hindsight practical expedient would not override the entity’s election not to reassess lease classification. However, as stated above, if an entity does not elect the “package of three” practical expedients, a change in the lease term resulting from the use-of-hindsight practical expedient could affect the lease classification.
Connecting the Dots
Hindsight May Increase Complexity
While the election of hindsight may result in a more accurate reflection of the
measurement of ROU assets and liabilities in transition, it creates
complexity for lessors or lessees. The modified retrospective
approach, in combination with the practical expedient package, gives
entities the opportunity to apply the existing ASC 840 accounting
and disclosure requirements during the transition period (provided
that the entity does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option,
which would eliminate the transition period). For example, a lessee
can use the original assumptions for operating leases for its
existing ASC 840 disclosures and to capitalize the present value of
those minimum rental payments. Because hindsight directly affects
the lease term, the inclusion of additional periods in the lease
term may affect straight-line rent calculations for lessors and
lessees as well as the measurement of lease liabilities.
16.5.1.2 The Impact of Hindsight on Impairment
ASC 842 indicates that, if hindsight is elected in transition, the impairment of
an ROU asset by a lessee may be affected. However, as discussed in Q&As 16-4 and
16-4A, an ROU asset does not
generally need to be tested for impairment during the transition period,
given the interaction with ASC 360 and feedback from the FASB staff.
Therefore, we generally believe that the use of hindsight in the assessment
of impairment will not affect the measurement of an ROU asset in transition,
except when (1) an entity does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option,
(2) a hidden impairment exists within an asset group that includes an ROU
asset (as discussed in Q&A 16-4A), and (3) the impairment event arose during
the comparative periods.
16.5.2 Practical Expedient Package
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
f. An entity may elect the following practical expedients, which must be elected as a package and applied
consistently by an entity to all of its leases (including those for which the entity is a lessee or a lessor),
when applying the pending content that links to this paragraph to leases that commenced before the
effective date:
1. An entity need not reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases.
2. An entity need not reassess the lease classification for any expired or existing leases (for example, all
existing leases that were classified as operating leases in accordance with Topic 840 will be classified
as operating leases, and all existing leases that were classified as capital leases in accordance with
Topic 840 will be classified as finance leases).
3. An entity need not reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases. . . .
An entity has the option of electing the practical expedient package in transition, provided that it elects
all of them and applies them consistently to all of its leases.
16.5.2.1 Whether a Contract Is or Contains a Lease
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
f. An entity may elect the following practical expedients . . .
1. An entity need not reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases. . . .
An entity that elects this practical expedient would not revisit whether a
contract is or contains a lease under the ASC 842 definition of a lease. In
other words, if an entity appropriately determines whether a contract is or
contains a lease under ASC 840 before the effective date of ASC 842, the
entity would not reevaluate that conclusion (i.e., the entity would carry
forward the conclusions reached under ASC 840 even though it may reach a
different conclusion under ASC 842). After the effective date of ASC 842, if
there is a substantive change to the terms and conditions of a contract, the
entity should reassess whether the contract is or contains a lease under ASC
842. See Section 8.6.1.1 for
additional discussion.
Changing Lanes
Definition of a Lease
The definition of a lease under ASC 842 is broadly similar to that under ASC
840; however, there are differences that can affect the
determination of whether a lease exists. For example, under ASC 840,
a lease can exist if it is remote that more than a minor amount of
the output or other utility of PP&E will be received by a party
other than the reporting entity. Under ASC 842, that condition alone
would not cause a contract to contain a lease. Rather, in addition
to receiving substantially all of the output (benefits), a reporting
entity must have control over HAFWP the asset is used. Therefore, in
some instances, a contract containing a lease under ASC 840 will not
contain a lease under ASC 842. The inverse is less likely (i.e., a
contract that does not meet the definition of a lease under ASC 840
but does meet the definition under ASC 842). See Chapter 3 for
more information on how to identify a lease within the definition of
ASC 842, including a description of the changes from ASC 840.
Connecting the Dots
Identification Errors May Not Be Carried Forward
In applying the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f)(1), entities may not
carry forward any previous “errors” (i.e., incomplete identification
of leases). In certain circumstances, for example, an entity may not
have previously identified contracts that met the definition of a
lease under ASC 840. This lack of identification may not have had a
material impact on the entity’s financial statements because the
resulting accounting may have had a similar impact on profit or loss
(e.g., an executory contract and an operating lease may have had
similar profit and loss profiles). Similarly, lessors may not have
properly identified which income streams are within the scope of ASC
840 and which are within the scope of the revenue recognition
guidance in ASC 605 or ASC 606. This failure to identify the scope
of the contracts may not have had a material impact on the financial
statements of an entity under ASC 840 because the resulting
accounting would have a similar impact on profit or loss. However,
because ASC 842 prescribes on-balance-sheet treatment for most
leases, the accounting related to properly identifying all leases
may materially affect the entity’s financial statements under ASC
842. Similarly, it will be important for a lessor to identify
contracts that contain leases because of differences between ASC 842
and ASC 606 regarding classification, recognition, subsequent
measurement, and disclosures.
An entity that applies the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f)(1) should
ensure that its identification of leases under ASC 840 was complete
and accurate.
Q&A 16-8 Whether Arrangements Entered Into Before May 28,
2003, Are Accounted for as Leases
EITF Issue 01-8 (codified in ASC 840) was updated in 2003 and defined the scope of contracts (or parts of contracts) that should be accounted for as leases. EITF Issue 01-8 indicated that it
only applied to “(a) arrangements agreed to or committed to,
[footnote omitted] if earlier, after the beginning of an entity’s next reporting period beginning after May 28, 2003, (b) arrangements modified after the beginning of an entity’s next reporting period beginning after May 28, 2003, and (c) arrangements acquired in business combinations initiated after the beginning of an entity’s next reporting period beginning after May 28, 2003.” Therefore, there are contracts that otherwise would have been considered leases in accordance with the definition in EITF Issue 01-8 (as codified in
ASC 840) but were previously not accounted for as leases because
they did not meet the effective-date criteria in (a)–(c) above.
Question
If an entity elects the practical expedient package,
would a contract that was not previously accounted for as a lease
because of the above effective dates (but that otherwise meets the
definition of a lease in accordance with ASC 840) need to be
considered a lease in the transition to ASC 842?
Answer
No. Contracts that qualified for exclusion from the
scope of ASC 840 would not be considered leases in the transition to
ASC 842. Since the practical expedient applies, an entity is not
required to change any of its conclusions that it appropriately
reached under ASC 840.
16.5.2.2 Lease Classification
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
f. An entity may elect the following practical expedients . . .
2. An entity need not reassess the lease classification for any expired or existing leases (for example, all
existing leases that were classified as operating leases in accordance with Topic 840 will be classified
as operating leases, and all existing leases that were classified as capital leases in accordance with
Topic 840 will be classified as finance leases). . . .
By electing the above practical expedient, an entity can retain its classification conclusion under ASC
840. In other words, a lease that was deemed an operating lease under ASC 840 will be an operating
lease in the transition to ASC 842 (conversely, a lease that was deemed a capital lease under ASC
840 will be a finance lease). This practical expedient applies to all comparative periods presented,
if applicable. On or after the effective date, the previous lease classification is retained (and not
reassessed) unless the contract is modified or a reassessment event described in ASC 842-10-25-1 takes place.
Q&A 16-9 Impact of Electing the Practical Expedient Package on
Separating Land From a Building
Under ASC 840, in classifying a lease involving both land and a building, an entity is required to assess the land separately from the building when (1) the lease meets either the transfer-of-ownership or the bargain-purchase-option classification criteria or (2) the fair value of the land is 25 percent or more of the total fair value of the leased property at lease inception. Under ASC 842, as discussed in Section 4.2.2, land must be accounted for as a separate lease component (regardless of its relative fair value) unless the accounting effect of doing so would be insignificant.
Question
Does an entity that elects the practical expedient package need to separately
assess lease classification for the land in transition to ASC 842 if
it was considered part of a single lease component with a building
under ASC 840?
Answer
No. An entity should not assess lease classification for the land separately upon adopting ASC 842. Rather, the practical expedient package applies to all lease classification determinations appropriately made in accordance with ASC 840.
Changing Lanes
Classification Under ASC 842 May Differ From That Under ASC
840
The impact of this practical expedient will depend on whether an entity’s policies for lease classification under ASC 842 differ from those under ASC 840. The terminology in two of the lease criteria is more principles-based under ASC 842. Specifically, in ASC 842, the FASB substituted the terms (1) “major part” for the 75 percent bright line related to the length of the lease term and (2) “substantially all” for the 90 percent bright line related to the present value of lease payments. However, the Board acknowledged that an entity may use those bright lines to apply the principles. Further, while the lease classification assessment under ASC 842 is performed as of lease commencement, ASC 840 requires entities to determine classification as of lease inception. See Chapters 8 and 9 for more information on how lessees and lessors, respectively, classify a lease under ASC 842, including a description of the changes from ASC 840.
Connecting the Dots
Classification Errors May Not Be Carried Forward
In applying the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f)(2), an entity may not
carry forward any previous “errors” (i.e., incorrect lease
classification).
An entity that applies the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f)(2) should ensure that its classification of leases under ASC 840 was accurate.
Q&A 16-10 Inception Date Before Effective Date but Commencement
Date After Effective Date
If an entity elects the practical expedient package and therefore retains its ASC 840 lease
classification conclusions up to ASC 842’s effective date, the entity must determine the
appropriate cutoff for contracts that are within the scope of the ASC 840 classification.
Question
For an entity that elects the practical expedient package, if the inception date
of a lease contract (i.e., the date the contract is executed)
precedes the effective date of ASC 842 but the commencement date of
the lease is on or after the effective date of ASC 842, should the
entity carry forward its classification25 conclusion under ASC 840 or apply the ASC 842 classification
criteria as of the commencement date?
Answer
The entity should apply ASC 842 as of the commencement date. In accordance with ASC 842-10-
65-1(f), the practical expedient package applies to “leases that commenced before the effective
date.” Therefore, while an entity may have evaluated classification at the inception of the lease
agreement under ASC 840, such considerations should be disregarded even if the practical
expedient is elected.
Connecting the Dots
Impact of Hindsight on Lease Classification
Considerations
The application (or lack thereof) of hindsight has
no impact on the lease classification considerations when the
practical expedient package is also elected. However, hindsight
would affect measurement for lessees and lessors in situations in
which the exercise (or nonexercise) of options that existed in the
original contracts became reasonably certain before the effective
date.
Q&A 16-11 Classification Date When Practical Expedient
Package Is Not Elected
Question
Upon transition to ASC 842, if a lease commenced
before the date of initial application and an entity did not elect
the practical expedient package, what date should the entity use to
determine lease classification as of the date of initial
application?
Answer
In such cases, the lease should be classified in
accordance with the ASC 842 lease classification criteria and facts
and circumstances as of the later of the (1) lease commencement date
or (2) date the lease was last modified in accordance with ASC 840.
If a lease was renewed or extended before the date of initial
application, the renewal or extension date would be considered the
lease commencement date for this purpose unless the renewal was
assumed to be reasonably certain as of the initial lease
commencement date.
Example
Entity A, a public
calendar-year-end entity, enters into a lease
agreement and obtains the right to use an office
building on June 1, 2013. On June 1, 2016, A and
the lessor modify the terms of the lease to reduce
the leased space and increase the lease payments
on the remaining space to reflect current market
rates. The change to the terms represents a
modification in accordance with ASC 840-10-35-4.
As a public calendar-year-end entity that did not
elect the practical expedient package, A must
determine the appropriate classification of the
lease as of the date of initial application.
Because the lease was modified after lease
commencement, the lease classification assessment
is performed under ASC 842 as of June 1, 2016 (the
ASC 840 modification date).
The Q&A above addresses
the date as of which to assess lease
classification and what inputs should be used as
of the assessment date. The inputs used (e.g.,
lease payments and discount rate) as of the
classification date would not be the same for
measurement of the lease. For example, for an
operating lease that commenced before the date of
initial application, an entity should measure the
lease obligation and ROU asset by using the
remaining lease payments and discount rate that
existed as of the date of initial application.
16.5.2.3 Initial Direct Costs
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
f. An entity may elect the following practical expedients . . .
3. An entity need not reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases. . . .
This practical expedient permits a company to carry forward previously capitalized initial direct costs under ASC 840, which would be included in the ROU asset. ASC 842 narrows the definition of initial direct costs as follows:
Incremental costs of a lease that would not have been incurred if the lease had not been obtained.
See Section 6.11
for more information on the scope of, and accounting for, initial direct
costs.
16.5.3 Land Easements
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following represents the transition and effective date information related to Accounting Standards
Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) . . .
gg. An entity also may elect a practical expedient to not assess whether existing or expired land easements
that were not previously accounted for as leases under Topic 840 are or contain a lease under this
Topic. For purposes of (gg), a land easement (also commonly referred to as a right of way) refers to
a right to use, access, or cross another entity’s land for a specified purpose. This practical expedient
shall be applied consistently by an entity to all its existing and expired land easements that were not
previously accounted for as leases under Topic 840. This practical expedient may be elected separately
or in conjunction with either one or both of the practical expedients in (f) and (g). An entity that elects
this practical expedient for existing or expired land easements shall apply the pending content that
links to this paragraph to land easements entered into (or modified) on or after the date that the entity
first applies the pending content that links to this paragraph as described in (a) and (b). An entity that
previously accounted for existing or expired land easements as leases under Topic 840 shall not be
eligible for this practical expedient for those land easements. . . .
The FASB received a significant amount of feedback from stakeholders in several
industries who were concerned about the cost and complexity of evaluating all
existing land easements under ASC 842’s definition of a lease at transition. The
Board observed that the costs of requiring an entity to evaluate all existing
land easements under ASC 842’s definition of a lease outweighed the benefits to
financial statement users. Accordingly, the FASB provided transition relief in
the form of a practical expedient. See Section 2.4 for more information about the
scope of, and accounting for, land easements.
An entity that elects the expedient is relieved from applying ASC 842 to
evaluate all existing land easements that were not previously accounted for in
accordance with ASC 840. The FASB explains in paragraph BC15 of ASU 2018-01 that
the historical accounting treatment for existing land easements — when the
expedient is elected — would be “run off” unless or until the arrangement is
modified on or after the date the entity adopts ASU 2016-02.
The transition practical expedient for existing land easements may be elected alone or with any of
the other transition practical expedients. In a manner consistent with the other transition practical
expedients, entities must disclose whether they are electing the transition practical expedient for land
easements.
The effective date of ASU 2018-01 is aligned with that of ASU 2016-02.
Footnotes
24
See footnote 13.
25
Although this Q&A specifically addresses
classification, we believe that the same conclusion would
apply to the entire practical expedient package. For
example, an entity that has elected the practical expedient
package should reassess whether a contract is or contains a
lease (under the ASC 842 definition of a lease) if the lease
commencement date would be on or after the effective date of
ASC 842.
16.6 Illustrative Examples — Transition Approaches
In summary, there are several potential
transition approaches an entity may select, some of which will affect lease
classification:
As discussed above, hindsight does not affect lease classification, when the
practical expedient package is also elected, but may have an impact on lease
measurement in transition. The examples below illustrate the potential impact of
these approaches on sample leases. These examples should be read in conjunction with
the guidance above and the “Modifications and Reassessment of Lease Liability in
Comparative Periods” discussion in Section 16.3.1. In all examples, assume that the entity is a
calendar-year-end public entity; the entity’s adoption date is January 1, 2019; the
entity did not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option; and the entity’s earliest
comparative period presented is January 1, 2017.
Lease A | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessee Lease Inception: February 10, 2015 Lease Commencement: February 14, 2015 Original Lease Term: 10 years ASC 840 Lease Classification: Operating
Other Terms: No renewal options or purchase
options | |
Approaches A and B | Retain the operating lease classification upon transition,
because the practical expedient package was elected. The
election of hindsight has no impact on lease term because
there are no renewal options to consider. |
Approaches C and D | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the
commencement date of the lease (i.e., February 14, 2015).
The election of hindsight has no impact on lease term
because there are no renewal options to consider. |
Lease B | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessee Lease Inception: February 10, 2015 Lease Commencement: February 14, 2015 Lease Term: Three years, exercise of renewal option not reasonably
assured as of lease inception ASC 840 Lease Classification: Operating Other Terms: One two-year renewal option, no purchase option; renewal
option was exercised in 2018 Previous ASC 840 Considerations: Upon renewal, the lease was also
classified as an operating lease under ASC 840 | |
Approach A | Retain the operating lease classifications in all periods
presented, because the practical expedient package was
elected. For measurement purposes, since hindsight was
elected, the renewal exercised in 2018 would be included
retrospectively, as if its exercise were reasonably certain,
in the measurement of the lease as of the earliest period
presented. |
Approach B | Retain the operating lease classifications in all periods presented, because the practical expedient package was elected. Do not alter ASC 840 accounting performed in 2018 other than to increase the lease liability and the ROU asset (because the renewal option is exercised). |
Approach C | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the commencement date (i.e., February 14, 2015). Since hindsight is elected, the exercised renewal would affect lease term for both the ASC 842 classification test and the measurement of the lease as of the earliest period presented. |
Approach D | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the commencement date (i.e., February 14, 2015). Since hindsight was not elected, the exercised renewal would not affect the original lease term as of lease commencement for the ASC 842 classification test. If lease classification did not change upon the adoption of ASC 842, do not alter ASC 840 accounting performed in 2018 other than to increase the lease liability and the ROU asset (because the renewal option is exercised). However, if the lessee concludes that the lease is a finance lease upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e., classification changed), all of the reassessment and subsequent-measurement guidance in ASC 842 should be applied during the comparative periods.
See “Modifications and Reassessment of Lease Liability” in Section 16.3.1 for more information. |
Lease C | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessee
Lease Inception: February 10, 2015
Lease Commencement: February 14, 2015 Lease Term: 8 years ASC 840 Lease Classification: Capital
Other Information: The lessee and lessor modified
the terms of the contract so that the lessee would
pay less rent over the remaining lease term on
August 6, 2017
Previous ASC 840 Considerations: Modification
would have changed classification if the terms
were in effect as of the original lease inception;
new contract was deemed an operating lease as
of August 6, 2017 | |
Approaches A and B | Because the practical expedient package was elected, ASC
840 accounting should be retained in the comparative
periods. Therefore, the lessee should retain finance (capital)
lease classification as of the earliest comparative period
through the date of modification and retain operating
lease classification as of the modification date for the new
lease contract. Further, hindsight does not affect this fact
pattern because the modification only affected the amount
the lessee would pay, which had no effect on the lease
term. In addition, a modification should never result in an
adjustment to the lease balances in transition before the
modification date. |
Approaches C and D | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the commencement date (i.e.,
February 14, 2015). The transition guidance is not
clear on situations in which the practical
expedient package is not elected and a
modification occurs during the transition period.
In accordance with the principles discussed in
Section 16.3.1, when lease
classification does not change upon the adoption
of ASC 842, the ASC 840 subsequent-measurement
guidance would be applied until the effective date
(i.e., January 1, 2019). However, this principle
appears incompatible with Approaches C and D,
because the practical expedient package was not
elected. That is, for a modification date of
August 6, 2017, an entity is required to perform
an additional lease classification determination
under ASC 842. We believe that there may be
multiple acceptable approaches to analyzing this
lease, including applying the ASC 842 modification
and reassessment guidance entirely under ASC 842
or a mixed model that takes into account relevant
concepts from both ASC 840 and ASC 842. If the lessee concludes that the lease is an operating lease at lease
commencement upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e., classification
changed), all of the ASC 842 reassessment and
subsequent-measurement guidance should be applied during the
comparative periods (see Section 16.3.2.2). Hindsight does not affect this fact pattern because the modification only affected the amount the lessee would pay, which had no effect on the lease term. In addition, a modification should never result in an adjustment to the lease balances in transition before the modification date. |
Lease D | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessor Lease Inception: August 9, 2006 Lease Commencement: September 2, 2006 Lease Term: 12 years ASC 840 Lease Classification: Operating
Other Terms: The lessor and lessee modified the
terms of the contract for the lessee to extend the
lease for an additional five years on June 6, 2016 Previous ASC 840 Considerations: Modification changed classification to a
sales-type lease as of the modification date | |
Approaches A and B | Since the practical expedient package was elected (and
the classification changed before the earliest comparative
period presented), sales-type lease classification would
be retained upon adopting ASC 842. In addition, since the
extension occurred before the earliest period presented
and there are no lessee-controlled options after the earliest
period presented, the application of hindsight would not
have any impact on lease term at adoption. |
Approach C | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the
modification date (i.e., June 6, 2016). In addition, since
the extension occurred before the earliest period presented
and there are no lessee-controlled options after the earliest
period presented, the application of hindsight would not
have any impact on lease term at adoption. |
Approach D | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the
modification date (i.e., June 6, 2016). |
Lease E | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessor
Lease Inception: August 9, 2006
Lease Commencement: September 2, 2006 Lease Term: 12 years ASC 840 Lease Classification: Operating
Other Terms: The lessor and lessee modified the terms of the contract for the lessee to extend the lease for an additional five years on June 6, 2018 Previous ASC 840 Considerations: Modification changed classification to a
sales-type lease as of the modification date | |
Approach A | Since the practical expedient package was elected, the lessor would not change
lease classification upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e.,
the lease would be an operating lease as of the
earliest period presented and the ASC 840
modification guidance would apply to the
modification of a sales-type lease). In addition,
although hindsight was elected, since the
extension was the result of a mutual negotiation
to modify and extend the lease (rather than a
lessee-controlled option to extend), the
application of hindsight would not have any impact
on lease term. |
Approach B | Since the practical expedient package was elected, the lessor would not change
lease classification upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e.,
the lease would be an operating lease as of the
earliest period presented and the ASC 840
modification guidance would apply to the
modification of a sales-type lease). |
Approaches C and D | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of lease commencement (i.e., September 2, 2006). In addition, even if hindsight was elected under Approach C, since the extension was the result of a mutual negotiation to modify and extend the lease (rather than a lessee-controlled option to extend), the application of hindsight would not have any impact on lease term. If lease classification did not change upon the adoption of ASC 842, the ASC 840
modification and subsequent-measurement guidance should be
applied (including the guidance on the assessment,
classification and measurement of the lease on June 6, 2018,
the date of the extension). If lease classification changed upon the adoption of ASC 842, all of the modification and subsequent-measurement guidance in ASC 842 should be applied during the comparative periods. |
Lease F | Transition Impact |
---|---|
Lessee or Lessor? Lessee
Lease Inception: July 10, 2010
Lease Commencement: July 13, 2010 Lease Term: 10 years; the lessee has a 5-year renewal option for which
exercise was determined not to be reasonably assured as of
the inception date ASC 840 Lease Classification: Operating Other Information: On September 15, 2018, the lessee installs and pays
for tenant improvements with a useful life that extends
through 2025. The tenant improvements would be costly to
remove and, at that time, it is reasonably assured that the
lessee will exercise the renewal option. Previous ASC 840 Considerations: There are no
changes to the lease as a result of the exercise of
the renewal option becoming reasonably assured.
That is, there are no reassessment requirements
in ASC 840 other than modifications, extensions,
or renewals. | |
Approach A | Retain the operating lease classification in all periods
presented because the practical expedient package
was elected. We believe that, under this approach, lease
classification would not need to be reassessed as of the
effective date despite the change in facts and circumstances
before this date. However, for measurement purposes,
since hindsight was elected, the renewal would be included
retrospectively as if its exercise were reasonably certain
in the measurement of the lease as of the earliest period
presented. |
Approach B | Since the practical expedient package was elected, the
operating lease classification should be retained during
comparative periods. We believe that lease classification
would not need to be reassessed as of the effective date
despite the change in facts and circumstances before this
date. In accordance with ASC 842-10-35-1, lease term is
reassessed when an event “occurs.” However, because the
lessee elected the practical expedient package and did not
elect hindsight, we do not believe that the lessee should
consider events that occurred before the effective date but
did not result in a modification under ASC 840. |
Approach C | Assess lease classification under ASC 842 as of the commencement date (i.e., July 13, 2010). Since hindsight is elected, the change in facts and circumstances regarding the renewal would affect the lease term for both the ASC 842 classification test and the measurement of the lease as of the earliest period presented. If lease classification did not change upon the adoption of ASC 842, the ASC 840
subsequent-measurement guidance should be applied until the
effective date (i.e., January 1, 2019). However, if the lessee concludes that the lease is a finance lease at lease commencement upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e., classification did change), all of the reassessment and subsequent-measurement guidance in ASC 842 should be applied during the comparative periods. Therefore, in accordance with ASC 842-10-35-1, lease term is reassessed as of September 15, 2018, because an event occurred (installing leasehold improvements) for which reassessment was required under ASC 842 and that was controlled by the lessee. |
Approach D | Assess lease classification as of the commencement date (i.e., July 13, 2010). If lease classification did not change upon the adoption of ASC 842, the ASC 840 subsequent-measurement guidance should be applied until the effective date (i.e., January 1, 2019).
However, if the lessee concludes that the lease is a finance lease at lease commencement upon adopting ASC 842 (i.e., classification did change), all of the reassessment and subsequent-measurement guidance in ASC 842 should be applied during the comparative periods. Therefore, in accordance with ASC 842-10-35-1, lease term is reassessed as of September 15, 2018, because an event occurred (installing leasehold improvements) for which reassessment was required under ASC 842 and that was controlled by the lessee. |
16.7 Separation and Allocation of Consideration to Components in a Contract in Transition
16.7.1 Separation of Lease and Nonlease Components for Lessors Upon Adoption of ASC 606
As stated in ASC 606-10-15-2, the revenue standard does not apply to lease
contracts within the scope of ASC 840 (or ASC 842, upon adoption of the new
leasing standard). Although lease contracts are generally outside the scope of
the revenue standard, ASC 606-10-15-4 states that a “contract with a customer
may be partially within the scope of this Topic [ASC 606] and partially within
the scope of other Topics listed in paragraph 606-10-15-2.” An example of a
contract that may be partially within the scope of ASC 606 and partially within
the scope of another ASC topic is a lease contract entered into by a lessor that
contains both lease and service elements.26
Under ASC 840, the scope guidance in ASC 840-10-15-19 states the following:
For purposes of applying this Topic, payments and other
consideration called for by the arrangement shall be separated at the
inception of the arrangement or upon a reassessment of the arrangement
into:
-
Those for the lease, including the related executory costs and profits thereon
-
Those for other services on a relative standalone selling price basis, consistent with the guidance in paragraph 606-10-15-4 and paragraphs 606-10-32-28 through 32-41. [Emphasis added]
ASC 840 further states that executory costs (such as a lessor’s property taxes,
insurance, and maintenance) are excluded from the lessor’s minimum lease
payments for purposes of lease classification and measurement. Although these
costs are excluded from the lessor’s minimum lease payments, the costs are
generally still considered part of the lease contract in accordance with ASC
840-10-15-19(a) rather than “other services” or substantial services27 that are separated and excluded from the scope of ASC 840 and therefore
typically within the scope of revenue recognition guidance (historically, under
ASC 605 or industry guidance). That is, executory costs are generally not
separately accounted for under the legacy revenue recognition guidance in ASC
605.
In addition, before the effective date of ASU 2014-09, ASC 605-25-55-3 contained
the following example clarifying when to apply the allocation guidance in ASC
605 and that in ASC 840:
For example, leased assets are required to be accounted
for separately under the guidance in Subtopics 840-20 and 840-30.
Consider an arrangement that includes the lease of equipment under an
operating lease, the maintenance of the leased equipment throughout the
lease term (executory cost), and the sale of additional equipment
unrelated to the leased equipment. The arrangement consideration should
be allocated between the deliverables subject to the guidance in
Subtopic 840-20 and the other deliverables using the relative selling
price method. (Although Topic 840 does not provide guidance regarding
the accounting for executory costs, it does provide guidance regarding
the allocation of arrangement consideration between the lease and the
executory cost elements of an arrangement. Therefore, this example
refers to the leased equipment and the related maintenance as
deliverables subject to the guidance in that Topic.) The guidance in
Topic 840 would then be applied to separate the maintenance from the
leased equipment and to allocate the related arrangement consideration
to those two deliverables. This Subtopic would be applied to further
separate any deliverables not subject to the guidance in Topic 840 and
to allocate the related arrangement consideration.
In accordance with this illustrative example in ASC 605, deliverables within the scope of the leasing guidance (including both the leased asset and executory costs) would be within the scope of ASC 840 and subject to the allocation guidance in ASC 840. However, the separate deliverable of the sale of additional equipment would not be covered by ASC 840 and would instead be subject to the accounting and allocation guidance in ASC 605.
In contrast to this approach under ASC 840, upon adoption of the new leasing standard, a lessor will be required to separate lease and nonlease components in a contract (unless the scope criteria in ASC 842-10-15-42A are met and the lessor elects to use the practical expedient of combining lease and nonlease components, as discussed in Section 16.7.2). As illustrated above, a common example of a nonlease component under ASC 842 is maintenance services (commonly referred to as CAM services) performed by the lessor, which may be currently accounted for as an executory cost under ASC 840. That is, upon a lessor’s adoption of ASC 842, maintenance services will be considered a service within the scope of ASC 606 rather than an executory cost accounted for under lease accounting guidance.
Connecting the Dots
Questions About Effect of Interaction Between ASC 606 and ASC 842
on Accounting for Nonlease Components
Because the effective dates of ASC 60628 and ASC 84229 are not the same, questions have been raised about whether and, if
so, when a lessor would be required to separate nonlease components
currently accounted for as executory costs (e.g., CAM) and account for
those activities as services within the scope of ASC 606. Specifically,
stakeholders have questioned whether a lessor would be required to
separately account for CAM under ASC 606 (1) upon the adoption of ASC
606, (2) upon the adoption of ASC 842, or (3) in some other manner.
After these questions were raised, we participated in
informal meetings with both the FASB staff and the SEC staff to discuss
the interaction between ASC 606 and ASC 842 and how adoption of the
revenue and new leasing standards will affect the accounting for
nonlease components (e.g., CAM). On the basis of our discussions with
both parties, our understanding is that a lessor would not be required,
upon adoption of the revenue standard, to separate existing executory
costs accounted for under ASC 840 that will meet the definition of a
nonlease component under ASC 842 (e.g., CAM) and account for those
activities as services within the scope of ASC 606. However, we believe
that while a lessor would not be required to separate nonlease
components, it would be acceptable for a lessor to elect to separate
nonlease components and account for them as revenue-generating
activities upon adoption of ASC 606.
Upon adoption of ASC 842, a lessor’s accounting for executory costs in existing leases that historically have been accounted for under ASC 840 would depend on whether:
- The lessor elects the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f) of not reassessing lease classification for existing leases at transition.
- The lessor does not elect the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f), and the lessor’s lease classification changes.
- The lessor elects the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A of combining lease and nonlease components.
Accordingly, a lessor should consider the following scenarios:
- Scenario 1: The lessor does not elect the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f), and the lessor’s lease classification changes upon adoption of ASC 842 (excluding a change from sales-type to direct financing) — If a lessor’s lease classification changes upon adoption of ASC 842, the lessor must apply the guidance in the new leasing standard on separating components of a contract as of the lessor’s date of initial application, which, depending on the transition method elected, could be either (1) the beginning of the earliest period presented under ASC 842 (e.g., January 1, 2017, for calendar-year-end public entities) or (2) the date of adoption (e.g., January 1, 2019, for calendar-year-end public entities) when the lessor uses the Comparatives Under 840 transition method. Accordingly, the lessor would be required to separate, and allocate consideration to, nonlease components (e.g., CAM services) unless the lessor elects the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A of combining lease and nonlease components. If the lessor either does not qualify for the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A or does not elect to use it, the nonlease components would be accounted for in accordance with the revenue recognition guidance in ASC 606.
- Scenario 2: The lessor’s lease classification does not change upon adoption of ASC 842 because the lessor either (1) elects to apply the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-65-1(f) of not reassessing lease classification for existing leases at transition or (2) elects instead to reevaluate classification, but the lease classification does not change (or changes only from sales-type to direct financing) upon reassessment at transition — We believe that if a lessor’s lease classification does not change upon adoption of ASC 842 for either of the reasons stated above, the lessor’s accounting for executory costs in existing leases would depend on whether the lessor elects to use the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A of combining lease and nonlease components:
- Scenario 2(a): The lessor elects the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A of combining lease and nonlease components — In this scenario, any executory costs historically accounted for under ASC 840 should be combined with the lease and nonlease components and accounted for under either ASC 606 (if the nonlease component is the predominant component in the contract) or ASC 842 (if the nonlease component is not the predominant component in the contract).
- Scenario 2(b): The lessor does not elect the practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A of combining lease and nonlease components — We believe that in this scenario, it is acceptable for a lessor to account for executory costs that transfer a good or service to the lessee, including CAM, either as (1) a nonlease component under ASC 606 (i.e., separately from the lease component) by aligning existing leases to the lessor’s policy election of separating nonlease components under ASC 842 or (2) part of the lease component under ASC 842 (i.e., as if the lessor were “running off” its existing leases in a manner consistent with its accounting treatment under ASC 840).
In contrast to the discussion above on executory costs (including maintenance services), an entity should account for “other services” or substantial services that are not within the scope of ASC 840 in accordance with the guidance in ASC 606 as of the effective date applicable to the entity.
16.7.2 Lessor Practical Expedient
ASC 842-10
15-42A As a practical
expedient, a lessor may, as an accounting policy
election, by class of underlying asset, choose to not
separate nonlease components from lease components and,
instead, to account for each separate lease component
and the nonlease components associated with that lease
component as a single component if the nonlease
components otherwise would be accounted for under Topic
606 on revenue from contracts with customers and both of
the following are met:
- The timing and pattern of transfer for the lease component and nonlease components associated with that lease component are the same.
- The lease component, if accounted for separately, would be classified as an operating lease in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through 25-3A.
In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, under which lessors
could elect not to separate lease and nonlease components when certain
conditions are met. A lessor could elect to combine lease and associated
nonlease components provided that the nonlease component(s) would otherwise be
accounted for under ASC 606 and both of the conditions in ASC 842-10-15-42A(a)
and (b) (“Criterion A” and “Criterion B”) are met. For further considerations
related to these two criteria, see Section 4.3.3.2.1.
The ASU also clarifies that the presence of a nonlease component that is ineligible for the practical expedient does not preclude a lessor from electing the expedient for the lease component and nonlease component(s) that meet the criteria. Rather, the lessor would account for the nonlease components that do not qualify for the practical expedient separately from the combined lease and nonlease components that do qualify.
Connecting the Dots
Assessing the Timing and Pattern of Transfer
In ASU 2018-11, the Board amended Criterion A to focus on the timing and pattern of transfer (i.e., a “straight-line pattern of transfer . . . to the customer over the same time period”) rather than on the timing and pattern of revenue recognition (as was originally proposed). The purpose of this amendment was to address concerns that the originally proposed practical expedient was unnecessarily restrictive and excluded contracts with variable consideration from its scope, since variable payments are accounted for differently under ASC 606 than they are under ASC 842.
16.7.2.1 Determining Which Component Is Predominant
The FASB originally proposed that a lessor should always be required to account for the combined component as a lease under ASC 842 in a manner consistent with a similar practical expedient afforded to lessees. However, on the basis of feedback it received, the Board revised the final ASU to require an entity to perform another evaluation to determine whether the combined unit of account is accounted for as a lease under ASC 842 or as a revenue contract under ASC 606. Specifically, an entity should determine whether the nonlease component (or components) associated with the lease component is the predominant component of the combined component. If so, the entity is required to account for the combined component in accordance with ASC 606. Otherwise, the entity must account for the combined component as an operating lease in accordance with ASC 842.
Connecting the Dots
An Entity Will Need to Use Judgment to Determine the
Predominant Component
As indicated in ASU 2018-11’s Background Information and Basis for Conclusions, the FASB decided not to include a separate definition or threshold for determining whether “the nonlease component is the predominant component of the combined component.” Rather, the Board indicates that a lessor should consider whether the lessee would “ascribe more value to the nonlease component(s) than to the lease component.” Further, the Board acknowledged that the term “predominant” is used elsewhere in U.S. GAAP, including ASC 842 and ASC 606.
The Board also explains that it does not expect that an entity will need to perform a quantitative analysis or allocation to determine whether the nonlease component is predominant. Rather, it is sufficient if an entity can reasonably determine whether to apply ASC 842 or ASC 606.
Therefore, we expect that entities will need to use judgment in making this determination.
At its March 28, 2018, meeting, the Board discussed a scenario in which the components were evenly split (e.g., a 50/50 split of value) and suggested that, in such circumstances, the combined component should be accounted for under ASC 842 because the nonlease component is not predominant. That is, the entity would need to demonstrate that the predominant element is the nonlease component; otherwise, the combined unit of account would be accounted for as a lease under ASC 842.
We believe that the final language in ASU 2018-11 was intended to indicate that
an entity would need to determine whether the lease or nonlease component
(or components) is larger (i.e., has more value); only when the nonlease
component is larger should the combined component be accounted for under ASC
606.
Footnotes
26
Note that this would not apply to lessees because a
lessee does not perform services or generate revenue under a lease
contract.
27
“Substantial services” is a term used in EITF Issue 01-8
to differentiate services not accounted for under lease accounting from
executory costs accounted for under lease accounting. This distinction
between maintenance services, which are executory costs that
historically have been accounted for under ASC 840, and substantial services, which historically have been accounted for under ASC 605, was raised in EITF Issue 08-2 but was not further clarified.
28
For public companies, ASC 606 became effective
for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017,
and interim periods therein.
29
For public companies, ASC 842 became effective
for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018,
and interim periods therein (i.e., one year after the effective
date of ASC 606).
16.8 Build-to-Suit Transition
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following
represents the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02,
Leases (Topic 842) . . .
u. A lessee shall apply a modified retrospective
transition approach for leases accounted for as
build-to-suit arrangements under Topic 840 that are
existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of
the earliest comparative period presented in the
financial statements (if an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(1)) or that are existing at
the beginning of the reporting period in which the
entity first applies the pending content that links
to this paragraph (if an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(2)) as follows:
1. If an entity has recognized
assets and liabilities solely as a result of a
transaction’s build-to-suit designation in
accordance with Topic 840, the entity shall do the
following:
i. If an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(1), the entity shall
derecognize those assets and liabilities at the
later of the beginning of the earliest comparative
period presented in the financial statements and the
date that the lessee is determined to be the
accounting owner of the asset in accordance with
Topic 840.
ii. If an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(2), the entity shall
derecognize those assets and liabilities at the
beginning of the reporting period in which the
entity first applies the pending content that links
to this paragraph.
iii. Any difference in (i) or
(ii) shall be recorded as an adjustment to equity at
the date that those assets and liabilities were
derecognized in accordance with (u)(1)(i) or (ii).
iv. The lessee shall apply the
lessee transition requirements in (k) through (t) to
the lease.
2. If the construction period
of the build-to-suit lease concluded before the
beginning of the earliest comparative period
presented in the financial statements (if the entity
elects the transition method in (c)(1)) or if it
concluded before the beginning of the reporting
period in which the entity first applies the pending
content that links to this paragraph (if the entity
elects the transition method in (c)(2)), and the
transaction qualified as a sale and leaseback
transaction in accordance with Subtopic 840-40
before that date, the entity shall follow the
general lessee transition requirements for the
lease. . . .
Under ASC 840, a lessee may have capitalized the construction cost of an asset under construction
with an offsetting liability on the basis of an assessment of the involvement during construction, which
is primarily based on the risks to which the lessee was exposed. In addition, if a lessee is deemed the
owner of the construction project, it is required to assess whether a sale and leaseback is achieved,
which often results in a failed sale and leaseback because of continuing involvement. ASC 842
significantly changes the assessment of whether a lessee is the accounting owner of the asset during
construction, which is an assessment of control (see Chapter 11 for a general overview of these
arrangements). As a result, it will be common for a lessee to be the deemed owner of the asset under
ASC 840; however, the lessee may not be the deemed owner of an asset under ASC 842 because it
does not meet ASC 842’s concept of control. The general transition provisions indicate that a lessee that
recognized an asset solely because it was the deemed owner under the ASC 840 build-to-suit guidance
would derecognize the related assets and liabilities as of the later of the date of initial application or the
date the lessee was determined to be the deemed owner.
Although the transition guidance indicates that the difference between the asset and liability should be recognized as an adjustment to equity as of that later-of date, we think that a lessee should carefully consider the impact of such adjustments as follows:
- If a lease has not commenced as of the date of initial application, the asset and liability will generally be equal, because the lessee’s accounting as the deemed owner before placing the asset into service is a gross-up of the asset with an offsetting financing obligation. Therefore, the adjustments in transition to ASC 842 generally will not affect equity for leases that commenced after the date of initial application.
- A lessee should reverse any of the accounting entries that were recognized during the comparative periods for the respective line items (e.g., depreciation expense, interest expense) rather than as an adjustment to equity. That is, it would not be appropriate to reverse the accounting after placing the asset into service through equity if those comparative periods are shown in accordance with ASC 842.
- If a lease commenced before the date of initial application and the lessee continued to recognize the asset and liability as a failed sale and leaseback under ASC 840, there typically will be a difference between the asset and liability that should be recognized in equity as of the date of initial application.
- Although the transition guidance related to build-to-suit arrangements does not specifically address situations in which the lessee is the deemed owner of an asset under construction in accordance with ASC 842, we have provided our interpretive guidance on such scenarios in the Q&A below.
Q&A 16-12 Derecognition of Existing Build-to-Suit Assets and Liabilities in Transition
The build-to-suit transition guidance specifies that any build-to-suit assets and liabilities
recognized under ASC 840 should be derecognized in transition. However, the transition
guidance does not explicitly address whether ASC 842’s principles related to controlling an
asset under construction should be applied during the comparative periods under ASC 842, if
applicable.
Question 1
Must ASC 842’s principles related to controlling an asset during construction be
applied when construction was completed and the lease commenced before ASC 842’s effective date?
Answer
No. An entity is not required to assess ASC 842’s principles of control (regardless of whether
the lessee was the deemed owner under ASC 840) as long as construction is complete and the
lease commenced before the ASU’s effective date. The FASB staff agreed with this application
of transition for build-to-suit arrangements. This answer is applicable regardless of whether an
entity elects the Comparatives Under 840 Option.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the transition derecognition guidance in ASC 842-10-65-1(u)
should be applied. ASC 842-10-65-1(u) states:
A lessee shall apply a modified retrospective transition approach for leases
accounted for as build-to-suit arrangements under Topic 840 that are
existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest
comparative period presented in the financial statements (if an
entity elects the transition method in (c)(1)) or that are existing
at the beginning of the reporting period in which the entity first
applies the pending content that links to this paragraph (if an
entity elects the transition method in (c)(2)) as follows:
-
If an entity has recognized assets and liabilities solely as a result of a transaction’s build-to-suit designation in accordance with Topic 840, the entity shall do the following:
-
If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(1), the entity shall derecognize those assets and liabilities at the later of the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements and the date that the lessee is determined to be the accounting owner of the asset in accordance with Topic 840.
-
If an entity elects the transition method in (c)(2), the entity shall derecognize those assets and liabilities at the beginning of the reporting period in which the entity first applies the pending content that links to this paragraph.
-
Any difference in (i) or (ii) shall be recorded as an adjustment to equity at the date that those assets and liabilities were derecognized in accordance with (u)(1)(i) or (ii).
-
The lessee shall apply the lessee transition requirements in (k) through (t) to the lease.
-
-
If the construction period of the build-to-suit lease concluded before the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements (if the entity elects the transition method in (c)(1)) or if it concluded before the beginning of the reporting period in which the entity first applies the pending content that links to this paragraph (if the entity elects the transition method in (c)(2)), and the transaction qualified as a sale and leaseback transaction in accordance with Subtopic 840-40 before that date, the entity shall follow the general lessee transition requirements for the lease. [Emphasis added]
Accordingly, the lessee should (1) derecognize any build-to-suit assets and liabilities that
were recognized solely as a result of the lessee’s being the deemed accounting owner and
(2) recognize the difference, if any, in equity. However, lessee-paid costs that were included
in the build-to-suit asset may not have been capitalized solely as a result of the build-to-suit
designation. For example, the deemed accounting owner may have funded part of the
construction costs and such costs may be considered prepaid lease payments or payments for
lessee-owned improvements when the arrangement is accounted for as a lease. Accordingly, in
transition, these costs would be carried over and retained at their currently recognized amount
(i.e., the amortized or depreciated balance). That is, these costs would have been recognized in
the absence of the build-to-suit designation and therefore should not be derecognized through
equity upon transition.
Example
Company C, a calendar-year public entity that has elected the option not to
recast the comparative periods presented when
transitioning to ASC 842 (the Comparatives Under 840
Option), entered into an agreement with Developer D
to lease a newly constructed corporate
headquarters.30 Developer D began building the corporate
headquarters on August 1, 2016, and construction is
expected to be complete on November 12, 2018, at
which time the lease will commence. Company C funded
$6 million of the construction costs during the
construction period, and the total project costs are
expected to be $40 million. Therefore, D will fund
$34 million of the construction costs. In addition,
C incurred $1 million for furniture and fixtures
(the “improvements”). Assume that C was considered
the accounting owner of the corporate headquarters
during construction and that sale-and-leaseback
accounting would not be achieved upon lease
commencement under ASC 840. The various journal
entries to account for the construction project
resulted in the following account balances as of
November 12, 2018:
Upon transition to ASC 842, C is required to derecognize the amounts related to the build-to-suit
accounting because construction of the corporate headquarters was completed, and the lease
commenced, before January 1, 2019 (the effective date of ASC 842). Therefore, on its adoption date
(January 1, 2019), C would derecognize the entire financing obligation because it was recognized
solely as a result of the build-to-suit designation. Company C would retain a portion of its PP&E
balance related to the amount it paid before lease commencement less adjustments for subsequent
measurement (i.e., depreciation), even though this amount was included in the carrying amount of the
build-to-suit asset. As a result, the unamortized portion of the $6 million construction funding payment
should be carried forward into the ROU asset because it represents a prepaid lease payment.
Similarly, the unamortized balance of the $1 million for improvements paid by the lessee should be
carried forward in transition and not written off as an equity adjustment. The remaining build-to-suit
asset would be derecognized. The offset between the resulting build-to-suit asset balance and the
financing obligation, if any, would be recognized in equity.
The subsequent accounting for the improvements should be consistent with that for other leasehold
improvements. That is, the amortization period would be limited to the lease term in accordance with
ASC 842-20-35-12.
The journal entries in transition are shown below. Note that, for simplicity,
there are no adjustments for subsequent measurement
between November 12, 2018, and the effective date of
ASC 842 (i.e., depreciation of the building,
amortization of the $6 million in prepaid rent, or
payments on the financing obligation). These
subsequent-measurement adjustments would most likely
result in an adjustment to equity, which is not
depicted below.
Company C would also recognize any
remaining lease payments as a lease liability, along
with an offsetting ROU asset, in accordance with the
lessee transition requirements in ASC
842-10-65-1(k)–(t).
Question 2
How should a lessee approach the transition for a build-to-suit arrangement when construction
was not completed, and the lease had not commenced, as of the effective date of ASC 842?
Answer
The table below summarizes the transition approach an entity should use in those
circumstances.
ASC 840 Determination
|
ASC 842 Determination
|
Transition Approach
|
---|---|---|
Lessee was the deemed
owner | Lessee has control during
construction | No change in accounting; asset and financing
obligation remain on the balance sheet
during the comparative periods and as of the
effective date. |
Lessee was the deemed
owner | Lessee does not
have control during
construction | If the lessee was determined to be the deemed accounting owner under ASC 840 before the date of initial
application, derecognize the asset and financing
obligation recognized solely as a result of
the build-to-suit designation and reflect the
difference, if any, in equity. If the lessee was
determined to be the accounting owner of the asset
during the comparative
periods (i.e., construction commenced during the
comparative periods), and the Comparatives Under 840
Option was not elected, the lessee should reverse
the impact of the accounting for the appropriate
line items and not reverse the impact through
equity. |
Lessee was not the
deemed owner | Lessee has control during
construction | Recognize the asset and financing obligation
as of the later of the date of initial application
or the date as of which the lessee is
determined to be the accounting owner of
the asset in accordance with ASC 842. If a
lessee elects the Comparatives Under 840
Option, the asset and financing obligation will
be recognized as of the effective date of ASC
842. See the example below. |
Example
Company A, a calendar-year-end public entity that has not elected the
Comparatives Under 840 Option, has entered into an
agreement with Company B to lease a newly
constructed television studio. Company B began
building the television studio on June 8, 2017, and
construction is expected to be complete on November
5, 2019. The lease will commence once construction
is complete. During the construction period, A can
acquire the television studio in process of
construction and therefore is deemed to control the
construction project under ASC 842. Assume that A
was not determined to be the deemed owner in
accordance with ASC 840. When A initially applies
ASC 842, because A is deemed to control the
construction project under ASC 842 as of the
effective date, it must recognize the cost of the
in-process asset (and an offsetting financing
obligation) during the comparative periods beginning
June 8, 2017.
If A had elected the Comparatives Under 840 Option, A would first recognize the
asset and financing obligation as of January 1, 2019
(the ASC 842 effective date).
Connecting the Dots
Lease Classification Assessment for Derecognized Build-to-Suit
Arrangements in Transition
If a previous build-to-suit arrangement (for which construction was completed
and the lease commenced before the effective date of ASC 842) was
capitalized under ASC 840 and reversed upon the adoption of ASC 842, we
generally believe that the appropriate framework for determining lease
classification will depend on multiple factors as follows:
-
If the practical expedient package is not elected, lease classification should be determined under ASC 842, as follows:
-
If the lease commenced before the date of initial application, lease classification would generally be determined as of the later of the (1) lease commencement date or (2) date the lease was last modified. If a lease was renewed or extended before the date of initial application, the renewal or extension date would be considered the lease commencement date for this purpose unless the renewal was assumed to be reasonably certain as of the initial lease commencement date.
-
If the lease commenced after the date of initial application, the initial lease classification would generally be determined as of the lease commencement date.
-
-
The transition guidance is not clear on situations in which the practical expedient package is elected and the lessee has accounted for the transaction as a failed sale and leaseback through the effective date of ASC 842. We believe that, notwithstanding the election of the practical expedient package, it would be acceptable to determine lease classification in accordance with ASC 842 (i.e., as of the later of the (1) lease commencement date or (2) date the lease was last modified — see bullet above), because the lease (for accounting purposes) was never recognized or assessed under ASC 840 (i.e., the lease classification is assessed for the first time upon adopting ASC 842). However, we understand that others believe, because of the lack of clear guidance, that it would also be acceptable to determine lease classification as of lease inception under ASC 840. We think that either approach would be acceptable as an accounting policy that must be applied consistently.
Q&A 16-12A Accounting for a Previously Impaired Build-to-Suit
Asset
Under ASC 840, a build-to-suit asset and financing
obligation may be recognized on a lessee’s balance sheet as a result of a
transaction’s build-to-suit designation, as described in Q&A 16-12.
Thereafter, under ASC 360, a lessee could have determined that the asset
group containing the build-to-suit asset was impaired, resulting in the
measurement of an impairment loss, of which a portion was recognized against
the build-to-suit asset.
The general transition provisions in ASC 842 indicate that a
lessee that recognized an asset because it was the deemed owner under the
ASC 840 build-to-suit guidance would, in accordance with ASC
842-10-65-1(u),31 (1) derecognize the asset and financing recognized solely as a
result of the build-to-suit designation and (2) apply the general
lessee transition requirements. Further, ASC 842-10-65-1(m)(2) and ASC
842-10-65-1(o), which apply to operating leases and finance leases,
respectively, provide the following guidance on accounting for the ROU asset
at transition when there is an existing ASC 420 liability:
m. For each lease classified as an operating lease
in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through 25-3, a lessee
shall initially measure the right-of-use asset at the initial
measurement of the lease liability adjusted for both of the
following: . . .
2. The carrying amount of any liability recognized in
accordance with Topic 420 on exit or disposal cost
obligations for the lease. . . .
o. For each lease classified as a finance lease in
accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-2, a lessee shall measure the
right-of-use asset as the applicable proportion of the lease
liability at the commencement date, which can be imputed from the
lease liability determined in accordance with (l). The applicable
proportion is the remaining lease term at the application date as
determined in (c) relative to the total lease term. A lessee shall
adjust the right-of-use asset recognized by the carrying amount of
any prepaid or accrued lease payments and the carrying amount of any
liability recognized in accordance with Topic 420 for the lease.
On the basis of the above guidance, it is clear that the
initial ROU asset is generally recorded net of any ASC 420 liability at
transition. However, under a deemed ownership model, entities have
historically looked to the impairment guidance in ASC 360 instead of the
exit cost guidance in ASC 420. As a result, entities have questioned how
previous impairment charges recognized on a build-to-suit asset should be
treated in transition given that the asset to which the impairment is
related will be derecognized upon adoption of ASC 842. In other words,
entities have asked whether the historical ASC 360 impairment charge should
or could affect the measurement of the ROU asset in transition.
Question
When a lessee previously recognized impairment for a
build-to-suit asset subject to derecognition under ASC 842-10-65-1(u)(1),
how should the lessee consider the historical impairment when recognizing
and measuring the related ROU asset at transition?
Answer
We believe that a lessee should subject the newly recognized
ROU asset to a full impairment test in accordance with ASC 360 as of the
effective date of ASC 842 if an impairment indicator continues to exist as
of this date. Accordingly, a lessee would determine a “new” impairment
amount on the basis of the test conducted as of the effective date. In
addition, we believe that it is acceptable to recognize the impairment loss,
if any, determined as of the date of initial application of ASC 842 through
an adjustment to equity, with a corresponding reduction to the carrying
amount of the ROU asset. We think that recognition of the impairment loss in
equity is appropriate since it reflects a unique circumstance in which the
adjustment effectively results from an impairment indicator that arose
before the date of initial application of ASC 842.
However, since ASC 842 does not provide clear guidance on
this situation, there may be other acceptable approaches. We encourage
stakeholders who are affected by this issue to consult with their accounting
advisers and auditors to understand their views.
Footnotes
16.9 Transition for Sale-and-Leaseback Transactions
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following
represents the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02,
Leases (Topic 842) . . .
Sale and Leaseback Transactions Before the Effective
Date
aa. If a previous sale and leaseback transaction
was accounted for as a sale and a leaseback in
accordance with Topic 840, an entity shall not
reassess the transaction to determine whether the
transfer of the asset would have been a sale in
accordance with paragraphs 842-40-25-1 through
25-3.
bb. If a previous sale and leaseback transaction
was accounted for as a failed sale and leaseback
transaction in accordance with Topic 840 and remains
a failed sale at the effective date:
1. If an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(1), the entity shall
reassess whether a sale would have occurred at any
point on or after the beginning of the earliest
period presented in the financial statements in
accordance with paragraphs 842-40-25-1 through 25-3.
The sale and leaseback transaction shall be
accounted for on a modified retrospective basis from
the date a sale is determined to have occurred.
2. If an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(2), the entity shall
reassess whether a sale would have occurred at the
beginning of the reporting period in which the
entity first applies the pending content that links
to this paragraph in accordance with paragraphs
842-40-25-1 through 25-3 and recognize the sale as
an adjustment to equity. The entity shall then
account for the leaseback in accordance with the
guidance in Subtopic 842-20 after the beginning of
the reporting period in which the entity first
applies the pending content that links to this
paragraph.
cc. An entity shall account for the leaseback in
accordance with the lessee and lessor transition
requirements in (k) through (y).
dd. If a previous sale and leaseback transaction
was accounted for as a sale and capital leaseback in
accordance with Topic 840, the transferor shall
continue to recognize any deferred gain or loss that
exists at the later of the beginning of the earliest
comparative period presented in the financial
statements and the date of the sale of the
underlying asset (if an entity elects the transition
method in (c)(1)) or that exists at the beginning of
the reporting period in which the entity first
applies the pending content that links to this
paragraph (if an entity elects the transition method
in (c)(2)), as follows:
1. If the underlying asset is
land only, straight line over the remaining lease
term.
2. If the underlying asset is
not land only and the leaseback is a finance lease,
in proportion to the amortization of the
right-of-use asset.
3. If the underlying asset is
not land only and the leaseback is an operating
lease, in proportion to the recognition in profit or
loss of the total lease cost.
ee. If a previous sale and leaseback transaction
was accounted for as a sale and operating leaseback
in accordance with Topic 840, the transferor shall
do the following:
1. Recognize any deferred gain
or loss not resulting from off-market terms (that
is, where the consideration for the sale of the
asset is not at fair value or the lease payments are
not at market rates) as a cumulative-effect
adjustment to equity unless the entity elects the
transition method in (c)(1) and the date of sale is
after the beginning of the earliest period
presented, in which case any deferred gain or loss
not resulting from off-market terms shall be
recognized in earnings in the period the sale
occurred.
2. Recognize any deferred loss
resulting from the consideration for the sale of the
asset not being at fair value or the lease payments
not being at market rates as an adjustment to the
leaseback right-of-use asset at the later of the
beginning of the earliest comparative period
presented in the financial statements and the date
of the sale of the underlying asset (if an entity
elects the transition method in (c)(1)) or at the
beginning of the reporting period in which the
entity first applies the pending content that links
to this paragraph (if an entity elects the
transition method in (c)(2)).
3. Recognize any deferred gain
resulting from the consideration for the sale of the
asset not being at fair value or the lease payments
not being at market rates as a financial liability
at the later of the beginning of the earliest
comparative period presented in the financial
statements and the date of the sale of the
underlying asset (if an entity elects the transition
method in (c)(1)) or at the beginning of the
reporting period in which the entity first applies
the pending content that links to this paragraph (if
an entity elects the transition method in
(c)(2)).
According to the transition provisions for sale-and-leaseback transactions, (1) previous transactions that were accounted for as successful sale-and-leaseback transactions are grandfathered from consideration under the ASC 842 sale-and-leaseback derecognition rules and (2) previous transactions that were accounted for as failed sales are reassessed for possible derecognition under ASC 842. The real estate sale-and-leaseback rules are much less onerous under ASC 842, which will result in the unwinding of certain failed sales in the transition to ASC 842. Specifically, if a transaction was a failed sale-and-leaseback transaction under ASC 840 and remains so as of the effective date, the entity must reassess whether a sale would have occurred at any point on or after the date of initial application in accordance with the sale-and-leaseback provisions in ASC 842 (see Chapter 10). The sale-and-leaseback transaction must be recognized from the date a sale is determined to have occurred under ASC 842; if the sale occurred before the date of initial application, any gain or loss will be reflected in equity, and if the sale occurred during the comparative periods (which is only possible if a lessee does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option), any gain or loss must be recognized in the respective period. For successful sales, the related lease should be recorded in accordance with the ASC 842 transition requirements in a manner consistent with any other lease.
Connecting the Dots
Lease Classification Assessment in Transition for Unsuccessful
Sale-and-Leaseback Transactions Under ASC 840
The lease classification determination in transition for
previously unsuccessful sale-and-leaseback transactions is important because
the classification of the lease is one of the primary conditions for
achieving a sale in a sale-and-leaseback transaction under ASC 842. That is,
a sale can only be recognized under ASC 842 if the leaseback would be classified as an operating lease (see
Section
10.3.2). Since the lease (from an accounting perspective) did
not exist under ASC 840 and a lease cannot be recognized under
ASC 842 unless the leaseback would not be classified
as a finance lease, the seller-lessee must determine the appropriate “would
be” classification of the lease in transition before achieving
sale-and-leaseback accounting under ASC 842.
The transition guidance is not clear on whether ASC 840 or
ASC 842 should be used in these circumstances as the basis for determining
the classification of the leaseback. However, we generally believe that if a
previously unsuccessful sale-and-leaseback transaction meets the other
criteria necessary to achieve a sale under ASC 842 (see Section 10.3), the
“would be” classification of the lease will depend on the following:
-
If the practical expedient package is not elected, lease classification should be determined under ASC 842 as follows:
-
If the lease commenced before the date of initial application, lease classification would generally be determined as of the later of the (1) lease commencement date or (2) date the lease was last modified. If a lease was renewed or extended before the date of initial application, the renewal or extension date would be considered the lease commencement date for this purpose unless the renewal was assumed to be reasonably certain as of the initial lease commencement date.
-
If the lease commenced after the date of initial application, the initial lease classification would generally be determined as of the lease commencement date.
-
-
The transition guidance is not clear on situations in which the practical expedient package is elected and the lessee has accounted for the transaction as a failed sale and leaseback through the effective date of ASC 842. We believe that, notwithstanding the election of the practical expedient package, it would be acceptable to determine lease classification in accordance with ASC 842 (i.e., as of the later of the (1) lease commencement date or (2) date the lease was last modified — see bullet above), because the lease (for accounting purposes) was never recognized or assessed under ASC 840 (i.e., the lease classification is assessed for the first time upon adopting ASC 842). However, we understand that others believe, because of the lack of clear guidance, that it would also be acceptable to determine lease classification as of lease inception under ASC 840. We think that either approach would be acceptable as an accounting policy that must be applied consistently.
On the other hand, if a previously successful sale-and-leaseback transaction was accounted for as a sale and capital leaseback under ASC 840, the lessee continues to
recognize any deferred gain or loss that exists at the later of the date of initial application presented in
the financial statements or the date of the sale of the underlying asset. The deferred gain or loss should
be subsequently recognized into income as follows:
- If the underlying asset is land only, straight-line over the remaining lease term.
- If the underlying asset is not land only and the leaseback is a finance lease under ASC 842, in proportion to the amortization of the ROU asset.
- If the underlying asset is not land only and the leaseback is an operating lease under ASC 842, in proportion to the recognition in profit or loss of the total lease cost.
If a previously successful sale-and-leaseback transaction was accounted for as a sale and operating leaseback
under ASC 840, as long as the sale and the leaseback were at fair value and market terms, respectively,
the lessee should recognize any deferred gain or loss as (1) a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity
(if the sale would have occurred before the date of initial application) or (2) earnings in the respective
comparative period (if the sale would have occurred during the comparative periods and provided that
the entity does not elect the Comparatives Under 840 Option). If the sale and leaseback were not at fair
value and market terms, respectively, at the time the sale-and-leaseback transaction was entered into,
the amount by which the transaction was not at fair value and market terms should not be recognized
in transition. Rather, the lessee should recognize any such deferred loss or deferred gain that results
because the consideration for the sale of the asset was not at fair value or the lease payments were
not at market rates as an adjustment to the ROU asset or finance liability, respectively, at the later of
lease commencement or the date of initial application. Any remaining gain/loss after the lessee adjusts
for off-market values and terms would be recognized in a manner consistent with the criterion in ASC
842-10-65-1(ee)(1).
Connecting the Dots
Buyer-Lessors Do Not Reassess Previous Sale-and-Leaseback
Accounting
ASC 840 did not require that buyer-lessors assess whether the seller was able to
obtain sale recognition. That is, accounting symmetry was not required
between the buyer-lessor and the seller-lessee; instead, the buyer-lessor
would generally account for a sale-and-leaseback transaction as a purchase
with a leaseback to the lessee even if the lessee accounts for the sale as a
financing. Under ASC 842, such accounting symmetry is required, as described
in Section
10.2. In transition, because the lessor generally considered all
sale-and-leaseback transactions to be successful purchase-leasebacks, the
lessor does not have to reassess any sale-and-leaseback transactions
executed before the effective date of ASC 842. Therefore, there will
continue to be asymmetry in the accounting for certain sale-and-leaseback
transactions entered into under ASC 840 in which the lessee continues to
fail sale-and-leaseback transaction under ASC 842 (i.e., both the lessor and
lessee will continue to recognize the asset). In the unusual circumstance in
which a lessor did conclude that an arrangement was a financing under ASC
840, we would expect it to revisit that accounting under ASC 842.
16.10 Amounts Previously Recognized From Business Combinations
ASC 842-10
65-1 The following
represents the transition and effective date information
related to Accounting Standards Update . . . No. 2016-02,
Leases (Topic 842) . . .
h. If an entity has previously recognized an asset
or a liability in accordance with Topic 805 on
business combinations relating to favorable or
unfavorable terms of an operating lease acquired as
part of a business combination, the entity shall do
all of the following:
1. Derecognize that asset and
liability (except for those arising from leases that
are classified as operating leases in accordance
with Topic 842 for which the entity is a lessor).
2. Adjust the carrying amount
of the right-of-use asset by a corresponding amount
if the entity is a lessee.
3. Make a corresponding
adjustment to equity if assets or liabilities arise
from leases that are classified as sales-type leases
or direct financing leases in accordance with Topic
842 for which the entity is a lessor. Also see (w).
. . .
Lessee
For any assets or liabilities recognized in accordance with ASC
805 that are related to favorable or unfavorable terms of an operating lease for
which an entity is a lessee, the entity should derecognize the asset or
liability and commensurately adjust the ROU asset. In other words, if a lessee
has a favorable lease intangible (asset), the lessee should derecognize the
intangible asset and add an offsetting amount to the ROU asset. If a lessee has
an unfavorable lease intangible (liability), the lessee should derecognize the
liability and reduce the ROU asset by the same amount.
Lessor
When a lessor has previously recognized assets or liabilities
for an off-market operating lease in a business combination, the asset or
liability should continue to be recognized separately from the lease accounting.
Generally, an acquirer in a business combination that is a lessor under a
sales-type or direct financing lease would include any off-market assets or
liabilities in the net investment in the lease (i.e., a separate asset or
liability would not be recognized). In those cases, the lessor would not make
any adjustment for the off-market terms. However, if any separate balances exist
regarding a lessor’s sales-type or direct financing lease (other than in-place
lease intangibles), the entity should derecognize the asset or liability and
“make a corresponding adjustment to equity” in accordance with ASC
842-10-65-1(h).
16.11 Transition Disclosures
ASC 842-10
65-1 The
following represents the transition and effective
date information related to Accounting Standards
Update . . . No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic
842) . . .
Disclosure
i. An entity shall provide the transition
disclosures required by Topic 250 on accounting
changes and error corrections, except for the
requirements in paragraph 250-10-50-1(b)(2) and
paragraph 250-10-50-3. An entity that elects the
transition method in (c)(2) shall provide the
transition disclosures in paragraph
250-10-50-1(b)(3) as of the beginning of the
period of adoption rather than at the beginning of
the earliest period presented.
Note: See paragraph
250-10-S99-6 on disclosure of the impact that
recently issued accounting standards will have on
the financial statements of a registrant.
j. If an entity uses one or more of the
practical expedients in (f), (g), and (gg), it shall disclose that
fact.
jj. An entity electing the transition method
in (c)(2) shall provide the required Topic 840
disclosures for all periods that continue to be in
accordance with Topic 840. . . .
An entity adopting ASC 842
should provide the transition disclosures required by ASC 250, excluding the disclosure in
ASC 250-10-50-1(b)(2) about the effect of the change on income from continuing operations,
net income, any other financial statement line item, and any per-share affected amounts for
any of the periods. Moreover, entities do not need to provide the corresponding interim
disclosures required by ASC 250-10-50-3. The disclosure required by ASC 250-10-50-1(b)(3)
regarding “[t]he cumulative effect of the change on retained earnings or other components of
equity or net assets in the statement of financial position” must be provided as of the date
of initial application of ASC 842.
An entity adopting ASC 842
must also disclose the transition practical
expedients used, as applicable.
An entity electing the
Comparatives Under 840 Option must provide the ASC
840 disclosures for all periods that are presented
in accordance with ASC 840 (see Section
16.1.1).
Connecting the Dots
ASC 840 Disclosures Required in the Comparative Periods
The Board revised the language
in ASU 2018-11 to
clarify that an entity must provide the ASC 840 disclosures for all periods that are
presented in accordance with ASC 840. As part of this requirement, the entity must apply
the guidance in ASC 840-20-50-2(a) (commonly referred to as the “lease commitments
table”) as of the latest balance sheet presented. Further, paragraph BC14 of ASU 2018-11
indicates that the latest balance sheet date presented should be the latest balance
sheet date presented under ASC 840 (e.g., December 31, 2018, for a PBE with a calendar
year-end). Therefore, for a PBE with a calendar year-end, the ASC 840-20-50-2(a) lease
commitments table as of December 31, 2018, will be presented in the annual financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2019. Also, paragraph BC14 of ASU 2018-11
indicates that the ASU does not change, or create additional, “interim disclosure
requirements that entities previously were not required to provide.” In discussions with
the FASB staff regarding what disclosures are required in interim periods during the
year of adoption, the staff clarified that it would expect an entity to disclose the
lease commitments table as of December 31, 2018 (on the basis of the fact pattern
described above) in each interim period in the year of adoption. For example, an entity
would present the lease commitments table for the year ended December 31, 2018, in the
first-quarter 2019 Form 10-Q. The table would not be updated to reflect a run-off of
three months of activity that occurred during the first quarter of 2019, nor would the
entity need to present a lease commitments table as of March 31, 2018. Rather, the table
presented in the December 31, 2018, Form 10-K would be carried forward to the
first-quarter 2019 Form 10-Q.
While ASC 842 may not require
entities to provide certain of the above prescribed disclosures in interim financial
statements, SEC rules and staff interpretations require SEC registrants to provide both
annual and interim disclosures in the first interim period after the adoption of a new
accounting standard and in each subsequent quarter in the year of adoption.
Specifically, Section 1500
of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Financial Reporting Manual (FRM) states:
[Regulation] S-X Article 10 requires disclosures about material
matters that were not disclosed in the most recent annual financial statements.
Accordingly, when a registrant adopts a new accounting standard in an interim
period, the registrant is expected to provide both the annual and the interim period
financial statement disclosures prescribed by the new accounting standard, to the
extent not duplicative. These disclosures should be included in each quarterly
report in the year of adoption.
See Chapter 18 for
further discussion of SEC reporting considerations
for SEC registrants, including SAB Topic 11.M
disclosure requirements.