9.2 Lease Classification
ASC 842-10
25-1 An entity shall classify each separate lease component at the commencement date. An entity shall not reassess the lease classification after the commencement date unless the contract is modified and the modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8. . . .
The five criteria that a lessor uses to
determine whether a lease is a sales-type lease are the same
as those that a lessee uses to establish whether a lease is
a finance lease. If none of those criteria are met, the
lessor evaluates whether the lease is a direct financing
lease; two criteria must be met for the lease to be
considered a direct financing lease. If neither the
sales-type lease criteria nor the direct financing lease
criteria are met, the lease is an operating lease. In
addition, because of the amendments in ASU 2021-05, even a
lease that meets one of the five criteria to be a sales-type
lease (or is classified as a direct financing lease) should
be classified as an operating lease when the lessor would
have recognized a selling loss and the arrangement includes
variable lease payments that do not depend on an index or a
rate. A lessor performs its lease classification assessment
at lease commencement (i.e., when the lessee obtains the
right to use the asset).
|
The decision tree below illustrates the lessor’s classification assessment as well as the criteria that must be met for each type of lease.
Changing Lanes
Classification Date
Unlike ASC 842, ASC 840 required entities to classify leases on the basis of the
facts and circumstances present at lease inception (i.e., the date of the
lease agreement or commitment, if earlier) instead of at lease commencement
(the date on which the lessor makes an underlying asset available to the
lessee). For many entities, there typically is not a significant lag between
lease inception and lease commencement; however, in certain circumstances,
the two dates significantly differ. In such cases, a lessor could
theoretically arrive at different conclusions if facts and circumstances
change between the dates (e.g., the fair value of the underlying asset or
the rate implicit in the lease). The diagram below illustrates the
difference between lease inception and lease commencement.
Leveraged Leases
ASC 840 addressed a fourth type of lease, a leveraged lease.
Leveraged lease accounting was a special type of accounting that a lessor
employed for certain direct financing leases. Special accounting was
required for a leveraged lease because of the unique economic effect on the
lessor. This unique economic effect stemmed from a combination of
nonrecourse financing and a cash flow pattern that typically enabled 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 subsequently afforded it the temporary use of funds from
which additional income could be derived.
The FASB did not include leveraged leases in the guidance in
ASC 842 on lease classification. In the Background Information and Basis for
Conclusions of ASU 2016-02, the FASB addresses why it decided not to retain
leveraged leases in the new leasing model, indicating that some Board
members objected to the net presentation related to leveraged leases and
others believed that the accounting for such leases was too complex.
However, the Board decided to grandfather in existing leveraged leases given
that “there would be significant complexities relating to unwinding existing
leveraged leases” during transition. Therefore, a lessor must continue to
apply the accounting in ASC 840 for such a lease (as carried forward in ASC
842) and classify the lease as a leveraged lease provided that it enters
into the lease before the effective date of ASC 842. See Section 9.5 for more
information about how to account for grandfathered leveraged leases.
Bridging the GAAP
IFRS 16 Does Not Distinguish Between
Sales-Type and Direct Financing Leases
Unlike ASC 842, IFRS 16 does not differentiate sales-type
leases from direct financing leases. Rather, lessors account for leases as
either operating or finance leases. See Appendix B for a summary of the
differences between ASC 842 and IFRS 16.
9.2.1 Sales-Type Lease
In a sales-type lease, the lessor transfers control of the underlying asset to
the lessee. In paragraph BC93 of ASU 2016-02, the FASB acknowledges that “[e]ven
though a sales-type lease is not necessarily identical to a sale, the
transactions are economically similar (for example, because sales-type lessors
often use leasing as an alternative means to sell their assets and have no
intention of reusing or re-leasing assets leased under a sales-type lease).”
Paragraph BC93 of ASU 2016-02 further points out that the hallmark of a
sales-type lease is the recognition of “selling profit at lease commencement”
and that such recognition “is consistent with the principle of a sale in Topics
606 and 610.”
Changing Lanes
Sales-Type Leases Affected by Shift From Risks-and-Rewards Model to
Control Model
A sales-type lease results in the recognition of profit (or loss). Therefore, to
be consistent with ASC 606, the FASB decided to align the
transfer-of-control notion, as it applies to the evaluation of whether a
lease qualifies as a sales-type lease, with that in ASC 606. In
paragraph BC121 of ASU 2014-09, the Board observes:
[T]he assessment of when control has transferred
could be applied from the perspective of either the entity
selling the good or service or the customer purchasing the good
or service. Consequently, revenue could be recognized when the
seller surrenders control of a good or service or when the
customer obtains control of that good or service. Although in
many cases both perspectives lead to the same result, the Boards
decided that control should be assessed primarily from the
perspective of the customer. That perspective minimizes the risk
of an entity recognizing revenue from undertaking activities
that do not coincide with the transfer of goods or services to
the customer.
The evaluation of whether a lease qualifies as a sales-type lease therefore focuses on whether
the lessee effectively obtains control of the entire underlying asset (i.e., and not just the right
to use it) rather than whether the lessor has relinquished control. Accordingly, an arrangement
that a lessor historically classified as a sales-type lease because it transferred a portion of the
risks and rewards of the underlying asset to the lessee and a portion to a third party through
a residual value guarantee (e.g., residual value insurance) may no longer qualify as a sales-type
lease.
ASC 842-10
25-2 [A] lessor shall classify a lease as a sales-type lease when the lease meets any of the following criteria at lease commencement:
- The lease transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term.
- The lease grants the lessee an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise.
- The lease term is for the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset. However, if the commencement date falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset, this criterion shall not be used for purposes of classifying the lease.
- The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments in accordance with paragraph 842-10-30-5(f) equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset.
- The underlying asset is of such a specialized nature that it is expected to have no alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term.
25-3A Notwithstanding the
requirements in paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through 25-3, a
lessor shall classify a lease with variable lease
payments that do not depend on an index or a rate as an
operating lease at lease commencement if classifying the
lease as a sales-type lease or a direct financing lease
would result in the recognition of a selling loss.
25-7 See paragraphs 842-10-55-2 through 55-15 for implementation guidance on lease classification.
The criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2 for a lessor’s sales-type lease classification
are identical to the criteria lessees use to identify a finance lease. (See
Section 8.1 for
a discussion of the lessee’s classification.) Therefore, the lessee’s
classification will often be similar to the lessor’s; however, as further
discussed below, there are differences between the two, such as leases with a
day 1 selling loss for the lessor or differences in the assumptions (e.g.,
residual asset value) or discount rate used (rate implicit in the lease for the
lessor and the incremental borrowing rate for the lessee).
Connecting the Dots
Sales-Type Leases for Real
Estate
Because a lease may qualify as a sales-type lease
without a title transfer under ASC 842, more leases will qualify for
sales-type classification. ASC 842 does not distinguish between the
accounting for real estate and that for non–real estate. In paragraph
BC99 of ASU 2016-02, the FASB states, in part:
Previous GAAP included different lessor
requirements for leases of real estate (for example, a lease of
real estate could only be a sales-type lease if it transferred
title to the real estate to the lessee by the end of the lease
term) because the revenue requirements in previous GAAP for the
sale of real estate differed from the revenue requirements in
previous GAAP applicable to the sale of other assets. The
creation of Topic 606 eliminated those different revenue
accounting requirements; therefore, there is no longer a reason
for the accounting for leases of real estate to differ from the
accounting for leases of other assets.
Real Estate Lessors Must Perform
Classification Test
Since ASC 842 does not distinguish between real estate
leases and non–real estate leases and does not require that title
transfer occur before a sales-type lease is recognized, real estate
lessors will need to evaluate whether leases meet the criteria for
classification as a sales-type lease.
Collectibility Does Not Affect
Classification as Sales-Type Lease
While collectibility affects recognition related to
sales-type leases under ASC 842 (discussed in Section 9.3.7.2), ASC 842 does not
address collectibility with respect to the classification of such
leases. Therefore, because the classification criteria in this regard
are less strict, more leases will qualify as sales-type leases than
under previous guidance.
9.2.1.1 Transfer of Ownership at the End of the Lease Term — ASC 842-10-25-2(a)
ASC 842-10
55-4 The criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(a) is met in leases that provide, upon the lessee’s performance
in accordance with the terms of the lease, that the lessor should execute and deliver to the lessee such
documents (including, if applicable, a bill of sale) as may be required to release the underlying asset from the
lease and to transfer ownership to the lessee.
55-5 The criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(a) also is met in situations in which the lease requires the payment
by the lessee of a nominal amount (for example, the minimum fee required by the statutory regulation to
transfer ownership) in connection with the transfer of ownership.
55-6 A provision in a lease that ownership of the underlying asset is not transferred to the lessee if the lessee
elects not to pay the specified fee (whether nominal or otherwise) to complete the transfer is an option
to purchase the underlying asset. Such a provision does not satisfy the transfer-of-ownership criterion in
paragraph 842-10-25-2(a).
If the lease transfers ownership, such as through the transfer of title at or
shortly after the end of the lease term, the above criterion in ASC
842-10-25-2(a) would be met. In substance, such a transaction is akin to a
financed purchase (i.e., the asset was purchased and financed through lease
payments). If the lessee is required to pay a nominal fee for title
transfer, the lease would meet the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(a). If
paying the fee (even in circumstances in which the fee is nominal) is
optional, the lease would not meet this criterion, although the lease should
be evaluated under the “reasonably certain purchase option” criterion in ASC
842-10-25-2(b); see further discussion in the next section.
9.2.1.2 Purchase Option Reasonably Certain to Be Exercised — ASC 842-10-25-2(b)
As indicated in ASC 842-10-25-2(b), when a “lease grants the lessee an option to
purchase the underlying asset,” it must be reasonably certain that the
lessee will exercise that option, at which point the lessor is required to
classify the lease as a sales-type lease. “Reasonably certain” is a high
threshold. A purchase option’s exercise may be reasonably certain for many
reasons (e.g., an economic compulsion or incentive for the lessee to
exercise its option). See Section 5.2.2 for a discussion of the notion of “reasonably
certain.”
ASC 842-10-55-26 includes a list of economic factors (not all-inclusive) for an entity to consider when
evaluating whether the exercise of an option is reasonably certain. Such an evaluation must include an
assessment of whether an economic compulsion exists.
The examples below demonstrate scenarios in which the lessee’s exercise of its purchase option would be reasonably certain.
Example 9-1
Entity P leases a tractor that it may purchase for $10,000 at the end of the lease term. The fair value of the tractor is expected to be $20,000 when the lease term ends. Further, P has provided the lessor with a residual value guarantee of $25,000 in the event that P does not exercise the purchase option.
Example 9-2
Entity U leases an airplane in which it installs luxury seating and a gold-plated cocktail bar, both of which add significant value to the airplane. At the end of the lease term in three years, U may purchase the airplane for an amount that is commonly paid for an airplane that does not have luxury seating and a cocktail bar. The remaining useful life of the seating and bar assets extends 20 years after the noncancelable lease term.
9.2.1.3 Major Part of the Remaining Economic Life — ASC 842-10-25-2(c)
ASC 842-10
55-2 When determining lease classification, one reasonable approach to assessing the [criterion in paragraph] 842-10-25-2(c) . . . would be to conclude:
- Seventy-five percent or more of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset is a major part of the remaining economic life of that underlying asset. . . .
The ASC master glossary defines economic life as “[e]ither the period over which
an asset is expected to be economically usable by one or more users or the
number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from an asset
by one or more users.” As noted above, if the “lease term is for the major
part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset,” the lease is a
sales-type lease; however, if the lease term begins “at or near the end of
the economic life of the underlying asset,” the lessor should not use this
criterion in its evaluation. (For further discussion, see Section
9.2.1.3.5.)
The lease classification guidance in ASC 842-10-25-2 does not explicitly
prescribe bright-line thresholds as part of the economic-life test;
therefore, an entity is permitted, but is not required, to assess certain
quantitative bright-line thresholds when classifying a lease under ASC
842.
The implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-2 further states that a
reasonable approach to applying the lease classification criteria in ASC 842
would be the use of certain bright-line thresholds as follows:
When determining lease classification, one
reasonable approach to assessing the criteria in paragraphs
842-10-25-2(c) through (d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1) would be to
conclude:
-
Seventy-five percent or more of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset is a major part of the remaining economic life of that underlying asset.
-
A commencement date that falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset refers to a commencement date that falls within the last 25 percent of the total economic life of the underlying asset.
-
Ninety percent or more of the fair value of the underlying asset amounts to substantially all the fair value of the underlying asset.
On the basis of this implementation guidance, we would not
object if an entity were to apply bright-line thresholds when classifying a
lease under ASC 842. We would expect that under such an approach, an entity
would classify a lease in accordance with the quantitative result. That is,
if an entity, as an accounting policy, elects to apply bright-line
thresholds and determines that a lease term is equal to 76 percent of an
asset’s useful life, the entity should classify the lease as a sales-type
lease. The entity should not attempt to overcome the assessment with
qualitative evidence to the contrary. Likewise, if the same entity were to
determine that a lease term is equal to 74 percent of an asset’s useful
life, the entity should classify the lease as an operating lease (provided
that other lease classification criteria are not met). We would expect that
if an entity were to decide to apply the bright-line thresholds in ASC 840
when classifying a lease, the entity would apply those thresholds
consistently to all of its leases.
9.2.1.3.1 Estimated Economic Life Versus Depreciable Life
Generally, we would expect the economic life of an asset
to correspond to its depreciable life used for financial reporting. In
accordance with ASC 360, depreciable life is calculated on the basis of
the asset’s useful life, which is similar but not identical to
the economic life an entity uses in performing the lease
classification test.
The ASC master glossary defines useful life as the
“period over which an asset is expected to contribute directly or
indirectly to future cash flows” and economic life as “[e]ither the
period over which an asset is expected to be economically usable by one
or more users or the number of production or similar units expected to
be obtained from an asset by one or more users.”
The objective of determining either the useful life or
economic life of an asset is to identify the period over which the asset
will provide benefit. The asset’s useful life represents the period over
which the reporting entity will benefit from use
of the asset. In contrast, the economic life represents the period over
which “one or more users” will benefit from use
of the asset. Therefore, the asset’s estimated depreciable life pertains
to the intended use by the current owner, whereas the estimated economic
life may encompass both the current and future owners of the asset.
This difference between the two definitions is not
relevant in many cases since a single entity (the current owner) is
often expected to use an asset for its entire life. However, depending
on the facts and circumstances, it may sometimes be appropriate for an
entity to use an estimated economic life for lease classification
purposes that is longer than the asset’s estimated depreciable life.
Example 9-3
Company X, an automobile lessor,
routinely purchases automobiles that are
economically usable for seven years. Company X
leases the automobiles to lessees for three years
and sells the automobiles after the end of the
three-year lease term. Company X may have a
supportable basis for using a three-year
depreciable life (with a correspondingly higher
salvage value) for financial reporting purposes
but a seven-year economic life for lease
classification purposes.
9.2.1.3.2 Economic Life Considerations for Land
Land has an infinite economic life and therefore could
never meet the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(c). Thus, the estimated
economic-life test cannot be applied to a lease that only involves land
or when land is treated as a separate lease component.
9.2.1.3.3 Impact of Lessor’s Intent to Sell Leased Property at the End of the Lease Term on Determination of the Estimated Economic Life of Leased Property
As described in ASC 842-10-25-2(c), the third criterion
for classifying a lease as a sales-type lease is that the “lease term is
for the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying
asset.” However, an entity should not use this criterion to classify the
lease “if the commencement date falls at or near the end of the economic
life of the underlying asset.”
The lessor’s intention to sell the leased property
immediately after the end of the lease term should not influence the
asset’s estimated economic life if the asset can still be used for its
intended purpose by other users. Generally, decisions concerning
economic lives for leased property will be similar to those for owned
assets. Thus, the estimated economic life of a leased asset generally
will be the same as the depreciable life of a similar asset for
financial reporting purposes (except as discussed in Section
9.2.1.3.1).
9.2.1.3.4 Lease Agreement Covering a Group of Assets That Have Different Economic Lives
A lease contract often includes a package of equipment.
For example, an equipment lease may include virtually all pieces of
equipment necessary to operate a store (e.g., refrigeration cases, air
conditioning units, alarm and phone systems, cash registers, and store
furniture).
When pieces of equipment that have different useful
economic lives are leased in the aggregate, an entity should consider
the guidance in ASC 842-10-15-28, which states that a right to use an
asset would be considered a separate lease component when it meets the
following two criteria:
-
The lessee can benefit from the right of use either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the lessee. Readily available resources are goods or services that are sold or leased separately (by the lessor or other suppliers) or resources that the lessee already has obtained (from the lessor or from other transactions or events).
-
The right of use is neither highly dependent on nor highly interrelated with the other right(s) to use underlying assets in the contract. A lessee’s right to use an underlying asset is highly dependent on or highly interrelated with another right to use an underlying asset if each right of use significantly affects the other.
To the extent that the above guidance does not require
separation, an entity should then consider the provisions of ASC
842-10-25-5, which indicates that “[i]f a single lease component
contains the right to use more than one underlying asset (see paragraphs
842-10-15-28 through 15-29), an entity shall consider the remaining
economic life of the predominant asset in the lease component for
purposes of applying the criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(c).”
Regarding the assessment of the predominant asset in a lease component,
paragraph BC74 of ASU 2016-02 states, in part:
The Board noted that assessing the predominant
asset in a lease component that includes multiple underlying
assets will be straightforward in most cases. That is, the
assessment is a qualitative one that requires entities to
conclude on what is the most important element of the lease,
which should be relatively clear in most cases. The Board also
noted that if an entity is unable to identify the predominant
asset, it may indicate that there is more than one separate
lease component in the contract.
Chapter 4 discusses, in detail, the guidance in ASC
842-10-15-28 on separating leasing components.
9.2.1.3.5 At or Near the End of the Remaining Economic Life
ASC 842-10
55-2 When determining lease classification, one reasonable approach to assessing the [criterion in paragraph]
842-10-25-2(c) . . . would be to conclude: . . .
b. A commencement date that falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset refers
to a commencement date that falls within the last 25 percent of the total economic life of the underlying
asset. . . .
If a lease component is at or near the end of its economic life, it is not
subject to the economic-life test. In its 2013 leasing ED, the FASB
contemplated not including this exception. Paragraph BC71 of ASU 2016-02
addresses the Board’s reasons for ultimately including the exception in
the leasing guidance and states, in part:
The exception to considering this criterion when
the lease commences at or near the end of the economic life of
the underlying asset is contrary to the lease classification
principle because a lessee can direct the use of and obtain
substantially all the remaining benefits from a significantly
used asset just the same as it can a new or slightly used asset.
However, the Board determined that an exception is appropriate
because it would be inconsistent to require that a lease
covering the last few years of an underlying asset’s economic
life be recorded as a finance lease by a lessee (or sales-type
lease by a lessor) when a similar lease of that asset earlier in
its economic life would have been classified as an operating
lease. The Board concluded that this would not appropriately
reflect the economics of those leases.
9.2.1.4 Substantially All of the Fair Value of the Underlying Asset — ASC 842-10-25-2(d)
ASC 842-10
25-4 A lessor shall assess the criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) . . . using the rate implicit in the lease. For purposes of assessing the criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d), a lessor shall assume that no initial direct costs will be deferred if, at the commencement date, the fair value of the underlying asset is different from its carrying amount.
55-2 When determining lease classification, one reasonable approach to assessing the [criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d)] would be to conclude: . . .
c. Ninety percent or more of the fair value of the underlying asset amounts to substantially all the fair value of the underlying asset.
55-8 When evaluating the lease classification criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1), the fair value of the underlying asset should be reduced by any related investment tax credit retained by the lessor and expected to be realized by the lessor.
As indicated in ASC 842-10-25-2(d), if the “present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments . . . equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset,” the lease is classified as a sales-type lease. The present value is calculated by using a discounted cash flow approach. (See Chapter 6 for details on the amounts included in this calculation.) While a lessee will generally use its incremental borrowing rate (if the rate implicit in the lease is not readily determinable) to calculate the present value of its lease payments, as discussed in Section 7.2, a lessor must use the rate implicit in the lease. The ASC master glossary defines the rate implicit in the lease as follows:
The rate of interest that, at a given date, causes the aggregate present value of (a) the lease payments and (b) the amount that a lessor expects to derive from the underlying asset following the end of the lease term to equal the sum of (1) the fair value of the underlying asset minus any related investment tax credit retained and expected to be realized by the lessor and (2) any deferred initial direct costs of the lessor. However, if the rate
determined in accordance with the preceding sentence is less than zero, a rate implicit in the lease of zero shall
be used.
An entity may solve for the rate implicit in the lease by
using the internal-rate-of-return calculation function through either a
spreadsheet database (as shown in the example below) or another calculator
mechanism.
Example 9-4
A lessor leases a yacht with a fair
value of $256,300 to an actor for three years for an
annual payment made in arrears of $75,000. When the
actor returns the yacht, the fair value of the asset
is expected to be $90,000. Using an
internal-rate-of-return functionality, the lessor
determines that its rate implicit in the lease is
9.57 percent.
Note that, in this example, no ITCs
were received and no initial direct costs were
incurred.
Connecting the Dots
Calculating a Negative “Rate
Implicit in the Lease”
We have observed situations in which the outcome of
the calculation of the “rate implicit in the lease,” which is based
on how that term is defined in ASC 842-30-20, may result in a
negative discount rate. However, at the FASB’s November 30, 2016,
meeting, the Board acknowledged that using a negative discount rate
to determine the rate implicit in the lease (as defined in ASC
842-10-20) is inappropriate. ASU 2018-10 clarifies
that lessors should use a 0 percent discount rate when measuring the
net investment in a lease if the rate implicit in the lease is
negative. See Section E.3.1.3 for further discussion of the
ASU.
Use of Bright-Line Thresholds — Fair Value Test and
“Substantially All”
The lease classification guidance in ASC 842-10-25-2
does not explicitly prescribe bright-line thresholds as part of the
fair value test; therefore, an entity is permitted but is not
required to assess certain quantitative bright-line thresholds when
classifying a lease under ASC 842.
The implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-2 further states that
the use of the following bright-line thresholds would be a
reasonable approach to applying the lease classification criteria in
ASC 842:
When determining lease classification, one reasonable
approach to assessing the criteria in paragraphs
842-10-25-2(c) through (d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1) would be to
conclude:
- Seventy-five percent or more of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset is a major part of the remaining economic life of that underlying asset.
- A commencement date that falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset refers to a commencement date that falls within the last 25 percent of the total economic life of the underlying asset.
- Ninety percent or more of the fair value of the underlying asset amounts to substantially all the fair value of the underlying asset.
On the basis of this implementation guidance, we would not object if
an entity were to apply bright-line thresholds when classifying a
lease under ASC 842. We would expect that, under such an approach,
an entity would classify a lease in accordance with the quantitative
result. That is, if an entity, as an accounting policy, elects a
bright-line threshold of 90 percent as substantially all, when the
present value of the lease payments equals 91 percent of the
underlying asset’s fair value, the entity should classify the lease
as a sales-type lease. The entity should not attempt to overcome the
assessment with qualitative evidence to the contrary. Likewise, if,
as a result of the present value calculation, the present value of
the lease payments equals 89 percent of the underlying asset’s fair
value, the entity should classify the lease as an operating lease
(provided that other lease classification criteria are not met). We
would expect that if an entity decides to apply bright-line
thresholds when classifying a lease, the entity would apply those
thresholds consistently to all of its leases.
Evaluating “Substantially
All”
One of the most notable aspects of ASC 842 is the
exclusion of “bright lines” (e.g., the 90 percent previously used in
the fair value test) from the lease classification tests. However,
ASC 842-10- 55-2 acknowledges that 90 percent may be an appropriate
threshold for the “substantially all” criterion. See Section
9.2.1.3 for more information. An entity will need to
evaluate the “substantially all” criterion when classifying a lease
under ASC 842, regardless of when the lease term begins.
At or Near the End of Its
Economic Life and “Substantially All”
As discussed in Section 9.2.1.3.5, the FASB
allowed lessors not to consider the economic-life test if the lease
commences within the final 25 percent of the total economic life of
the underlying asset. Accordingly, lessors have one less criterion
to assess for an asset that is near the end of its useful life;
however, the “substantially all” test still applies to those same
leases. Therefore, even if the underlying asset is in the last 25
percent of its economic life, sales-type lease classification may
still be warranted if the lessor concludes, after considering the
threshold described in ASC 842-10-55-2(c), that substantially all of
the associated value is being transferred to the lessee.
Evaluating 89.9 Percent Lease
Payments
Under ASC 840, there were many opportunities to
create highly structured leases. Specifically, many leases were
designed so that the present value of lease payments would be 89.9
percent of the fair value. Because the FASB has taken a more
principles-based approach to classification in ASC 842, we do not
believe that an 89.9 percent present value would necessarily result
in a non-sales-type lease. However, this would depend on the
entity’s accounting policies (see Section 9.2.1.3), which should
be consistently applied.
Consideration of
Nonperformance-Related Default Provisions
Some lease agreements contain nonperformance-related
default provisions that may require the lessee to purchase the
leased asset or make another payment if the lessee is in default
under such provisions. For more information about this issue and
about lessees’ treatment of payments associated with
nonperformance-related default provisions under ASC 842, see
Section
8.3.3.6. In line with the discussion in that section,
lessors should generally treat these payments as variable and should
consider the guidance in ASC 842-30. See Section 9.3 for more
information about a lessor’s treatment of variable lease
payments.
9.2.1.4.1 Lessor’s Consideration of Initial Direct Costs Related to the Rate Implicit in the Lease
In considering initial direct costs when calculating the
rate implicit in the lease, a lessor must first assess the appropriate
classification of the lease. This assessment would start with a
determination of whether the lease (1) should be classified as a
sales-type lease because it meets any of the criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2
and (2) meets the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-3A. If none of the criteria
in ASC 842-10-25-2 or ASC 842-10-25-3A are met, the lessor is next
required to determine whether the lease must be classified as a direct
financing lease in accordance with ASC 842-10-25-3(b); if not, the lease
would be classified as an operating lease.
ASC 842-10-25-2(d), which contains one of the criteria
for sales-type lease classification, states:
The present value of the sum of the lease
payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee that is
not already reflected in the lease payments in accordance with
paragraph 842-10-30-5(f) equals or exceeds substantially all of
the fair value of the underlying asset.
To determine the “present value of the sum of the lease
payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee,” the lessor
must determine the “rate implicit in the lease.” The ASC master glossary
defines the rate implicit in the lease as follows:
The rate of interest that, at a given date,
causes the aggregate present value of (a) the lease payments and
(b) the amount that a lessor expects to derive from the
underlying asset following the end of the lease term to equal
the sum of (1) the fair value of the underlying asset minus any
related investment tax credit retained and expected to be
realized by the lessor and (2) any deferred initial direct costs
of the lessor. However, if the rate determined in accordance
with the preceding sentence is less than zero, a rate implicit
in the lease of zero shall be used.
ASC 842-10-25-4 clarifies that “[f]or purposes of
assessing the criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d), a lessor shall
assume that no initial direct costs will be deferred if, at the
commencement date, the fair value of the underlying asset is different
from its carrying amount.”
As a result, when determining whether a lease is a
sales-type lease under ASC 842-10-25-2(d) (quoted above), the lessor does not include initial direct costs in its
determination of the rate implicit in the lease if the underlying
asset’s fair value differs from its carrying value.
In all other cases (i.e., when the underlying asset’s
fair value equals its carrying value in the determination of whether a
lease is a sales-type lease under ASC 842-10-25-2(d) or whether a lease
is a direct financing lease under ASC 842-10-25-3(b)), the lessor would
include initial direct costs in its
determination of the rate implicit in the lease.
With respect to initial recognition and measurement, a
lessor is required to recognize (at commencement) a net investment in
the lease for sales-type and direct financing leases. The net investment
in the lease comprises the sum of the lease receivable and any
unguaranteed residual value, both of which are measured at present value
by using the same rate implicit in the lease that was used for lease
classification purposes.
For sales-type leases, ASC 842-30-25-1(c) requires that
initial direct costs be expensed “if, at the commencement date, the fair
value of the underlying asset is different from its carrying amount.” In
these cases, because the rate implicit in the lease (as determined
during lease classification) did not include
initial direct costs because they were not eligible for deferral, those
costs are automatically excluded from the net investment in the lease
(i.e., there is no need to remove them separately).
In all other cases (i.e., when the underlying asset’s
fair value equals its carrying value in the determination of whether a
lease is a sales-type lease or whether a lease is a direct financing
lease under ASC 842-10-25-3(b)), “[i]f the fair value of the underlying
asset equals its carrying amount, initial direct costs . . . are
deferred at the commencement date and included in the measurement of the
net investment in the lease” in accordance with ASC 842-30-25-1(c).
Therefore, because the initial direct costs are eligible for deferral
and were included in the determination of the
rate implicit in the lease for classification purposes, they are
automatically included in the rate used to calculate the net investment
in the lease.2
This is consistent with ASC 842-30-25-1(c) (sales-type lease recognition)
and ASC 842-30-25-8 (direct financing lease recognition), each of which
suggests that the rate implicit in the lease is defined in such a way
that initial direct costs eligible for deferral “are included
automatically in the net investment in the lease; there is no need to
add them separately.”
9.2.1.4.2 Unit of Account for Assessing Lease Classification
The lessor must classify a lease as a sales-type lease
if (1) any of the lease classification criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2 are
met and (2) there is no selling loss in a lease containing variable
payments that do not depend on an index or a rate in accordance with ASC
842-10-25-3A.
In evaluating the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(d) (i.e.,
in assessing whether the lease is a sales-type lease), a multiunit real
estate lessor would use the fair value of the unit allocable to the
lease component in its present value test. In other words, the lessor
would identify the underlying asset at the level associated with the
space being leased and not beyond the identified lease component (e.g.,
at the level of a retail store in a shopping mall, not at the level of
the shopping mall itself).
Example 9-5
Lessor A leases a retail store
at the mall it owns. The fair value of the mall is
$10 million, and the fair value of the individual
retail store is $500,000. The present value of the
lease payments for the retail store is $450,000
(there is no residual value guarantee). To
determine the classification of the lease, the
lessor should compare the fair value of the
portion of the building allocable to the lease
component ($500,000) with the present value of the
lease payments ($450,000).
Connecting the Dots
ASU 2019-01 on
Acquisition Costs for Lessors That Are Not Manufacturers
or Dealers
In March 2019, the FASB issued ASU
2019-01, which provides guidance on how
lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers (qualifying
lessors) should determine the fair value of the underlying asset
and apply it to lease classification and measurement.
Specifically, for qualifying lessors, the fair value of the
underlying asset at lease commencement should be its cost,
including any acquisition costs, such as sales taxes or delivery
charges. Accordingly, many costs related to the fulfillment of
sales-type leases and direct financing leases should be
capitalized as part of the net investment in the lease for
qualifying lessors. However, if a significant lapse of time
occurs between the acquisition of the underlying asset and lease
commencement, lessors are required to determine fair value in
accordance with ASC 820, which does not include such costs.
Moreover, since this ASU does not apply to manufacturers and
dealers, such lessors are always required to determine fair
value in accordance with ASC 820. See Section E.3.1.7 for more
information about ASU 2019-01.
9.2.1.4.3 Impracticable to Determine Fair Value
ASC 842-10
55-3 In some cases, it may not be practicable for an entity to determine the fair value of an underlying asset. In the context of this Topic, practicable means that a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made without undue cost or effort. It is a dynamic concept; what is practicable for one entity may not be practicable for another, what is practicable in one period may not be practicable in another, and what is practicable for one underlying asset (or class of underlying asset) may not be practicable for another. In those cases in which it is not practicable for an entity to determine the fair value of an underlying asset, lease classification should be determined without consideration of the criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1).
We believe it would be unlikely that a lessor would not be able to determine the
fair value of an underlying asset, including portions of larger assets.
Lessors that consider this paragraph to be applicable to their facts and
circumstances should consult their accounting advisers.
In determining whether to classify a lease as a
sales-type or direct financing lease, a lessor must determine whether
“the present value of the sum of the lease payments . . . equals or
exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset” in
accordance with ASC 842-10-25-2(d) (see Section 9.2.1.4). Accordingly,
when classifying the lease (i.e., as a sales-type, direct financing, or
operating lease), the lessor must determine the fair value of the
underlying asset — for use in the fair value test — at the level
associated with the identified lease component (see Section
9.2.1.4.2). This level could be a portion of a larger asset,
such as a floor of an office building. If it is impracticable for a
lessor to determine the fair value of an underlying asset in accordance
with ASC 842-10-55-3, the lessor should assess the lease classification
without considering the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(d) and ASC
842-10-25-3(b)(1). In this context, “practicable” means that fair value
can be reasonably estimated without undue cost or effort.
Consider an example in which a lessor leases space on a
cell tower (e.g., a hanger) to a lessee. The lessor previously recorded
the entire cell tower (i.e., the larger asset) on its books, and the
hanger is considered a portion of the larger asset. The lessor has a
practice of leasing individual hangers within the cell tower to lessees;
thus, the individual hanger would be the unit of account from a leasing
perspective. A similar situation may arise when a lessor leases a floor
of a building to a lessee. The entire building (i.e., the larger asset)
is recorded on the lessor’s books. The lessor commonly leases individual
floors in the building to lessees. As stated above, when classifying the
lease, the lessor must determine the fair value of the underlying asset
for use in the fair value test — which would be at the level of the
individual hanger or individual floor in these examples — unless it is
impracticable to do so.
While ASC 842 does not address how a lessor should
determine the fair value of a portion of a larger asset, we believe that
the lessor can use various methods to determine the fair value of a
portion of a larger asset, depending on the facts and circumstances.
Because a lessor will typically be able to determine the fair value of
the entire larger asset (e.g., a cell tower or building, as described in
the examples above), it will often be appropriate to use an “allocation
approach” to allocate the fair value of the larger asset to the
respective portions of the larger asset that are being leased.
For example, the fair value of the larger asset could be
proportionately allocated — on the basis of the perceived value of the
individual leasable spaces — to the individual portions of the larger
asset that the lessor leases. When this method is used, other conditions
that may be more representative of the fair value of the leased asset
should be considered. In a building, for instance, higher floors are
often more desirable, have a higher stand-alone selling price, and are
leased at a higher cost to the lessee than lower floors. In such
circumstances, use of an appropriate allocation method would result in
the allocation of a greater fair value to the higher floors. Such an
allocation would better represent the economics of the individual lease
arrangements and better reflect the fair value of each respective
portion.
Likewise, we believe that an entity that is estimating
the fair value of a portion of a larger asset should consider the
intended use of the asset. It is also important not to confuse relative
fair value with relative construction or replacement costs. In the cell
tower example described above, while the percentage of the costs for the
individual hangers may not be disproportionately high compared with the
cost of the overall structure, it is likely that the hangers in the
aggregate account for most of the fair value of the tower since they
represent its revenue-producing parts. In other words, we would
sometimes expect the fair value of discrete portions of a larger asset
to be disproportionate compared with that of the entire asset on a space
or square-footage basis when the relative revenue-producing potential of
the discrete portions is taken into account.
We generally believe that it would be unusual for a
lessor not to be able to determine the fair value of a portion of an
underlying asset. Further, we would expect that a lessor that can
estimate the fair value of the larger asset (which will generally be the
case) would typically be able to reasonably allocate an appropriate
percentage of that fair value to the portion being leased without undo
cost or effort.
9.2.1.4.4 Residual Value Guarantees Provided for a Portfolio of Assets
ASC 842-10
55-9 Lessors may obtain
residual value guarantees for a portfolio of
underlying assets for which settlement is not
solely based on the residual value of the
individual underlying assets. In such cases, the
lessor is economically assured of receiving a
minimum residual value for a portfolio of assets
that are subject to separate leases but not for
each individual asset. Accordingly, when an asset
has a residual value in excess of the “guaranteed”
amount, that excess is offset against shortfalls
in residual value that exist in other assets in
the portfolio.
55-10 Residual value guarantees of a portfolio of underlying assets preclude a lessor from determining the amount of the guaranteed residual value of any individual underlying asset within the portfolio. Consequently, no such amounts should be considered when evaluating the lease classification criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1).
Although a lessor would consider residual value guarantees on individual leases
as part of the lease payments when performing the lease classification
test, such guarantees would generally be excluded from the test when
they are provided for a portfolio of assets under ASC 842-10-55-10.
However, as discussed below, there is a potential exception to this
rule.
Lessors often enter into lease agreements to lease
multiple similar assets to lessees. In these circumstances, lessees will
often guarantee the residual value for the group of assets being leased
(e.g., the portfolio of underlying assets) rather than that for each
individual underlying asset. ASC 842-10-55-10 states that a lessor should not consider residual value guarantees
of a portfolio of underlying assets when evaluating the lease
classification criteria, since “[r]esidual value guarantees of a
portfolio of underlying assets preclude a lessor from determining the
amount of the guaranteed residual value of any individual underlying
asset within the portfolio.”
The guidance in ASC 842 on how lessors should treat
residual value guarantees of a portfolio of underlying assets when
classifying a lease is similar to historical practice under ASC 840.
Specifically, in an inquiry, the SEC was asked to give its views on how
a lessor should apply ASC 840-10-25-1(d) and ASC 840-10-25-5 in
determining the minimum lease payments for lease classification purposes
when the lessee provided a guarantee of the aggregate residual value of
a portfolio of leased assets. ASC 840-30-S99-1 states that, in response
to this inquiry, the SEC staff indicated the following:
The SEC staff believes that residual value
guarantees of a portfolio of leased assets preclude a lessor
from determining the amount of the guaranteed residual value of
any individual leased asset within the portfolio at lease
inception and, accordingly, no such amounts should be included
in minimum lease payments.
Therefore, the general practice under ASC 840 was for a
lessor not to include residual value guarantees for a portfolio of
leased assets in the determination of minimum lease payments, since it
is not possible to identify the individual residual value guarantee for
any individual leased asset within the portfolio. Because the
classification analysis under ASC 840 was performed on an
individual-asset basis, it is rare for a lessor to include a residual
value guarantee of a portfolio of assets in the determination of minimum
lease payments. However, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to
do so. Specifically, under ASC 840, if a group of leased assets
associated with the PRVG met the following criteria, the PRVG was
factored into the calculation of minimum lease payments:
-
The leases commenced and ended at the same time.
-
The leased assets were physically similar to each other.
-
The variability associated with the expected residual values was expected to be highly correlated (i.e., one asset’s residual value was expected to be similar to that of the other assets’ residual values).
Under ASC 842, a lessor can account for a group of
leases at a portfolio level provided that (1) the leases are similar in
nature (e.g., have similar underlying assets) and (2) have identical or
nearly identical contract provisions (see Section 8.2.2). In addition,
paragraph BC120 of ASU 2016-02 states, in part:
[T]he Board decided to explicitly state that
lessees and lessors are permitted to apply the leases guidance
at a portfolio level. The Board acknowledged that an entity
would need to apply judgment in selecting the size and
composition of the portfolio in such a way that the entity
reasonably expects that the application of the leases model to
the portfolio would not differ materially from the application
of the leases model to the individual leases in that
portfolio.
Because ASC 842 can be applied at a portfolio level,
lessors have questioned whether it is appropriate for them to factor in
a residual value guarantee for a group of assets being leased when
determining the lease classification of each separate lease. We believe
that, when certain facts and circumstances exist, it may be appropriate
for a lessor to consider a PRVG for a group of assets being leased.
Consider the example below.
Example 9-6
A lessor enters into an
agreement to lease 10 physically similar laptops
to a lessee. The leases commence and end on the
same day. The agreement has no stated renewal or
purchase options. The individual assets have a
fair value at commencement of $500 each and an
expected residual value at the end of the lease
term of $150 each. The variability associated with
the expected residual value of each laptop is
expected to be highly correlated. The lessee
guarantees that the combined residual value of the
leased assets will be $1,500. If the PRVG were
excluded from the lease classification test, all
of the individual leases would be operating
leases. However, if the PRVG were included,
classification may change depending on the
attribution of the PRVG to the individual leases
in the portfolio.
We believe that, as described in the example above,
there are circumstances in which it may be acceptable for a lessor to
include a PRVG in the classification of leased assets that are subject
to a residual value guarantee for the group of assets. In such
circumstances, we would expect the PRVG to be apportioned equally to
each leased asset (e.g., $150 per laptop in the above example).
In addition, we believe that the lessor may consider a
PRVG when classifying the individual leases within a portfolio when an
arrangement meets the following criteria that were applied in practice
under ASC 840 (outlined above and repurposed below):
-
The leases commence and end at the same time.
-
The leased assets are physically similar to each other.
-
The variability associated with the expected residual values is expected to be highly correlated.
While ASC 842-10-55-10, read literally, suggests that a
PRVG should never be considered in the lessor’s determination of lease
classification, we believe that the FASB did not intend to change this
historical practice under ASC 840. Further, we believe that use of the
criteria above will result in a lease classification that is consistent
with the underlying economics of the leasing arrangement.
9.2.1.5 Underlying Asset Is Specialized and Has No Alternative Use to the Lessor at the End of the Lease Term — ASC 842-10-25-2(e)
ASC 842-10
55-7 In assessing whether an underlying asset has an alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term
in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-2(e), an entity should consider the effects of contractual restrictions
and practical limitations on the lessor’s ability to readily direct that asset for another use (for example, selling
it or leasing it to an entity other than the lessee). A contractual restriction on a lessor’s ability to direct an
underlying asset for another use must be substantive for the asset not to have an alternative use to the lessor.
A contractual restriction is substantive if it is enforceable. A practical limitation on a lessor’s ability to direct
an underlying asset for another use exists if the lessor would incur significant economic losses to direct the
underlying asset for another use. A significant economic loss could arise because the lessor either would incur
significant costs to rework the asset or would only be able to sell or re-lease the asset at a significant loss. For
example, a lessor may be practically limited from redirecting assets that either have design specifications that
are unique to the lessee or that are located in remote areas. The possibility of the contract with the customer
being terminated is not a relevant consideration in assessing whether the lessor would be able to readily direct
the underlying asset for another use.
The criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(e) states that if the “underlying asset is of such a specialized nature
that it is expected to have no alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term,” the lease is a
sales-type lease. When an underlying asset has no alternative use to the lessor at the end of a lease
term, it is presumed that the lessee will consume all (or substantially all) of the benefits of the asset. The
substantive lack of alternative use can be identified if there is a contractual restriction or an anticipated
significant economic loss related to directing the asset for another use.
Connecting the Dots
Meeting the Criterion in ASC
842-10-25-2(e)
It is unlikely that the criterion in ASC
842-10-25-2(e) would be met in isolation because a lessor
economically would not enter into an arrangement in which it would
not be compensated to obtain a worthless asset at the end of a lease
term. We do not believe that this criterion should be interpreted as
applying to situations in which the underlying asset is near the end
of its economic life and the lessee, by virtue of the lease,
therefore has obtained all of the use of the asset so that it has
“no alternative use.” This criterion is intended to identify
situations in which the lessee uses all of the asset’s economic
benefits because the asset is so specialized for that particular
lessee that the lessor would not be expected to generate economic
benefit from the asset’s use outside of the lease. For example, if a
lease is structured with entirely variable lease payments that do
not depend on an index or a rate (and the lease therefore does not
meet the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(d)), the lease may be more
likely to meet criterion (e) in isolation. However, if such leases
result in a selling loss, they may need to be classified as
operating leases in accordance with the amendments made by ASU
2021-05, as discussed in the section below.
9.2.1.5.1 Significant Economic Losses to Direct an Underlying Asset for Another Use
ASC 842-10-55-7 states, in part:
A practical limitation on a lessor’s ability to
direct an underlying asset for another use exists if the lessor
would incur significant economic losses to direct the underlying
asset for another use. A significant economic loss could arise
because the lessor either would incur significant costs to
rework the asset or would only be able to sell or re-lease the
asset at a significant [economic] loss.
Although ASC 842 does not define the term “significant
economic loss,” the standard and the Background Information and Basis
for Conclusions of ASU 2016-02 discuss the term “significant economic
incentive.” When an entity has a significant economic incentive, it may
conclude that the exercise of a purchase option or renewal option is
reasonably certain in accordance with ASC 842-10-30-1 through 30-3.
Because “reasonably certain” is a high threshold in the assessment of
renewal (termination) options and purchase options (as discussed in
Section
5.2.2), we would expect the threshold for a significant
economic loss to also be high.
In addition, an entity can consider ASC 606-10-55-10
when assessing situations in which a significant loss exists. ASC
606-10-55-10 states:
A practical limitation on an entity’s ability to
direct an asset for another use exists if an entity would incur
significant economic losses to direct the asset for another use.
A significant economic loss could arise
because the entity either would incur significant costs to
rework the asset or would only be able to sell the asset at
a significant loss. For example, an entity may be
practically limited from redirecting assets that either have
design specifications that are unique to a customer or are
located in remote areas. [Emphasis added]
Example 9-7
An entity leases a highly
specialized underwater vehicle with patented
technology to another entity. The asset took three
years to produce. The lessee uses the asset to
search the deep ocean floor for buried treasure in
a remote area of the Arctic Ocean. The cost of
transporting the asset to the search site was
approximately half the cost of the asset itself,
and it is not expected that any other entity is
going to want to use that asset in that specific
location. The lessor would incur significant
losses in transporting the asset to its
manufacturing facility in Chicago at the end of
the lease term for refurbishment and redeployment.
The lessor does not believe that any other
entities would be interested in a similar use
(searching the Arctic Ocean for buried treasure),
and the asset is designed for that particular
environment and no other. As a result, the lessor
in this example would meet the criterion for
classifying the lease as a sales-type lease (i.e.,
the criterion in ASC 842-10-25-2(e)). We believe
that it is likely that other criteria for
sales-type classification (e.g., the
“substantially all of the fair value” test) would
also be met in such situations.
9.2.1.6 Lessor’s Accounting for Certain Leases With Variable Lease Payments
In July 2021, the FASB issued
ASU
2021-05, which requires a lessor to
classify a lease with variable lease payments that
do not depend on an index or rate as an operating
lease on the lease commencement date if specified
criteria are met. ASC 842-10-25-3A requires a lessor
to classify a lease with variable lease payments
that do not depend on an index or rate as an
operating lease at lease commencement if both of the
following conditions are met:
|
Because these leases will be classified as operating leases,
when applying the guidance in ASC 842-10-25-3A, the lessor would not
derecognize the underlying asset upon lease commencement but would continue
to depreciate the underlying asset over its useful life. Further, in
accordance with ASC 842-30-25-11(a), the lessor would recognize fixed lease
payments as “income . . . over the lease term on a straight-line basis
unless another systematic and rational basis is more representative of the
pattern in which benefit is expected to be derived from the use of the
underlying asset.” Variable lease payments would be recognized as “income in
profit or loss in the period in which the changes in facts and circumstances
on which the variable lease payments are based occur,” as indicated in ASC
842-30-25-11(b).
Note that the guidance in ASC 842-10-25-3A does not
prescribe a threshold for the amount of variable payments; the guidance must
be applied when a lease contains any amount of variable payments (in
addition to the requirement that the lessor would have otherwise recognized
a selling loss at lease commencement).
Connecting the Dots
Treatment of Leases with
Variable Payments
Under ASU 2021-05, which modified the lease
classification requirements, more lessors are required to classify
leases as operating leases rather than as sales-type or direct
financing leases. Accordingly, additional leases qualify for the
lessor practical expedient in ASC 842-10-15-42A, which allows
lessors to combine lease and nonlease components into a single
component if certain scope requirements are met. One of these
requirements is that the underlying lease component must be
classified as an operating lease. (See Section 4.3.3.2 for more
information about the lessor practical expedient.) In addition, the
classification as an operating lease may allow certain
sale-and-leaseback transactions to qualify as successful sales. (See
Section
10.3 for more information about evaluating
sale-and-leaseback transactions.)
Under ASC 606, variable payments are estimated and included in the
transaction price subject to a constraint. By contrast, under ASC
842, variable lease payments not linked to an index or rate are
generally excluded from the determination of a lessor’s lease
receivable.
Accordingly, sales-type or direct financing leases that have a
significant variable lease payment component may result in an
entity’s determination that there would be a loss at commencement
because the measurement of the lease receivable plus the
unguaranteed residual asset is less than the net carrying value of
the underlying asset. This could occur, for example, if lease
payments are based entirely on the number of units produced by the
leased asset (i.e., payments are 100 percent variable) or when a
portion of the expected cash flows from the lease is variable (e.g.,
50 percent of the total expected cash flows are variable). However,
these transactions typically do not represent an economic loss for
the lessor. A lease that meets these criteria records the lease as
an operating lease rather than a sales-type or direct financing
lease.
Types of Arrangements With
Significant Variable Lease Payments
Lease arrangements in a number of industries often
include significant or wholly variable lease payments. It is not
uncommon for such arrangements to be long-term enough that they
result in sales-type or direct financing lease classification under
ASC 842-10-25-2 and 25-3. However, these arrangements often would be
classified as operating leases since the criteria in ASC
842-10-25-3A would be met.
Arrangements in the energy sector are frequently
accounted for as leases with wholly variable payment streams. For
example, PPAs related to renewable energy (i.e., from solar or wind
generation facilities) (1) are commonly long-term and for the major
part of the economic life of the generation facility, (2) provide
for payments at a fixed price per unit of electricity output (e.g.,
$50 per megawatt hour [MWh]), and (3) require the lessee to take all
of the output produced by the facility but do not specify a minimum
level of production (i.e., the volume of output is wholly variable).
Although the output quantity is weather-dependent, the lessor
expects the arrangement to be profitable on the basis of historical
weather data.
We are also aware of arrangements in the oil and gas
industry in which a company builds a gathering and processing system
and leases it to a single user under a variable payment structure.
For example, an exploration company with rights to multiple oil
wells on dedicated acreage may contract with a midstream company to
construct and lease the infrastructure necessary to gather and
process the oil extracted from the wells. The arrangement may be
long-term and for a major part of the economic life of the
infrastructure, and the payment for the use of the infrastructure
may be 100 percent variable (e.g., a fixed price per unit multiplied
by the number of units gathered or processed) without a minimum
volume requirement. The midstream company would be willing to accept
variable consideration in the arrangement if reserve data related to
the wells suggest that a sufficient volume of oil will be extracted
over the term of the contract to make the arrangement
profitable.
In the real estate sector, a commercial real estate
lease arrangement (e.g., a lease of retail space) may be priced in
such a way that a significant amount of the expected payments is
contingent on the lessee’s sales (e.g., payments that are a fixed
percentage of the retail store’s sales for a month) and the lease
could be for a significantly long enough period to trigger the
economic-life classification test. Arrangements of this type allow
the property owner to participate in the upside of the retail
store’s business and are expected to be profitable.
Finally, in the health care industry, it is not
uncommon for a hospital to contract with a medical device owner for
the use of specific medical equipment for a major part of the
economic life of the equipment. This type of arrangement is often
priced in such a way that the consideration is based entirely on the
hospital’s ongoing purchase of “consumables,” which allow the
equipment to function as designed and may have no minimum volume
requirement. The medical device owner is willing to accept variable
consideration in the arrangement because demand for the associated
health care services suggests that a sufficient volume of
consumables will be purchased by the hospital over the term of the
contract to make the arrangement profitable.
9.2.2 Direct Financing Lease
If a lease does not meet any of the criteria for classification as a sales-type
lease, the lessor must assess whether it has relinquished control of the
underlying asset but has not transferred control to the lessee. The lessor would
classify a lease that does not meet any of the criteria for a sales-type lease
as a direct financing lease if two criteria are met, as described below, and the
criteria in ASC 842-10-25-3A are not met.
Direct financing leases are typically considered a financial
product and historically did not result in a “selling profit or loss” since the
lessor typically acquired the asset contemporaneously with the leasing
transaction and, accordingly, the carrying value of the underlying asset equaled
its fair value on lease commencement. However, under ASC 842, this is not a
condition of a direct financing lease so a selling profit or loss could result,
as with a sales-type lease. However, with a direct financing lease, the selling
profit would be recognized over the lease term as an adjustment to the yield,
while the selling profit or selling loss would be recognized immediately for a
sales-type lease. Another key difference between a direct financing lease and a
sales-type lease is that a lessor would include residual value guarantees from
third parties in its fair value classification test
for a direct financing lease. In fact, this third-party residual value guarantee
would be the only reason a lessor could classify a lease as a direct financing
lease.
Bridging the GAAP
Different Treatment of Selling Profit in Direct Financing
Leases
Under ASC 842, a lessor in a direct financing lease must
defer selling profit at lease commencement and recognize it over the
lease term. In contrast, IFRS 16 requires a lessor to recognize profit
or loss in a finance lease at lease commencement. While the two
standards may significantly differ in this respect, this issue may not
arise frequently given the scarcity of leases with third-party residual
value guarantees that result in a selling profit.
9.2.2.1 Criteria
ASC 842-10
25-3 When none of the criteria in paragraph 842-10-25-2 are met: . . .
b. A lessor shall classify the lease as either a direct financing lease or an operating lease.
A lessor shall classify the lease as an operating
lease unless both of the following criteria are
met, in which case the lessor shall classify the
lease as a direct financing lease:
1. The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual
value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already
reflected in the lease payments in accordance with
paragraph 842-10-30-5(f) and/or any other third
party unrelated to the lessor equals or exceeds
substantially all of the fair value of the
underlying asset.
2. It is probable that the lessor will collect the lease payments plus any amount necessary to satisfy a
residual value guarantee.
25-3A
Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs
842-10-25-2 through 25-3, a lessor shall classify a
lease with variable lease payments that do not
depend on an index or a rate as an operating lease
at lease commencement if classifying the lease as a
sales-type lease or a direct financing lease would
result in the recognition of a selling loss.
9.2.2.1.1 First Criterion — Present Value of Lease Payments and Any Residual Value Guarantee Equals or Exceeds Substantially All of the Fair Value of the Underlying Asset
The present value of lease payments includes any payments described in ASC 842-10-30-5 (see Chapter 6). However, when determining whether a lease is a sales-type or direct financing lease, a lessor includes different amounts in the lease payments with respect to residual value guarantees. In performing the sales-type lease classification test, lessors only include the residual value guarantee provided by the lessee. The direct financing lease classification test takes it one step further and requires a lessor to include any residual value guaranteed by any third party unrelated to the lessor. When performing the direct financing lease test, an entity would apply the “substantially all” criterion in the same manner as it would when performing the sales-type classification test addressed in ASC 842-10-25-2(d) (e.g., 90 percent of the fair value). See Section 9.2.1.4 for more information.
Residual value guarantees provided for a portfolio of leased assets and not for
individual leased assets should not be included in the lessor
classification assessment, as described in Section 9.2.1.4.4.
A lease that does not meet the “substantially all” criterion in ASC
842-10-25-3(b)(1) is an operating lease.
When performing the direct financing lease
classification test as described above an entity may solve for the rate
implicit in the lease for a direct financing lease by using the
internal-rate-of-return calculation function through either a
spreadsheet database or another calculator mechanism, as described in
Section 9.2.1.4.
Example 9-8
A lessor leases a luxury tour
bus with a fair value of $7,230,589 (which equals
the bus’s carrying value) to a music group for
three years for an annual payment made in arrears
of $2,000,000. The lessor incurs $25,000 in
initial direct costs. When the music group returns
the tour bus, the fair value of the asset is
expected to be $4,023,023. Using an
internal-rate-of-return functionality, the lessor
determines that its rate implicit in the lease is
14.68 percent.
Note that, in this example, no
ITCs were received. Also, because the fair value
of the bus equals its carrying value, the initial
direct costs were included in the calculation of
the rate implicit in the lease. See Section
9.2.1.4.1 for more information about
how to consider initial direct costs in the
determination of the lease’s implicit rate.
9.2.2.1.1.1 Impact of a Lessor’s Subsequent Purchase of Residual Value Insurance on Lease Classification
Under ASC 842-10-25-3(b)(1), when a lessor
calculates lease payments to assess whether the lease should be
classified as a direct financing lease or operating lease, the
lessor must classify a lease as a direct financing lease if the
“present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual
value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already reflected in the
lease payments . . . and/or any other third party unrelated to the
lessor equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the
underlying asset.” Accordingly, if a lessor purchases residual value
insurance at the commencement of the lease, the amount of the
residual covered by the insurance would be included in the lessor’s
computation as part of the direct-financing lease classification
test. In some circumstances, a lessor may purchase residual value
insurance for property leased under an operating lease after the
commencement of that lease in an amount that would have required
classification of the lease as a direct financing lease if that
insurance had been purchased at the commencement of the lease.
A lessor’s purchase of residual value insurance from
a third party (unrelated to the lessor or the lessee) after the
commencement of the lease would not constitute a lease modification
and trigger a reevaluation of the lease’s classification in
accordance with ASC 842-10-25-8.
A lessor’s acquisition of residual value insurance
after the lease commencement date, in the absence of a change in the
lease’s provisions that the lessor and lessee mutually agree to,
does not represent a change in the lease provisions as contemplated
by the definition of a “lease modification” in ASC 842-10-20.
Accordingly, the lessor’s purchase of this insurance does not create
a modified lease (that is not a separate contract) that must be
reclassified in accordance with ASC 842-10-25-1 and ASC 842-10-25-8
through 25-10 (see Section 9.3.4 for more information).
Note that if residual value insurance from a third
party was contemplated or entered into at or near the same time of
lease commencement, the lessor should consider whether to include
this information in its lease classification assessment.
9.2.2.1.2 Second Criterion — It Is Probable That the Lessor Will Collect the Lease Payments
The second criterion for direct-financing lease classification in ASC
842-10-25-3(b) indicates that it must be “probable that the lessor will
collect the lease payments plus any amount necessary to satisfy a
residual value guarantee.” In this context, collectibility is only
assessed at lease commencement; changes in collectibility will not
result in a change in classification.
If the lease does not meet this criterion, the lease is an operating lease.
Connecting the Dots
Collectibility Issues Related to Concepts in ASC
606
For a contract to be within the scope of ASC
606, collectibility must be probable (step 1). Similarly, under
ASC 842, no lease-related recognition or measurement occurs when
collectibility is not probable. Therefore, ASC 606 and ASC 842
are aligned with respect to the deposit liability concept.
When the sales-type lease consideration does not
meet the probability threshold, the sale is only recognized when
either (1) the contract has been terminated and the lease
payments received from the lessee are nonrefundable or (2) the
lessor has repossessed the underlying asset, the lessor has no
further obligation to the lessee under the contract, and the
lease payments received from the lessee are nonrefundable.
The underlying principles in ASC 606 are
similar. Specifically, ASC 606-10-25-7 states:
When a contract with a customer does not
meet the criteria in paragraph 606-10-25-1 and an entity
receives consideration from the customer, the entity
shall recognize the consideration received as revenue
only when one or more of the following events have
occurred:
-
The entity has no remaining obligations to transfer goods or services to the customer, and all, or substantially all, of the consideration promised by the customer has been received by the entity and is nonrefundable.
-
The contract has been terminated, and the consideration received from the customer is nonrefundable.
-
The entity has transferred control of the goods or services to which the consideration that has been received relates, the entity has stopped transferring goods or services to the customer (if applicable) and has no obligation under the contract to transfer additional goods or services, and the consideration received from the customer is nonrefundable.
The ongoing evaluation of (or lack thereof)
whether the lease payments and any residual value guarantees
become probable over the lease term is similar to the ongoing
assessment required by ASC 606. However, an important
distinction is that a lessor would never reassess the
probability threshold once it is met, since the single
obligation to deliver the leased asset has already been
fulfilled (i.e., there is no future performance, which may occur
in a revenue contract as future goods and services are
delivered).
9.2.3 Operating Lease
If the lease does not meet any of the five criteria for a sales-type lease or the two criteria for a direct financing lease, the lease is an operating lease.
In addition, certain leases with variable lease payments that do not depend on an
index or rate that would have been classified as sales-type or direct financing
leases, and for which the lessor would have recognized a selling loss, will also
be classified as operating leases. See Section
9.2.1.6 for more information.
Connecting the Dots
Operating Lease
Classification
Lessors are required to first evaluate whether a lease is a sales-type lease; if
the lease is not a sales-type lease, the lessor must assess whether it
is a direct financing lease. A lessor can only conclude that a lease is
an operating lease if it does not meet the criteria for either of the
other two classifications. With the exception of the provisions of ASU
2021-05, there are no separate criteria for classifying an operating
lease.
Footnotes
1
If a lease component is at or near the end of its economic
life, it is not subject to the economic life test. See Section 9.2.1.3.1 for
more information.
2
For example, the inclusion of initial direct
costs in the determination of the rate implicit in the lease
results in a lower rate (see Cases A and C in Example 1, which
begins in ASC 842-30-55-19). This lower implicit rate applied to
the future lease payments effectively results in a higher net
investment in the lease, which inherently includes the initial
direct costs.