6.4 Significant Financing Component
In certain contracts with customers, one party may provide a service of
financing (either explicitly or implicitly) to the other. Such contracts effectively
contain two transactions: one for the delivery of the good or service and another
for the benefit of financing (i.e., what is in substance a loan payable or loan
receivable). The FASB and IASB decided that an entity should account for both
transactions included in a contract with a customer when the benefit of the
financing provided is significant.
ASC 606-10
32-15 In determining the transaction price, an entity shall adjust the promised amount of consideration for
the effects of the time value of money if the timing of payments agreed to by the parties to the contract (either
explicitly or implicitly) provides the customer or the entity with a significant benefit of financing the transfer
of goods or services to the customer. In those circumstances, the contract contains a significant financing
component. A significant financing component may exist regardless of whether the promise of financing is
explicitly stated in the contract or implied by the payment terms agreed to by the parties to the contract.
In paragraph BC230 of ASU 2014-09, the boards note that the “objective of
adjusting the promised amount of consideration for the effects of a significant
financing component is to reflect, in the amount of revenue recognized, the ‘cash
selling price’ of the underlying good or service at the time that the good or
service is transferred.” This objective is consistent with the intent of the
allocation guidance in step 4 (see Chapter 7) in that the goal is to arrive at an amount of revenue
recognized that reflects the value of the goods or services transferred to the
customer. If an entity were to ignore a significant financing component included in
a contract, the revenue recognized from, and the cash flows associated with, the
contract with the customer could be misrepresented to users in the entity’s
financial statements. That is because the second service (namely, the financing)
would not be reflected in the financial statements.
6.4.1 Practical Expedient Providing Relief From the Significant Financing Component Guidance
Under ASC 835-30, an entity is exempted from imputing interest on a receivable
if the transaction with the customer is (1) in the normal course of business and
with customary terms and (2) for one year or less. In developing the revenue
standard, the FASB and IASB determined that the benefits to financial statement
users of requiring an entity to account for the effects of significant financing
when the period is for less than a year did not outweigh the costs to
preparers.
Accordingly, the boards decided to grant a practical expedient in ASC
606-10-32-18 (paragraph 63 of IFRS 15) for financing components when the
duration of the financing (i.e., the time between the transfer of control of the
goods or services and when the customer pays for them) is one year or less. In
paragraph BC236 of ASU 2014-09, the boards acknowledge that they provided the
practical expedient as part of efforts to simplify the application of the
revenue standard for financial statement preparers even though the expedient
could produce undesirable reporting outcomes (e.g., when a one-year contract
provides financing that is material to the contract’s value because of a
relatively high interest rate).
ASC 606-10
32-18 As a practical
expedient, an entity need not adjust the promised amount
of consideration for the effects of a significant
financing component if the entity expects, at contract
inception, that the period between when the entity
transfers a promised good or service to a customer and
when the customer pays for that good or service will be
one year or less.
50-22 If an entity elects to
use the practical expedient in either paragraph
606-10-32-18 (about the existence of a significant
financing component) or paragraph 340-40-25-4 (about the
incremental costs of obtaining a contract), the entity
shall disclose that fact.
As indicated in ASC 606-10-10-3 and ASC 606-10-50-22 (the latter of which is
reproduced above), an entity that elects to use this practical expedient should
(1) apply it consistently to contracts with similar characteristics and in
similar circumstances and (2) disclose such election.
6.4.2 Existence and Significance of a Financing Component
ASC 606-10
32-16 The objective when
adjusting the promised amount of consideration for a
significant financing component is for an entity to
recognize revenue at an amount that reflects the price
that a customer would have paid for the promised goods
or services if the customer had paid cash for those
goods or services when (or as) they transfer to the
customer (that is, the cash selling price). An entity
shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances in
assessing whether a contract contains a financing
component and whether that financing component is
significant to the contract, including both of the
following:
-
The difference, if any, between the amount of promised consideration and the cash selling price of the promised goods or services
-
The combined effect of both of the following:
-
The expected length of time between when the entity transfers the promised goods or services to the customer and when the customer pays for those goods or services
-
The prevailing interest rates in the relevant market.
-
An entity is required to assess the factors in ASC 606-10-32-16 to determine the
existence of a significant financing component for the following reasons:
-
As noted in paragraph BC232 of ASU 2014-09, the fact that an entity sells the goods or services in the contract with the customer at varying prices depending on the timing of the payment terms will generally provide both parties to the contract with relatively observable data to support a determination that the entity’s contracts with customers contain a financing component (and that the entity needs to adjust the transaction price to determine the cash selling price of the goods or services to be delivered).
-
If there is an alignment between the duration of the financing provided in the contract and the market interest rates available for a financing of that duration, there is a strong indication that the parties intend to include a financing transaction in the contract.
However, in the assessment of the factors noted above, a
question arises about whether the “significance” of a financing component should
be in the context of the associated performance obligation, the individual
contract, or a portfolio of similar contracts. Sections 6.4.2.1 through 6.4.2.4 further discuss the
considerations inherent in an assessment of the existence and significance of a
financing component in a contract with a customer.
6.4.2.1 Unit of Account for Assessing the Significance of a Financing Component
ASC 606-10-32-16 specifically requires an entity to consider
all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing whether a contract
contains a financing component and whether that financing component is
significant to the contract. Consequently, the significance of a
financing component should be assessed in the context of the individual
contract rather than, for example, a portfolio of similar contracts or at a
performance obligation level.
The basis of this requirement is explained in paragraph
BC234 of ASU 2014-09, which states, in part:
During
their redeliberations, the Boards clarified that an entity should only
consider the significance of a financing component at a contract
level rather than consider whether the financing is material at a
portfolio level. The Boards decided that it would have been unduly
burdensome to require an entity to account for a financing component if
the effects of the financing component were not material to the
individual contract, but the combined effects for a portfolio of similar
contracts were material to the entity as a whole.
As a consequence, some financing components will not be
identified as significant — and, therefore, the promised amount of
consideration would not be adjusted — even though they might be material in
aggregate for a portfolio of similar contracts.
Although a financing component can only be quantified
after individual performance obligations are considered, the
significance of a financing component is not assessed at the
performance obligation level. To illustrate, an entity may typically sell
Product X, for which revenue is recognized at a point in time, on extended
credit terms such that, when Product X is sold by itself, the contract
contains a significant financing component. The entity may also sell Product
X and Product Y together in a bundled contract, requiring the customer to
pay for Product Y in full at the time control is transferred but granting
the same extended credit terms for Product X. If the value of Product Y is
much greater than the value of Product X, any financing component for
Product X may be too small to be assessed as significant in the context of
the larger bundled contract. Therefore, in such circumstances, the entity
(1) would adjust the promised consideration for a significant financing
component when Product X is sold by itself but (2) would not need to adjust
the promised consideration for a significant financing component when
Product X is sold together with Product Y in a single contract.
6.4.2.2 Assessing Whether a Significant Financing Component Exists When the Consideration to Be Received Is Equal to the Cash Selling Price
ASC 606-10-32-16 notes that the “difference, if any, between
the amount of promised consideration and the cash selling price of the
promised goods or services” is one of the factors relevant to an assessment
of whether a significant financing component exists.
Sometimes, the implied interest rate in an arrangement is
zero (i.e., interest-free financing) such that the consideration to be
received at a future date is equal to the cash selling price (i.e., the
amount that would be received from a customer who chooses to pay for the
goods or services in cash when (or as) they are delivered). In such
circumstances, it should not automatically be assumed that the contract does
not contain a significant financing component. A difference between the
amount of promised consideration and the cash selling price is only one of
the indicators that an entity should consider in determining whether there
is a significant financing component.
The fact that an entity provides what appears to be
zero-interest financing does not necessarily mean that the cash selling
price is the same as the price that would have been paid by another customer
who has opted to pay over time. Accordingly, an entity may need to use
judgment when determining a cash selling price for a customer who pays over
time.
The above issue is addressed in Implementation Q&A 32 (compiled from previously
issued TRG Agenda Papers 20, 25, 30, and 34). For additional information and Deloitte’s summary
of issues discussed in the Implementation Q&As, see Appendix C.
6.4.2.3 Requirement to Discount Trade Receivables When the Significant Financing Component Is Implicit
The example below illustrates when it may be necessary to
discount trade receivables even though a significant financing component is
not explicitly identified in the contract.
Example 6-12
Entity B, a retailer, offers
interest-free financing to its customers. Depending
on the type of product purchased, the financing
arrangement gives the customer interest-free
financing for a period of 12, 15, or 18 months. The
customer pays equal monthly installments from the
date of purchase over the financing period. This is
common industry practice in the country where B is
located, and other retailers offer similar financing
arrangements; no recent cash transactions are
available from which B can make an observable
estimate of the cash sales price. On the basis of
prevailing interest rates in the relevant market, B
estimates that the customer would be able to borrow
from other sources at an interest rate of 18
percent.
Further, on the basis of ASC
606-10-32-16(b), B believes that the arrangement
contains a significant financing component as a
result of the combination of (1) the length of time
between the transfer of the good and payment and (2)
the high interest rates the customer would have to
pay to obtain financing from other sources.
In accordance with ASC 606-10-32-15,
entities are required to adjust the promised amount
of consideration, even when a significant financing
component is not explicitly identified in the
contract. However, ASC 606-10-32-18 provides a
practical expedient for contracts with a significant
financing component when the period between the
transfer of goods and the customer’s payment is, at
contract inception, expected to be one year or
less.
Consequently, in the circumstances
described, B is required to adjust the sales price
for all arrangements other than those with a
contractual period of 12 months or less. For
arrangements with a contractual period of 12 months
or less, B is permitted to adjust the sales price
when it identifies a significant financing
component, which it may wish to do to align with its
other contracts; however, it is not required to do
so.
If B takes advantage of the practical expedient under
ASC 606-10-32-18, it is required to do so
consistently in similar circumstances for all
contracts with similar characteristics.
6.4.2.4 How to Evaluate a Material Right for the Existence of a Significant Financing Component
The determination of whether there is a significant
financing component associated with the material right depends on the facts
and circumstances. Entities are required to evaluate material rights for the
existence of significant financing components in a manner similar to how
they would evaluate any other performance obligation. That is, there is no
safe harbor that a material right would not have a significant financing
component. See Section 11.6 for an
example of a material right that gives rise to a significant financing
component.
The above issue is addressed in Implementation Q&A 35 (compiled
from previously issued TRG Agenda Papers 18, 25, 32, and 34). For additional information and
Deloitte’s summary of issues discussed in the Implementation Q&As, see
Appendix
C.
6.4.3 Circumstances That Do Not Give Rise to a Significant Financing Component
In paragraph BC231 of ASU 2014-09, the FASB and IASB acknowledge that the mere
separation between the timing of delivery and the timing of payment does not
always mean that a benefit of financing has been provided in the contract. That
is, there are other economically substantive reasons for the existence of a
significant period between delivery and payment. In light of this, the boards
wanted to reflect in paragraph BC232 of ASU 2014-09 their intent for entities to
account for a significant financing and not necessarily all aspects of the time
value of money, which has a broader economic context than just the benefit of a
financing. To further emphasize this distinction, the boards also provided
indicators in ASC 606-10-32-17 (paragraph 62 of IFRS 15) of circumstances in
which a difference in timing between delivery and payment does not require an
entity to adjust the transaction price to reflect the cash selling price of the
good or service delivered.
ASC 606-10
32-17 Notwithstanding the assessment in paragraph 606-10-32-16, a contract with a customer would not have
a significant financing component if any of the following factors exist:
- The customer paid for the goods or services in advance, and the timing of the transfer of those goods or services is at the discretion of the customer.
- A substantial amount of the consideration promised by the customer is variable, and the amount or timing of that consideration varies on the basis of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event that is not substantially within the control of the customer or the entity (for example, if the consideration is a sales-based royalty).
- The difference between the promised consideration and the cash selling price of the good or service (as described in paragraph 606-10-32-16) arises for reasons other than the provision of finance to either the customer or the entity, and the difference between those amounts is proportional to the reason for the difference. For example, the payment terms might provide the entity or the customer with protection from the other party failing to adequately complete some or all of its obligations under the contract.
The boards describe in paragraph BC233 of ASU 2014-09 a number of examples they had in mind when
considering the factors included in ASC 606-10-32-17 (paragraph 62 of IFRS 15):
Connecting the Dots
It is important to note that the examples considered by
the boards in paragraph BC233 of ASU 2014-09 illustrate more instances
in which an advance payment is in return for something other than
financing than instances in which a deferred payment is in return for
something other than financing. We think that this disparity indicates
that the boards thought that there are fewer real-life scenarios in
which an entity would allow for a deferred payment from a customer for
reasons other than to provide the customer with the benefits of
financing. Accordingly, we think that it would generally be easier to
align the indicators in ASC 606-10-32-17 with a contract that contains
an advance payment and harder to align the indicators with a contract
that contains a deferred payment. This understanding is consistent with
discussions by TRG members as outlined in TRG Agenda Paper 34, which states, “TRG members
discussed the factor in paragraph 606-10-32-17(c) [62(c)] relating to
whether the difference in promised consideration and cash selling price
is for a reason other than financing, noting that it might be more
likely that an advance payment would meet that factor compared to
payments in arrears.”
6.4.3.1 Difference Between Consideration and Cash Selling Price That Arises for Reasons Other Than Financing
A difference in timing between the transfer of goods or
services and the payment of consideration does not create a presumption that
a significant financing component exists, even if there is a difference
between the consideration and the cash selling price. ASC 606-10-32-17(c)
states that a contract would not have a significant financing component if
the difference between the promised consideration and the cash selling price
of the goods or services “arises for reasons other than the provision of
finance to either the customer or the entity, and the difference between
those amounts is proportional to the reason for the difference.”
An entity should use judgment to determine (1) whether the
payment terms are intended to provide financing or are for another valid
reason and (2) whether the difference between the promised consideration and
the cash selling price of the goods or services is proportional to that
reason.
The above issue is addressed in Implementation Q&A 31 (compiled from previously
issued TRG Agenda Papers 20, 25, 30, and 34). For additional information and Deloitte’s summary
of issues discussed in the Implementation Q&As, see Appendix C.
6.4.3.1.1 SEC Staff Observations Regarding Significant Financing Components
In a speech at the 2018 AICPA Conference on Current SEC
and PCAOB Developments, Sarah Esquivel, associate chief accountant in
the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA), made the following
observations about an SEC registrant’s consultation with the OCA on
evaluating the existence of a significant financing component, in which
the registrant concluded that there was no significant financing
component in the arrangement:
In this consultation,
the registrant was a retailer looking to expand a non-core existing
line of business. To achieve this, the registrant entered into an
arrangement with a third party to operate the non-core existing line
of business, so that the registrant could maintain focus on its core
operations. The registrant determined that the arrangement contained
a symbolic license of intellectual property (IP), requiring revenue
to be recognized over time, as the arrangement provided the third
party with the right to access the registrant’s trademarks and
brand. As part of the consideration exchanged in the transaction,
the registrant received a large up-front payment. As a result of the
timing difference between the up-front payment and the transfer of
the symbolic IP license over time, the registrant considered whether
there was a significant financing component in the contract.
The registrant’s analysis focused on consideration
of the guidance in Topic 606 that indicates a contract would not
have a significant financing component if the difference between the
promised consideration and the cash selling price arises for reasons
other than the provision of finance, and the difference between
those amounts is proportional to the reason for the difference. In
this consultation, the registrant asserted that it did not
contemplate a financing arrangement with the third party when
including a large up-front payment in the contract. Instead, the
large up-front payment was to provide the registrant protection from
the possibility that the third party could fail to adequately
complete some or all of its obligations under the contract. The
registrant concluded that the difference between the promised
consideration and the cash selling price arose for reasons other
than financing and that the difference between the up-front payment
and what the customer would have paid, had the payments been made
over the term of the arrangement, was proportional to the reason
identified for the difference. In reaching this conclusion, the
registrant considered the following:
-
A large up-front payment was critical in this arrangement to incentivize the third party to maximize value, and therefore profits to both parties, due in part to the registrant’s negative experience with other third parties where there was no up-front payment;
-
By the third party having sufficient “skin in the game” through the large up-front payment, it would mitigate some of the risk associated with third-party use of the registrant’s brand;
-
As evidenced by its strong operating results, the registrant believed that it would be able to obtain financing at favorable rates in the market place, if needed, and thus did not need the cash from the large up-front payment to finance its operations; and
-
Consideration was not given to structuring the transaction without a large up-front payment.
For these reasons, the registrant
concluded that the contract did not have a significant financing
component as the up-front payment was for reasons other than to
provide a significant financing benefit. Like other Topic 606
revenue consultations that OCA has evaluated, this was a facts and
circumstances evaluation, and in this fact pattern, the staff did
not object to the registrant’s conclusion that the contract did not
have a significant financing component based on the nature of the
transaction and purpose of the up-front payment. [Footnotes
omitted]
6.4.3.1.2 Codification Examples
The Codification examples below illustrate situations in
which withheld payments or an advance payment would not indicate the
existence of a significant financing component.
ASC 606-10
Example 27 — Withheld Payments
on a Long-Term Contract
55-233 An entity enters into
a contract for the construction of a building that
includes scheduled milestone payments for the
performance by the entity throughout the contract
term of three years. The performance obligation
will be satisfied over time, and the milestone
payments are scheduled to coincide with the
entity’s expected performance. The contract
provides that a specified percentage of each
milestone payment is to be withheld (that is,
retained) by the customer throughout the
arrangement and paid to the entity only when the
building is complete.
55-234 The entity concludes
that the contract does not include a significant
financing component. The milestone payments
coincide with the entity’s performance, and the
contract requires amounts to be retained for
reasons other than the provision of finance in
accordance with paragraph 606-10-32-17(c). The
withholding of a specified percentage of each
milestone payment is intended to protect the
customer from the contractor failing to adequately
complete its obligations under the contract.
Example 30 — Advance Payment
55-244 An entity, a
technology product manufacturer, enters into a
contract with a customer to provide global
telephone technology support and repair coverage
for three years along with its technology product.
The customer purchases this support service at the
time of buying the product. Consideration for the
service is an additional $300. Customers electing
to buy this service must pay for it upfront (that
is, a monthly payment option is not
available).
55-245 To determine whether
there is a significant financing component in the
contract, the entity considers the nature of the
service being offered and the purpose of the
payment terms. The entity charges a single upfront
amount, not with the primary purpose of obtaining
financing from the customer but, instead, to
maximize profitability, taking into consideration
the risks associated with providing the service.
Specifically, if customers could pay monthly, they
would be less likely to renew, and the population
of customers that continue to use the support
service in the later years may become smaller and
less diverse over time (that is, customers that
choose to renew historically are those that make
greater use of the service, thereby increasing the
entity’s costs). In addition, customers tend to
use services more if they pay monthly rather than
making an upfront payment. Finally, the entity
would incur higher administration costs such as
the costs related to administering renewals and
collection of monthly payments.
55-246 In assessing the
guidance in paragraph 606-10-32-17(c), the entity
determines that the payment terms were structured
primarily for reasons other than the provision of
finance to the entity. The entity charges a single
upfront amount for the services because other
payment terms (such as a monthly payment plan)
would affect the nature of the risks assumed by
the entity to provide the service and may make it
uneconomical to provide the service. As a result
of its analysis, the entity concludes that there
is not a significant financing component.
6.4.3.2 Accounting for Financing Components That Are Not Significant
When an entity concludes on the basis of ASC 606-10-32-16
and 32-17 that a significant financing component exists, the entity is
required under ASC 606-10-32-15 to adjust the promised consideration for the
effects of the time value of money in its determination of the transaction
price. However, while there is no requirement for an entity to adjust for
the time value of money when a financing component exists but is not
significant, an entity is not precluded from doing so in such
circumstances.
The above issue is addressed in Implementation Q&A 33 (compiled from previously
issued TRG Agenda Papers 30 and 34). For additional information and Deloitte’s summary
of issues discussed in the Implementation Q&As, see Appendix C.
6.4.4 Determining the Discount Rate
In paragraph BC238 of ASU 2014-09, the FASB and IASB discuss an example in which an entity is
receiving financing from a customer through an advance payment instead of obtaining that financing
from a third party (e.g., a bank). The entity needs to obtain financing before it can perform its obligations
under the contract with its customer. The boards note in discussing this example that the resulting
financial reporting for the entity’s revenue in the contract with the customer should not differ depending
on the source of the financing. The same can be said of the intent of the boards’ guidance in ASC
606-10-32-19 (paragraph 64 of IFRS 15) for determining the discount rate an entity should use to
measure the significant financing component and adjust the promised consideration in the contract to
the cash selling price.
ASC 606-10
32-19 To meet the objective
in paragraph 606-10-32-16 when adjusting the promised
amount of consideration for a significant financing
component, an entity shall use the discount rate that
would be reflected in a separate financing transaction
between the entity and its customer at contract
inception. That rate would reflect the credit
characteristics of the party receiving financing in the
contract, as well as any collateral or security provided
by the customer or the entity, including assets
transferred in the contract. An entity may be able to
determine that rate by identifying the rate that
discounts the nominal amount of the promised
consideration to the price that the customer would pay
in cash for the goods or services when (or as) they
transfer to the customer. After contract inception, an
entity shall not update the discount rate for changes in
interest rates or other circumstances (such as a change
in the assessment of the customer’s credit risk).
In their deliberations, the boards considered requiring the use of either a
risk-free rate or the rate explicitly specified in the contract with the
customer. However, as noted in paragraph BC239 of ASU 2014-09, the boards
reasoned that neither alternative would reflect the economics of the financing
provided or the appropriate profit margin built into the contract (e.g., the
entity could specify a “cheap” financing rate as a marketing incentive, which
would be inappropriate for the entity to use in determining the transaction
price). Consequently, as indicated in ASC 606-10-32-19 (paragraph 64 of IFRS
15), the boards decided that an entity should “use the discount rate that would
be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its
customer.”
Because of the practical expedient in ASC 606-10-32-18 (paragraph 63 of IFRS 15) and the indicators
of when a significant benefit of financing is not being provided to a party in the contract, the
boards reason in paragraph BC241 of ASU 2014-09 that “in those remaining contracts in which an entity
is required to account separately for the financing component, the entity and its customer will typically
negotiate the contractual payment terms separately.” That is, in many circumstances in which there is an
identified significant financing component that affects the transaction price, the entity will have access in
the negotiation process to information about the discount rate implied in the arrangement.
The Codification examples below illustrate how an entity would determine the
discount rate when adjusting the amount of consideration received in a
significant financing arrangement.
ASC 606-10
Example 28 — Determining the Discount Rate
55-235 An entity enters into
a contract with a customer to sell equipment. Control of
the equipment transfers to the customer when the
contract is signed. The price stated in the contract is
$1 million plus a 5 percent contractual rate of
interest, payable in 60 monthly installments of
$18,871.
Case A — Contractual Discount Rate Reflects the Rate in a Separate Financing
Transaction
55-236 In evaluating the discount rate in the contract that contains a significant financing component, the
entity observes that the 5 percent contractual rate of interest reflects the rate that would be used in a separate
financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception (that is, the contractual rate of
interest of 5 percent reflects the credit characteristics of the customer).
55-237 The market terms of
the financing mean that the cash selling price of the
equipment is $1 million. This amount is recognized as
revenue and as a loan receivable when control of the
equipment transfers to the customer. The entity accounts
for the receivable in accordance with Topic 310 on
receivables, Subtopic 326-20 on financial instruments
measured at amortized cost, and Subtopic 835-30 on the
imputation of interest.
Case B — Contractual Discount Rate Does Not Reflect the Rate in a Separate
Financing Transaction
55-238 In evaluating the discount rate in the contract that contains a significant financing component, the
entity observes that the 5 percent contractual rate of interest is significantly lower than the 12 percent interest
rate that would be used in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract
inception (that is, the contractual rate of interest of 5 percent does not reflect the credit characteristics of the
customer). This suggests that the cash selling price is less than $1 million.
55-239 In accordance with
paragraph 606-10-32-19, the entity determines the
transaction price by adjusting the promised amount of
consideration to reflect the contractual payments using
the 12 percent interest rate that reflects the credit
characteristics of the customer. Consequently, the
entity determines that the transaction price is $848,357
(60 monthly payments of $18,871 discounted at 12
percent). The entity recognizes revenue and a loan
receivable for that amount. The entity accounts for the
loan receivable in accordance with Subtopic 310-10 on
receivables, Subtopic 326-20 on financial instruments
measured at amortized cost, and Subtopic 835-30 on the
imputation of interest.
Example 29 — Advance Payment and Assessment of Discount Rate
55-240 An entity enters into a contract with a customer to sell an asset. Control of the asset will transfer to
the customer in two years (that is, the performance obligation will be satisfied at a point in time). The contract
includes 2 alternative payment options: payment of $5,000 in 2 years when the customer obtains control of the
asset or payment of $4,000 when the contract is signed. The customer elects to pay $4,000 when the contract
is signed.
55-241 The entity concludes that the contract contains a significant financing component because of the
length of time between when the customer pays for the asset and when the entity transfers the asset to the
customer, as well as the prevailing interest rates in the market.
55-242 The interest rate implicit in the transaction is 11.8 percent, which is the interest rate necessary to make
the 2 alternative payment options economically equivalent. However, the entity determines that, in accordance
with paragraph 606-10-32-19, the rate that should be used in adjusting the promised consideration is
6 percent, which is the entity’s incremental borrowing rate.
55-243 The following journal entries illustrate how the entity would account for the significant financing
component.
- Recognize a contract liability for the $4,000 payment received at contract
inception.
- During the 2 years from contract inception until the transfer of the asset, the
entity adjusts the promised amount of
consideration (in accordance with paragraph
606-10-32-20) and accretes the contract liability
by recognizing interest on $4,000 at 6 percent for
2 years.
- Recognize revenue for the transfer of the asset.
6.4.4.1 Determining the Appropriate Discount Rate on an Individual Contract Basis
If an entity gives its customers a significant benefit of
financing, it should adjust the transaction price and corresponding amount
of revenue recognized for the sale to take into account the effects of the
time value of money. If the entity does not intend to apply a portfolio
approach in determining the effects of this financing benefit, it should use
the discount rate that would be reflected in a separate financing
transaction between itself and its customer at contract inception in
accordance with ASC 606-10-32-19. The way in which the entity identifies
this rate will depend on the type of information to which it has access for
individual customers.
In determining an appropriate discount rate, an entity may
find it useful to consider the following:
-
The normal rate at which the entity would provide secured or unsecured lending (whichever is appropriate) to its customer (e.g., any interest rate that would be normal for the entity to offer the customer).
-
The normal rate at which other entities would provide secured or unsecured lending (whichever is appropriate) to the customer (e.g., the rate charged to the customer for bank loans). Note, however, that ASC 606-10-32-19 requires a rate specific to a financing transaction between the entity and its customer.
-
The cash sales price offered for the good or service to customers with similar demographic characteristics.
-
Any interest rate explicitly stated in the contract with the customer. However, this will not always be an appropriate rate (e.g., when a customer is offered interest-free credit or when a low interest rate is used to incentivize the customer).
-
The level of certainty regarding the customer’s credit characteristics that the entity obtains as a result of its due diligence processes (e.g., obtaining credit ratings).
-
Historical evidence of any defaults or slow payment by the customer.
Appropriate adjustments should be made to rates associated
with any of these factors when they are not directly comparable to those of
the transaction being considered.
6.4.4.2 Determining the Appropriate Discount Rate Under a Portfolio Approach
In accordance with ASC 606-10-32-15, if an entity determines
that the contract terms give customers a significant benefit of financing
the purchase of the entity’s products, the entity should adjust the
transaction price and corresponding amount of revenue recognized for the
sale of the goods to take into account the effects of the time value of
money.
Further, if the entity has a large number of similar
contracts with similar payment terms and reasonably expects that the
financial statement effects of calculating a discount rate that applies to
the portfolio of contracts would not differ materially from the discount
rates that would apply to individual contracts, it may apply a portfolio
approach in accordance with ASC 606-10-10-4. See Section 3.1.2.2.1 for guidance on how to decide whether an
entity may use a portfolio approach when applying ASC 606.
In applying a portfolio approach, the entity will need to consider the
demographic characteristics of the customers as a group to estimate the
discount rate on a portfolio basis. If the demographic characteristics of
customers within this group vary significantly, it may not be appropriate to
treat them as a single portfolio. Rather, it may be necessary for the entity
to further subdivide the customer group when determining the appropriate
discount rate.
6.4.5 Measuring the Amount of Revenue When a Transaction Includes a Significant Financing Component Related to Deferred Payments
When a significant financing component is identified, ASC 606-10-32-15 requires
an entity to “adjust the promised amount of consideration for the effects of the
time value of money.”
ASC 606-10-32-16 states, in part:
The
objective when adjusting the promised amount of consideration for a
significant financing component is for an entity to recognize revenue at an
amount that reflects the price that a customer would have paid for the
promised goods or services if the customer had paid cash for those goods or
services when (or as) they transfer to the customer (that is, the cash
selling price).
However, ASC 606-10-32-19 states, in part:
To meet the objective in paragraph 606-10-32-16 when adjusting the promised
amount of consideration for a significant financing component, an entity
shall use the discount rate that would be reflected in a separate financing
transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception. That
rate would reflect the credit characteristics of the party receiving
financing in the contract, as well as any collateral or security provided by
the customer or the entity, including assets transferred in the
contract.
ASC 606-10-32-19 also notes that “[a]n entity may be able to determine that rate by identifying the
rate that discounts the nominal amount of the promised consideration to the
price that the customer would pay in cash for the goods or services when (or as)
they transfer to the customer” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, although the objective described in ASC
606-10-32-16 is to determine the “cash selling price,” ASC 606-10-32-19 makes
clear that such price is required to be consistent with the price that would be
determined by using an appropriate discount rate to discount the promised
consideration.
Therefore, in practice, the entity may make an initial estimate
of the amount of revenue either (1) by determining the appropriate discount rate
and using that rate to discount the promised amount of consideration or (2) by
estimating the cash selling price directly — but only if the discount rate
thereby implied is consistent with a rate that would be reflected in a separate
financing transaction between the entity and its customer.
Regardless of the approach it adopts, the entity may need to
perform further analysis if the amounts estimated appear unreasonable or
inconsistent with other evidence related to the transaction. For example:
-
If the entity estimates revenue by discounting the promised consideration, it may be required to perform further analysis if that estimate appears unreasonable and inconsistent with other evidence of the cash selling price. For example, if the amount of revenue estimated appears significantly higher than the normal cash selling price, this may indicate that the discount rate has not been determined on an appropriate basis.
-
If the entity estimates revenue by estimating the cash selling price directly, it may be required to perform further analysis if the resulting discount rate appears unreasonable and inconsistent with other evidence of the rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer. If the rate is clearly significantly lower or higher than would be reflected in a separate financing transaction, it will not be appropriate to measure revenue by reference to the cash selling price; instead, the entity should estimate revenue by discounting the promised consideration at an appropriately estimated discount rate.
The example below illustrates how an entity would (1) estimate
revenue by discounting promised consideration and subsequently recognize the
associated financing component and (2) determine and subsequently recognize the
financing component when revenue is estimated on the basis of the cash selling
price.
Example 6-13
On January 1, 20X1, Entity B sells an
item of equipment for $100,000 under a financing
agreement that has no stated interest rate. On the date
of sale, B transfers control of the equipment to the
customer, and B concludes that the contract meets the
criteria in ASC 606-10-25-1, including the
collectibility criterion. The first annual installment
of $20,000 is due on December 31, 20X1, one year from
the date of sale, and each subsequent year for five
years. The policy of not charging interest is consistent
with normal industry practice. Entity B has separately
determined that the transaction includes a significant
financing component.
Case A —
Discounting on the Basis of Interest
Rate
To estimate the transaction price by
discounting the future receipts, B uses a “rate that
would be reflected in a separate financing transaction
between [Entity B] and its customer at contract
inception.” Entity B determines that the appropriate
annual rate is 10 percent. Assume that the receivable
arising from the transaction is measured at amortized
cost after initial recognition.
Step A — Calculate the Net Present Value
of the Stream of Payments
If there is no down payment and there
are five annual installments of $20,000 with an interest
rate of 10 percent, the net present value of the stream
of payments forming the consideration is $75,816.
Therefore, upon transfer of control of
the equipment, $75,816 is recognized as revenue from the
sale of goods, and the related receivable is
recognized.
Step B — Calculate the Amount of
Interest Earned in Each Period
The difference between $100,000 and
$75,816 (i.e., $24,184) will be recognized as interest
income as it becomes due each year, as calculated
below.
Step C — Record Journal Entries
On the date of sale, control of the
equipment transfers to the customer and B records the
following journal entry:
To record the first annual payment due
one year from the date of purchase:
As of each subsequent year-end, B should
record the same journal entry by using the amounts from
the table above.
Note that this example does not take
into account any impairment assessment that would be
required in accordance with ASC 326.
Case B —
Discounting to Current Cash Sales
Price
If the buyer had paid in full for the
equipment at the point of transfer, B estimates that the
cash selling price would have been $76,000.
Assume that the receivable arising from
the transaction is measured at amortized cost after
initial recognition.
Step A — Determine the Discount Rate for
the Customer
ASC 606-10-32-19 indicates that a
selling entity may be able to determine the discount
rate to be used to adjust the transaction price “by
identifying the rate that discounts the nominal amount
of the promised consideration to the price that the
customer would pay in cash for the goods or services
when (or as) they transfer to the customer.” Therefore,
Entity B determines the interest rate that discounts
$100,000 to $76,000 (i.e., the cash selling price) over
a five-year period, given no down payment and five
annual installments of $20,000. This interest rate is
approximately 9.905 percent per annum, which is judged
to be consistent with a rate that would be reflected in
a separate financing transaction between B and its
customer. Upon transfer of the equipment, $76,000 is
recognized as revenue from the sale of goods, and the
related receivable is recognized.
Step B — Calculate the Amount of
Interest Earned in Each Period
The difference between $100,000 and
$76,000 (i.e., $24,000) will be recognized as interest
income as it becomes due each year, as calculated
below.
Step C — Record Journal Entries
On the purchase date, control of the
equipment transfers to the customer, and B records the
following journal entry:
Entity B records the following journal
entry to reflect the first annual payment due one year
from the date of purchase:
As of each subsequent year-end, B should
record the same journal entry by using the amounts from
the table above.
Note that this example does not take
into account any impairment assessment that would be
required in accordance with ASC 326.
6.4.6 Measuring the Amount of Revenue When a Transaction Includes a Significant Financing Component Related to an Advance Payment
The example below illustrates how an entity should account for
an advance payment that represents a significant financing component.
Example 6-14
Entity A, a home builder, is selling
apartment units in a new building for which construction
has not yet commenced. The estimated time to complete
construction is 18 months. Entity A has concluded that
its performance obligation (i.e., delivery of the
apartment) will be satisfied upon completion of
construction (i.e., at a point in time), which is also
when title and possession are passed to the customer.
The cash sales price upon completion of construction is
$500,000. Customers are offered a discount of $75,000 on
the cash sales price if they pay in full in advance;
therefore, the price for customers paying in advance is
$425,000.
Entity A has concluded after analysis of
the contract that the advance payment represents a
significant financing component; that is, its customers
are providing financing to pay for construction costs.
On the basis of interest rates in the market, A has
concluded that an annual rate of approximately 10
percent reflects the rate at which A and its customer
would have entered into a separate financing
transaction. Consequently, A imputes a discount rate of
approximately 10 percent to discount the cash sales
price (i.e., $500,000) to the “advance” sales price
(i.e., $425,000).
When an advance cash payment is received
from a customer, A recognizes a contract liability of
$425,000. Subsequently, A accrues interest on the
liability balance to accrete the balance to $500,000
over the 18-month period in which A expects to complete
construction and satisfy its performance obligation.
Entity A capitalizes into inventory the interest in
accordance with ASC 835-20 (i.e., interest expense is
not recognized). When control of the apartment transfers
to the customer, A recognizes $500,000 as revenue (and
recognizes the related inventory balance as cost of
goods sold). Essentially, the transaction price is
increased by the amount of interest recognized over the
18-month period. As a result, revenue is recognized in
an amount greater than the amount of initial cash
collected.
The following journal entries illustrate
how A should account for the significant financing
component:
Step 1
Journal Entry: At
contract inception
Step 2
Journal Entry:
Over 18 months from contract inception to transfer
of asset
Step 3
Journal Entry: On
transfer of control of the asset
6.4.7 Presenting the Effects of Financing
ASC 606-10
32-20 An entity shall present
the effects of financing (interest income or interest
expense) separately from revenue from contracts with
customers in the statement of comprehensive income
(statement of activities). Interest income or interest
expense is recognized only to the extent that a contract
asset (or receivable) or a contract liability is
recognized in accounting for a contract with a customer.
In accounting for the effects of the time value of
money, an entity also shall consider the subsequent
measurement guidance in Subtopic 835-30, specifically
the guidance in paragraphs 835-30-45-1A through 45-3 on
presentation of the discount and premium in the
financial statements and the guidance in paragraphs
835-30-55-2 through 55-3 on the application of the
interest method.
In paragraph BC244 of ASU 2014-09, the FASB and IASB note that the presentation
of a significant financing component in the financial statements should not be
any different from the presentation that would have resulted if the party
receiving the financing in the arrangement had instead obtained financing from a
third-party source (e.g., if instead of obtaining the financing from the entity,
the customer had obtained financing from the bank and purchased the good or
service from the entity at the cash selling price). Accordingly, as a result of
the presentation requirements in ASC 606-10-32-20, economically similar
transactions are reflected similarly in the financial statements.
Interest income arising from a significant financing component should be
presented separately from revenue from contracts with customers in an entity’s
statement of comprehensive income in accordance with ASC 606-10-32-20. However,
this requirement to separately present interest income does not necessarily
prevent interest income from being presented as revenue on the face of the
statement of comprehensive income. For more information about whether it is
appropriate to classify interest income as revenue, see Section 14.7.3.
Example 26 in ASC 606, which is reproduced below, illustrates (1) the
presentation of the effects of financing in a contract with a customer that also
contains a right of return and (2) the concept in the second sentence of ASC
606-10-32-20 that a significant financing component affects profit and loss at
the time the contract asset (receivable) or liability is recognized rather than
at contract inception.
ASC 606-10
Example 26 — Significant Financing Component and Right of Return
55-227 An entity sells a product to a customer for $121 that is payable 24 months after delivery. The customer
obtains control of the product at contract inception. The contract permits the customer to return the product
within 90 days. The product is new, and the entity has no relevant historical evidence of product returns or
other available market evidence.
55-228 The cash selling price of the product is $100, which represents the amount that the customer would
pay upon delivery for the same product sold under otherwise identical terms and conditions as at contract
inception. The entity’s cost of the product is $80.
55-229 The entity does not
recognize revenue when control of the product transfers
to the customer. This is because the existence of the
right of return and the lack of relevant historical
evidence means that the entity cannot conclude that it
is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of
cumulative revenue recognized will not occur in
accordance with paragraphs 606-10-32-11 through 32-13.
Consequently, revenue is recognized after three months
when the right of return lapses.
55-230 The contract includes a significant financing component, in accordance with paragraphs 606-10-32-15
through 32-17. This is evident from the difference between the amount of promised consideration of $121 and
the cash selling price of $100 at the date that the goods are transferred to the customer.
55-231 The contract includes
an implicit interest rate of 10 percent (that is, the
interest rate that over 24 months discounts the promised
consideration of $121 to the cash selling price of
$100). The entity evaluates the rate and concludes that
it is commensurate with the rate that would be reflected
in a separate financing transaction between the entity
and its customer at contract inception. The following
journal entries illustrate how the entity accounts for
this contract in accordance with paragraphs 606-10-55-22
through 55-29:
- When the product is transferred
to the customer, in accordance with paragraph
606-10-55-23.
- During the three-month right of return period, no interest is recognized in accordance with paragraph 606-10-32-20 because no contract asset or receivable has been recognized.
- When the right of return lapses
(the product is not returned).
55-232 Until the entity receives the cash payment from the customer, interest income would be recognized
consistently with the subsequent measurement guidance in Subtopic 835-30 on imputation of interest. The
entity would accrete the receivable up to $121 from the time the right of return lapses until customer payment.
6.4.8 Reassessment of Significant Financing Component
ASC 606-10-32-19 (reproduced in Section 6.4.4) states, in part, that “[a]fter contract inception, an
entity shall not update the discount rate for changes in interest rates or other
circumstances (such as a change in the assessment of the customer’s credit
risk).” An entity is thus not required to update the discount rate used to
measure a significant financing component as it would otherwise be required to
reassess and remeasure, for example, variable consideration (see Section 6.3.6). Paragraph
BC243 of ASU 2014-09 indicates that as much as for any other reason, the FASB
and IASB deemed reassessment of the discount rate inappropriate because of the
impracticality of updating it in each subsequent reporting period for changes in
facts and circumstances.
Connecting the Dots
The boards’ decision with respect to reassessing the discount rate reflects a
conscious and substantial form of relief to preparers. In a manner
consistent with the boards’ decision to establish stand-alone selling
prices in step 4 as of contract inception (see Chapter 7), the boards decided that
the determination of the discount rate and stand-alone selling prices
should not be adjusted even if facts and circumstances change over the
course of the entity’s performance under the contract (e.g., when, over
the term of a 5- or 10-year contract, it is likely that the discount
rate or the stand-alone selling prices of individual goods or services
will economically shift). This relief may pose challenges when the
timing of delivery of the goods and services shifts after contract
inception. The complexity is exacerbated when variable consideration is
reassessed and the reassessment results in an updated estimate that
needs to be reallocated to individual performance obligations. Unlike
the static discount rate and stand-alone selling price estimates,
estimates of variable consideration need to be reassessed and updated as
uncertainties become known. In addition, the timing of delivery of goods
and services may change from estimates made at contract inception and
directly contributes to when revenue and the impact of financing are
recognized. As a result, when a contract includes multiple performance
obligations that are expected to be satisfied over a longer period and
also contains a significant financing component and variable
consideration, the recognition of revenue for those separate performance
obligations may become complex and challenging.