Accounting Roundup
Welcome to the January 2017 edition of Accounting Roundup. Highlights of this issue include
the following:
- The FASB’s issuance of (1) ASUs that clarify the definition of a business, amend the consolidation guidance for not-for-profit entities, simplify the goodwill impairment test, make technical corrections to the new revenue standard, and amend certain SEC guidance and (2) proposed ASUs that would simplify the balance sheet classification of debt and update the inventory disclosure requirements.
- The release of FAQs on the FASB’s credit losses standard, ASU 2016-13, by several banking agencies.
- Public statements by the SEC’s acting chairman, Michael Piwowar, regarding the Commission’s 2014 guidance on its August 2012 final rule on conflict minerals.
Be sure to monitor upcoming issues of Accounting Roundup for new developments. We value
your feedback and would appreciate any comments you may have on this publication. Take a
moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail at accountingstandards@deloitte.com.
Leadership Changes
FAF: On December 22, 2016, the FAF announced that Susan J. Carter, Anthony J. Dowd, and
T. Eloise Foster have been appointed to the FAF board of trustees. In addition, the trustees
announced that Gary H. Bruebaker has been appointed as vice-chairman. The new board
members and vice-chairman began their terms on January 1, 2017.
IASB: On January 11, 2017, the IFRS Foundation trustees announced that Tom Scott has been
appointed as a member of the IASB for a five-year term beginning in April 2017.
PCAOB: On December 23, 2016, the PCAOB announced that Jay D. Hanson has resigned as a
board member.
SEC: On January 4, 2017, Donald Trump announced that he has nominated Jay Clayton as SEC
chairman. Mr. Clayton would replace Mary Jo White, who left the SEC at the end of the Obama
Administration. Mr. Clayton’s appointment is contingent on a Senate confirmation vote. To fill
the vacancy, Michael S. Piwowar was appointed as acting SEC chairman on January 23, 2017.
Dbriefs for Financial Executives
We invite you to participate in Dbriefs, Deloitte’s webcast series that provides valuable insights
on important developments affecting your business. Gain access to innovative ideas and
critical information during these webcasts.
Dbriefs also provides a convenient and flexible way to earn CPE credit — right at your desk.
Subscribe to Dbriefs to receive notifications about future webcasts.
For more information, please see our complete Dbriefs program guide or click a link below for
more information about any of these upcoming Dbriefs webcasts (all webcasts begin at 2:00
p.m. (EST) unless otherwise noted):
- Thursday, February 9: Becoming Board-Ready: Lessons Learned for Potential Board Candidates.
- Wednesday, February 15, 3:00 p.m. (EST): The Talent Crunch in Finance: Bridging the Digital Divide.
- Wednesday, February 22: M&A Due Diligence: The Transformative Role of Data Analytics.
Don’t miss out — register for these webcasts today.
Featured Publications
Deloitte recently issued the following updated publications:
- Insurance — Accounting and Financial Reporting Update — Highlights selected accounting and reporting developments that may be of interest to insurance entities. Among other topics, the publication discusses (1) proposed improvements to the accounting for long-duration insurance contracts; (2) the new guidance on short-duration insurance contract disclosures; and (3) the SEC’s continued focus on rulemaking, particularly in connection with its efforts to complete mandated actions under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
- Investment Management — Accounting and Financial Reporting Update — Highlights selected accounting and reporting developments that may be of interest to investment management entities. Among other topics, the publication discusses (1) the issuance of refinements to the new guidance on recognition of revenue from contracts with customers; (2) the issuance of new guidance on classification and measurement of financial instruments; and (3) the SEC’s continued focus on rulemaking, particularly in connection with its efforts related to investment-company report modernization, liquidity risk management, and swing pricing.
- Power and Utilities — Accounting, Financial Reporting, and Tax Update — Discusses accounting, tax, and regulatory matters that are of interest to P&U entities, including updates to SEC, FASB, and tax guidance, and focuses on specialized industry accounting topics that frequently affect P&U companies, including rateregulated entities. Several sections of the publication have been expanded this year to concentrate on accounting and reporting considerations related to the new leases and new revenue standards, including specific industry matters that remain outstanding with the AICPA’s Power and Utility Entities Revenue Recognition Task Force.
Other Deloitte Publications
Publication | Title | Affects |
|---|---|---|
February 1, 2017, Heads Up | FASB Eliminates Step 2 From the Goodwill
Impairment Test | All entities. |
January 30, 2017, Heads Up | FASB Amends the Consolidation Guidance for
Not-for-Profit Entities | Not-for-profit
entities. |
January 27, 2017, Retail &
Distribution Spotlight | Leases Refashioned | Retail and
distribution
entities. |
January 24, 2017, Financial
Reporting Alert | Variation Margin on Derivatives | All entities. |
January 13, 2017, Heads Up | FASB Clarifies the Definition of a Business | All entities. |
January 12, 2017, Heads Up | FASB Proposes Updates to Inventory Disclosures | All entities. |
January 12, 2017, Heads Up | FASB Proposes Changes to Simplify the Balance
Sheet Classification of Debt | All entities. |
Accounting — New Standards and Exposure Drafts
Business Combinations
FASB Clarifies the Definition of a Business
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On January 5, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01 to clarify the definition of a business in ASC 805, which was among the primary issues raised in connection with the FAF’s post-implementation review report on FASB (codified in ASC 805). The amendments in the ASU are intended to make application of the guidance more consistent and cost-efficient.
Editor’s Note
The definition of a business in ASC 805 also affects other aspects of accounting, such
as disposal transactions, determining reporting units when goodwill is tested for
recoverability, and the business scope exception in ASC 810.
The ASU’s Basis for Conclusions indicates that the amendments “narrow the definition of a
business and provide a framework that gives entities a basis for making reasonable judgments
about whether a transaction involves an asset or a business.” Specifically, the ASU:
- Provides a “screen” for determining when a set is not a business. The screen requires a determination that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. The screen will reduce the number of transactions that an entity must further evaluate to determine whether they are business combinations or asset acquisitions.
- Specifies that if the screen’s threshold is not met, a set cannot be considered a business unless it includes an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. The ASU provides a framework to help entities evaluate whether both an input and a substantive process are present, and it removes the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace the missing elements.
- Narrows the definition of the term “output” to be consistent with the description of outputs in ASC 606.
The standard also provides examples that illustrate how an entity should apply the
amendments in determining whether a set is a business.
Editor’s Note
The definition of a business for SEC reporting purposes in Regulation S-X, Rule
11-01(d), and used by registrants to determine when financial statements and pro
forma information are needed in SEC filings is different from the definition for U.S.
GAAP accounting purposes. The SEC has not changed this definition as a result of
the ASU’s amendments.
The definition of a business in ASC 805 is currently identical to that in IFRS 3.
Nevertheless, the interpretation and application of this term in jurisdictions that
apply U.S. GAAP do not appear consistent with those in jurisdictions that apply
IFRSs (i.e., the definition of a business in IFRS jurisdictions is not applied as broadly).
Although the ASU adds implementation guidance to U.S. GAAP that is not found
in IFRSs, the FASB intends to more closely align practice under U.S. GAAP with that
under IFRSs by narrowing the application of the U.S. GAAP definition. Further, the
IASB has added to its agenda a project on the definition of a business and issued an
ED that proposes amendments similar to those in the ASU.
Next Steps: The ASU is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning
after December 15, 2017, including interim periods therein. For all other entities, the ASU is
effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within
annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019. The ASU must be applied prospectively
on or after the effective date, and no disclosures for a change in accounting principle are
required at transition.
Early adoption is permitted for transactions (i.e., acquisitions or dispositions) that occurred
before the issuance date or effective date of the standard if the transactions were not
reported in financial statements that have been issued or made available for issuance.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s January 13, 2017, Heads Up. Also see the press release and FASB
in Focus newsletter on the FASB’s Web site.
Consolidation
FASB Amends Consolidation Guidance for Not-for-Profit Entities
Affects: Not-for-profit entities (NFPs).
Summary: On January 12, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-02, which amends the
consolidation guidance for not-for-profit entities in ASC 958-810. The amendments:
- Incorporate into ASC 958-810 the superseded consolidation guidance in ASC 810-20.
- Address when an “NFP limited partner should consolidate a for-profit limited partnership.”
Next Steps: The ASU is effective for NFPs for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016,
and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s January 30, 2017, Heads Up.
Debt Classification
FASB Proposes Changes to Simplify the Balance Sheet Classification of Debt
Affects: Entities that present a classified balance sheet.
Summary: On January 10, 2017, the FASB issued a proposed ASU aimed at reducing the cost
and complexity of determining whether debt should be classified as current or noncurrent in
a classified balance sheet. The ASU is being issued in response to feedback from stakeholders
that the existing guidance on the balance sheet classification of debt is unnecessarily complex.
The FASB’s proposed approach would replace the current, fact-specific guidance in ASC
470-10 with a uniform principle under which a debt arrangement would be classified as noncurrent if either (1) the “liability is contractually due to be settled more than one year (or
operating cycle, if longer) after the balance sheet date” or (2) the “entity has a contractual right
to defer settlement of the liability for at least one year (or operating cycle, if longer) after the
balance sheet date.” In addition, the proposed ASU includes application guidance that would
clarify how covenant violations, covenant waivers, post-balance-sheet refinancing transactions,
and subjective acceleration clauses affect debt classification.
Next Steps: Comments on the proposed ASU are due by May 5, 2017.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s January 12, 2017, Heads Up. Also see the press release on the
FASB’s Web site.
Goodwill
FASB Simplifies Goodwill Impairment Test
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On January 26, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, which removes the
requirement to compare the implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of
step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, under the ASU, “an entity should perform
its annual, or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting
unit with its carrying amount [and] should recognize an impairment charge for the amount
by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value; however, the loss
recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit.”
In addition, the ASU:
- Clarifies the requirements for excluding and allocating foreign currency translation adjustments to reporting units in connection with an entity’s testing of reporting units for goodwill impairment.
- Clarifies that “an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable.”
- Makes minor changes to the overview and background sections of certain ASC subtopics and topics as part of the Board’s initiative to unify and improve those sections throughout the Codification.
Editor’s Note
Removing step 2 from the goodwill impairment test under ASC 350 more closely
aligns U.S. GAAP with IFRSs because there is only one step in the goodwill
impairment test under IFRSs. However, the impairment test required under IAS
36 is performed at the cash-generating-unit or group-of cash-generating-units
level rather than the reporting-unit level as required by U.S. GAAP. Further, IAS 36
requires an entity to compare the carrying amount of the cash-generating unit with
its recoverable amount, whereas the ASU requires an entity to compare the carrying
amount of a reporting unit with its fair value.
Next Steps: The ASU is effective prospectively for fiscal years beginning after the following
dates:
- For public business entities that are SEC filers, December 15, 2019.
- For public business entities that are not SEC filers, December 15, 2020.
- For all other entities, including not-for-profit entities, December 15, 2021.
Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on
testing dates after January 1, 2017.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s February 1, 2017, Heads Up.
Inventory
FASB Proposes Updates to Inventory Disclosures
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On January 10, 2017, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that would modify
or eliminate certain disclosure requirements related to inventory and establish new
requirements. The proposal is part of the FASB’s disclosure framework project, which
is intended to help reporting entities improve the effectiveness of financial statement
disclosures by “clearly communicating the information that is most important to users of each
entity’s financial statements.”
Editor’s Note
Also as part of its disclosure framework project, the FASB proposed guidance in July
2016, January 2016, and December 2015 that would amend disclosure requirements
related to income taxes, defined benefit pensions and other postretirement plans,
and fair value measurement. See Deloitte’s December 8, 2015; January 28, 2016;
and July 29, 2016, Heads Up newsletters for more information.
Disclosures required by the ASU would include the following:
- Significant changes in inventory resulting from transactions or events other than the purchase, manufacture, or sale of inventory in the normal course of business.
- The major components of inventory (e.g., raw materials, work in process, finished goods, and supplies).
- Entities that apply the LIFO method would be required to disclose (1) the excess of replacement cost or current cost over the reported inventory amount and (2) the effect on net income of the liquidation of a portion of an entity’s LIFO inventory.
- For each annual period presented, “qualitative and quantitative information about the critical assumptions” used in the portions of inventory measured under the retail inventory method calculation.
- Public business entities would be required to disclose, by reportable segment, (1) total inventory and (2) a disaggregation of inventory by major component (such as raw materials, work in process, finished goods, and supplies).
Next Steps: Comments on the proposed ASU are due by March 13, 2017.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s January 12, 2017, Heads Up. Also see the press release on the
FASB’s Web site.
Revenue Recognition
FASB Makes Technical Corrections and Improvements to New Revenue Standard
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On December 21, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-20, which makes certain
technical corrections (i.e., minor changes and enhancements) to the Board’s new revenue
standard, ASU 2014-09. The amendments were issued in response to feedback received from
several sources, including the TRG for revenue recognition. The amendments clarify, rather
than change, the new revenue standard’s core revenue recognition principles. The technical
corrections affect the following aspects of the new revenue standard:
- Loan guarantee fees.
- Contract costs — impairment testing.
- Contract costs — interaction of impairment testing with guidance in other topics.
- Provisions for losses related to construction-type and production-type contracts.
- Scope of the new revenue standard.
- Disclosure of remaining performance obligations.
- Disclosure of prior-period performance obligations.
- A contract modification example.
- Contract assets versus receivables.
- Refund liabilities.
- Advertising costs.
- Fixed-odds wagering contracts in the casino industry.
- Cost capitalization for advisers to private and public funds.
Next Steps: The effective date and transition requirements in ASU 2016-20 are the same as those in the new revenue standard.
Editor’s Note
In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, which deferred for one year the effective date of the new revenue standard for public and nonpublic entities reporting under U.S. GAAP. For public business entities, as well as certain nonprofit entities and employee benefit plans, the effective date is annual reporting periods, and interim periods therein, beginning after December 15, 2017. The effective date for all other entities is one year later (i.e., December 15, 2018). Early adoption is permitted only as of annual reporting periods, and interim periods therein, beginning after December 15, 2016.
SEC
FASB Amends Certain Topics on the Basis of SEC Staff Announcements
Affects: SEC registrants.
Summary: On January 23, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-03, which amends certain SEC guidance in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification in response to SEC staff announcements made at the September 22, 2016, and November 17, 2016, EITF meetings. The announcements addressed the following topics:
- The “additional qualitative disclosures” that a registrant is expected to provide when it “cannot reasonably estimate the impact” that ASUs 2014-09, 2016-02, and 2016-13 will have in applying the guidance in SAB Topic 11.M (announcement made at the September 22, 2016, EITF meeting).
- Guidance in ASC 323 related to the amendments made by ASU 2014-01 regarding use of the proportional amortization method in accounting for investments in qualified affordable housing projects (announcement made at the November 17, 2016, EITF meeting).
International
IASB Proposes Changes to IFRSs as Part of Annual Improvements Process
Affects: Entities reporting under IFRSs.
Summary: On January 12, 2017, the IASB published an ED that would make minor
amendments to the following three IFRSs as part of its annual improvements process:
- IAS 12 — These amendments would “clarify that an entity should account for all income tax consequences of dividends in the same way, regardless of how the tax arises.”
- IAS 23 — This standard would be amended “to clarify that when a qualifying asset is ready for its intended use or sale, an entity treats any outstanding borrowing made specifically to obtain that qualifying asset as part of the funds that it has borrowed generally.”
- IAS 28 — These amendments would “clarify that an entity is required to apply IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, including its impairment requirements, to long-term interests in an associate or joint venture that, in substance, form part of the net investment in the associate or joint venture but to which the equity method is not applied.”
Next Steps: Comments on the ED are due by April 12, 2017.
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the IASB’s Web site.
Accounting — Other Key Developments
Credit Losses
Banking Agencies Release FAQs on FASB’s Credit Losses Standard
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On December 19, 2016, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC released a
series of FAQs on the FASB’s new credit losses standard, ASU 2016-13, which was released in
June 2016. Topics addressed in the FAQs include:
- Key provisions of the ASU, including those related to scope, effective date and transition, and measurement approaches.
- Aspects of U.S. GAAP that the ASU will change, including those related to purchased credit-deteriorated financial assets, available-for-sale and held-to-maturity debt securities, troubled debt restructurings, and off-balance-sheet credit exposures.
- “[I]nitial supervisory views with respect to measurement methods, portfolio segmentation, use of vendors, scalability, data needs, and allowance processes.”
- “[C]ertain steps that financial institutions are encouraged to take to prepare for the transition to the new accounting standard.”
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the OCC’s Web site.
Derivative Contracts
Variation Margin on Derivatives
Affects: Entities that have derivatives cleared through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME)
or London Clearing House (LCH).
Summary: The CME and LCH have amended their respective rulebooks to legally characterize
variation margin payments — for derivative contracts that are referred to as settled-to-market
(STM) — as settlements of the derivative’s mark-to-market exposure and not collateral. As a
result, accounting questions have arisen regarding the determination of the appropriate unit
of account, hedge accounting upon transition and going forward, and other issues.
In May 2016, the ISDA’s accounting committee submitted a whitepaper on the accounting
impact of the rulebook changes to the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant. On January 4,
2017, the ISDA issued a confirmation letter indicating that the SEC staff does not object to the
conclusions reached in the whitepaper.
Next Steps: Entities should consider the impact that the changes may have in anticipation of
financial statement filings for reporting periods ending after January 3, 2017.
Other Resources: Deloitte’s January 24, 2017, Financial Reporting Alert.
Revenue Recognition
AICPA Issues Revenue Working Drafts
Affects: All entities.
Summary: In January, 2017, three AICPA revenue recognition task forces released for public
comment working drafts on accounting issues associated with the implementation of the new
revenue standard for the following industries: aerospace and defense, telecommunications,
and time shares. The aerospace and defense working draft provides guidance on contract
modifications, the working draft for time-share entities discusses performance obligations,
and the two working drafts for the telecommunications industry address (1) separate
performance obligations and (2) stand-alone selling prices.
Next Steps: Comments on the working drafts are due by March 2, 2017.
Other Resources: For more information, see the aerospace and defense,
telecommunications, and time-share revenue recognition task force pages on the AICPA’s
Web site.
XBRL
FASB Releases 2017 U.S. GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy
Affects: All entities.
Summary: On December 15, 2016, the FASB released the 2017 U.S. GAAP Financial
Reporting Taxonomy. The taxonomy “is a list of computer-readable tags in [XBRL] format that
allows companies to tag precisely the thousands of pieces of financial data that are included
in typical long-form financial statements and related footnote disclosures.” The 2017 version
of the taxonomy “contains updates for accounting standards and other improvements to the
official Taxonomy previously in use by SEC issuers.”
Next Steps: The SEC needs to approve the taxonomy before it becomes official; the
Commission is expected to do so in early 2017.
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the FASB’s Web site.
Auditing Developments
PCAOB
PCAOB Releases Staff Guidance on Form AP
Affects: Registered public accounting firms.
Summary: On January 26, 2017, the PCAOB issued staff guidance on Form AP, under which
registered public accounting firms “must provide information about engagement partners and
accounting firms that participate in audits of issuers.” The staff guidance also addresses the
disclosures that an auditor is required to provide if it decides to include such information in
the auditor’s report.
Governmental Accounting and Auditing Developments
FASAB
FASAB Issues Statement on Insurance Programs
Affects: Entities reporting under federal financial accounting standards.
Summary: On January 18, 2017, the FASAB issued Statement 51, which “establishes
accounting and financial reporting standards for insurance programs.” Specifically, the new
Statement “provides standards to ensure that insurance programs are adequately defined
and report consistent information about the liabilities for losses incurred and claimed as well
as expected losses during remaining coverage.”
Next Steps: is effective for reporting periods beginning after September 30, 2018.
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the FASAB’s Web site.
FASAB Issues Exposure Draft on Budget and Accrual Reconciliation
Affects: Entities reporting under federal financial accounting standards.
Summary: On December 21, 2016, the FASAB issued an ED that would amend the requirements in FASAB on “a reconciliation between budgetary and financial accounting information.” Specifically, the proposal “would replace the current reconciliation with a new budget and accrual reconciliation . . . and explain the relationship between the entity’s net outlays on a budgetary basis and the net cost of operations during the reporting period.”
Next Steps: Comments on the ED are due by March 14, 2017.
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the FASAB’s Web site.
GASB
GASB Issues Guidance on Fiduciary Activities
Affects: Entities reporting under financial accounting and reporting standards for state and
local governments.
Summary: On January 31, 2016, the GASB issued Statement 84, which “establishes criteria
for identifying fiduciary activities of all state and local governments.” The primary purpose of
the Statement is to “improve guidance regarding the identification of fiduciary activities for
accounting and financial reporting purposes and how those activities should be reported.”
Next Steps: is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Early application is encouraged.
GASB Requests Feedback on Financial Reporting Model
Affects: Entities reporting under financial accounting and reporting standards for state and
local governments.
Summary: On January 4, 2017, the GASB issued an invitation to comment (ITC) that requests
feedback on “the Board’s financial reporting model reexamination project.” Specifically, the ITC
“addresses potential improvements to fundamental issues of the GASB’s financial reporting
model reexamination project: (1) the measurement focus and basis of accounting for
governmental funds and (2) the presentation of governmental fund financial statements.”
Next Steps: Comments are due by March 31, 2017.
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the GASB’s Web site.
Regulatory and Compliance Developments
SEC
SEC Acting Chairman Makes Statements Regarding Conflict Minerals Rule
Affects: SEC registrants.
Summary: On January 31, 2017, Michael Piwowar, who was recently appointed as acting
chairman of the SEC, made public statements related to the Commission’s 2014 guidance on
its August 2012 final rule on conflict minerals.
The SEC partially stayed compliance with the conflict minerals rule after an April 2014
appellate court ruling found that the rule violated the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. Mr. Piwowar indicated that the “partial stay has done little to stem the tide
of unintended consequences washing over the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
surrounding areas.” He further noted:
[T]he temporary transition period provided for in the Rule has expired. And the reporting period
beginning January 1, 2017, is the first reporting period for which no issuer falls within the terms
of that transition period. In light of this, as well as the unexpected duration of the litigation, I am
directing the staff to consider whether the 2014 guidance is still appropriate and whether any
additional relief is appropriate in the interim.
Next Steps: Mr. Piwowar is requesting feedback “from interested persons on all aspects of
the rule and guidance.” A comment letter page has been set up on the SEC’s Web site.
Other Resources: Mr. Piwowar’s statements on the conflict minerals rule and on the
reconsideration of the rule’s implementation are available on the SEC’s Web site.
SEC Updates EDGAR Filer Manual
Affects: SEC registrants.
Summary: On January 27, 2017, the SEC issued a final rule adopting Release 17.0.2 of
its EDGAR system filer manual. Specifically, Volumes I–III of the EDGAR manual are being
updated “to support an upgrade to the passphrase authentication process; and update the
recommended Internet browser language for all EDGAR websites.”
The EDGAR system was upgraded on January 30, 2017.
SEC Publishes Examination Priorities for 2017
Affects: SEC registrants.
Summary: On January 12, 2017, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations
has published its examination priorities for 2017. The priorities focus on electronic
investment advice, money market funds, and financial exploitation of senior investors. In
addition, the priorities “reflect a continuing focus on protecting retail investors, including
individuals investing for their retirement, and assessing market-wide risks.” The document is
not necessarily comprehensive and “may be adjusted in light of market conditions, industry
developments, and ongoing risk assessment activities.”
Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the SEC’s Web site.
SEC Chairman Discusses Global Accounting
Affects: SEC registrants.
Summary: On January 5, 2017, former SEC Chairman Mary Jo White issued a public
statement in which she urged the next SEC chairman to continue to pursue global accounting
standards to protect investors and the strength of the U.S. market. While Ms. White
acknowledged that the Commission has not taken “formal action” related to such standards
since 2010, she described the past years as a success:
Although the FASB and IASB have completed their agreed-upon, priority convergence projects,
this milestone must not mark the end of the intense collaboration that has occurred between the
two Boards over the last few years. These efforts have greatly enhanced the quality of accounting
standards in a number of important areas, including recently narrowing many differences in the
accounting standards for revenue recognition, leases, credit losses on financial instruments, and
recognition and measurement of financial assets and liabilities.
Ms. White also suggested that such progress needs to continue. She concluded:
The United States cannot afford to be myopic about this issue in light of the benefits of these
efforts for all stakeholders. Strong support of both the FASB and the IASB by U.S. investors,
companies, auditors, and others, including the Commission, is essential. Indeed, it should be selfevident
that the pursuit of high-quality globally accepted accounting standards is part of the SEC’s
continuing responsibility to encourage, facilitate and direct efforts to enhance the quality of all
financial reporting that directly impacts the protection of investors and the strength of our markets.
Appendix A: Current Status of FASB Projects
This appendix summarizes the objectives,1 current status, and next steps for the FASB’s active standard-setting projects
(excluding research initiatives).
Project | Description | Status and Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
Recognition and Measurement Projects | ||
Accounting for financial
instruments: hedging | The purpose of this project is to “make
targeted improvements to the hedge
accounting model based on the feedback
received from preparers, auditors, users
and other stakeholders.” | On September 8, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
that would make targeted improvements to the accounting
for hedging activities. The proposed amendments
“would expand and refine hedge accounting for both
nonfinancial and financial risk components and would
align the recognition and presentation of the effects of the
hedging instrument and the hedged item in the financial
statements.” Comments on the proposal were due by
November 22, 2016. For more information, see Deloitte’s
September 14, 2016, Heads Up. On January 25, 2017, the FASB discussed the feedback
received on the proposed ASU. Further, the Board
affirmed a number of the proposed amendments, rejected
others, and agreed on a plan for redeliberation. For more
information, see Deloitte’s February 1, 2017, journal entry. |
Accounting for goodwill
impairment | The objective of this project was to
“reduce the cost and complexity of the
subsequent accounting for goodwill by
simplifying the impairment test . . . by
removing the requirement to perform a
hypothetical purchase price allocation
when the carrying value of a reporting
unit exceeds its fair value (step 2 of the
impairment model in current GAAP).“ | On January 26, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04 to
simplify the subsequent measurement of goodwill by
removing the requirement to compare the implied fair
value of goodwill with its carrying amount. Under the ASU,
“an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill
impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting
unit with its carrying amount.” The ASU also removes
existing special requirements for reporting units with a
zero or negative carrying amount. The ASU is effective
prospectively. A public business entity (PBE) that is a
U.S. SEC filer should adopt the ASU for annual or interim
goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2019. A PBE that is not an SEC filer should
adopt the ASU for annual or interim goodwill impairment
tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020. All
other entities should adopt the amendments for annual or
interim goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2021. Early adoption is permitted for
interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on
testing dates after January 1, 2017. For more information,
see Deloitte’s February 1, 2017, Heads Up. |
Accounting for interest
income associated with
the purchase of callable
debt securities | This project aims “to enhance the
transparency and usefulness of the
information provided in the notes to
the financial statements about interest
income on purchased debt securities and
loans“ and “will also consider targeted
improvements regarding the accounting
for the amortization of premiums for
purchased callable debt securities.“ | On September 22, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed
ASU that would shorten the amortization period for
investments in callable debt securities purchased at a
premium by requiring that the premium be amortized to
the earliest call date. Comments on the proposal were
due by November 28, 2016. For more information, see
Deloitte’s September 23, 2016, Heads Up. On February 1, 2017, the Board discussed feedback
received on the proposed ASU and directed the staff to
draft a final ASU for vote by written ballot. The final ASU is
expected to be issued in the second quarter of 2017. |
Clarifying the definition
of a business (phase 1) | The purpose of this project was to
“clarify the definition of a business with
the objective of adding guidance to
assist entities with evaluating whether
transactions should be accounted for as
acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or
businesses.“ | On January 5, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01 to clarify
the definition of a business in ASC 805. The ASU is effective
for PBEs for annual periods beginning after December
15, 2017, including interim periods therein. For all other
entities, the ASU is effective for annual periods beginning
after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within annual
periods beginning after December 15, 2019. The ASU must
be applied prospectively on or after the effective date. Early
adoption is permitted for transactions (i.e., acquisitions or
dispositions) that occurred before the issuance date or
effective date of the standard if the transactions were not
reported in financial statements that have been issued or
made available for issuance. For more information, see
Deloitte’s January 13, 2017, Heads Up. |
Clarifying the scope
of ASC 610-20 and
accounting for partial
sales of nonfinancial
assets (formerly
clarifying the definition
of a business phase 2) | The purpose of this project is to clarify the
scope of ASC 610-20 and the accounting
for partial sales of nonfinancial assets. | On June 6, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that
would amend the guidance on nonfinancial assets in ASC
610-20. The proposed amendments include:
Comments on the proposed ASU were due by August 5,
2016. On October 10, 2016, the FASB discussed comments
received on the proposed ASU and made tentative decisions
related to the scope, transition method, and effective date.
For public entities, the amendments will be effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim
periods within those fiscal years. For all other entities, the
amendments will be effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2018, and interim periods within fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2019. On December 14, 2016,
the FASB discussed comments received on an external
review draft and asked the staff to draft a final ASU for a vote
by written ballot. The FASB expects to issue a final ASU in the
first quarter of 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s
June 14, 2016, Heads Up and October 17, 2016, journal
entry. |
Clarifying when a
not-for-profit entity that
is a general partner
should consolidate
a for-profit limited
partnership (or similar
entity) | The purpose of this project was to clarify
when a not-for-profit entity that is a
general partner should consolidate a
for-profit limited partnership (or similar
entity). | On January 12, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-02, which
amends the consolidation guidance in ASC 958-810 to
clarify when a not-for-profit entity that is a general partner
or a limited partner should consolidate a for-profit limited
partnership or similar legal entity. The ASU is effective
for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016,
and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted. For more
information, see Deloitte’s January 30, 2017, Heads Up. |
Collaborative
arrangements: targeted
improvements | The purpose of this project is “to clarify
when transactions between partners
in a collaborative arrangement (that is
within the scope of [ASC 808]) should be
accounted for as revenue transactions in
[ASC 606].” | The Board added this project to its technical agenda on
November 16, 2016. |
Conceptual framework:
measurement | The objective of the conceptual
framework project is “to develop an
improved conceptual framework
that provides a sound foundation for
developing future accounting standards.” | Beginning in 2014, the Board has deliberated
measurement concepts, such as methods of determining
initial carrying amounts of assets, liabilities, and equity.
In addition, the Board has discussed concepts related to
measuring changes in carrying amounts. On November 30,
2016, the Board made tentative decisions related to initial
measurement concepts and asked the staff to develop a
revised project plan. |
Consolidation
reorganization and
targeted improvements | The purpose of this project is to clarify
and make targeted improvements to the
consolidation guidance in ASC 810. | On November 2, 2016, the Board added this project
to its technical agenda. Further, it tentatively decided
to (1) “clarify the consolidation guidance in [ASC 810]”
by dividing it into separate Codification subtopics for
voting interest entities and variable interest entities
(VIEs); (2) develop a new Codification topic, ASC 812,
that would include those reorganized subtopics and
would completely supersede ASC 810; (3) rescind the
subsections on consolidation of entities controlled by
contract in ASC 810-10-15 and in ASC 810-30 on research
and development arrangements; (4) “further clarify that
power over a VIE is obtained through a variable interest”;
and (5) “provide further clarification of the application of
the concept of ‘expected,’ which is used throughout the
VIE consolidation guidance.” The Board directed the staff
to prepare a staff draft of the proposed amendments,
which would also include a “discussion of a potential
scope exception for private companies under common
control and potential proposed amendments to all other
entities under common control.” For more information, see
Deloitte’s November 8, 2016, journal entry. |
Determining the
customer of the
operation services in
a service concession
arrangement (EITF
Issue 16-C) | The purpose of this project is to
resolve diversity in practice related to
the accounting for service concession
arrangements. | On November 4, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
in response to the consensus-for-exposure reached by
the EITF at its September 22, 2016, meeting. A service
concession arrangement is an arrangement between a
grantor (a government or public-sector entity) and an
operating entity (a private-sector entity) under which the
operating entity will operate the grantor’s infrastructure
(e.g., airports, roads, bridges, and hospitals). Under the
proposed ASU, the grantor (rather than any third-party
user) is considered the customer of the operation services
when the revenue recognition guidance in ASC 606 is
applied to a service concession arrangement within the
scope of ASC 853. Accordingly, payments made by the
operating entity to the grantor are treated as a reduction
of revenue rather than as an operating expense. Comments on the proposed ASU were due by January
6, 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s September
2016 EITF Snapshot. |
Insurance: targeted
improvements to the
accounting for long-duration
contracts | The purpose of this project is to “develop
targeted improvements to insurance
accounting. Those improvements may
address recognition, measurement,
presentation, and disclosure
requirements for long-duration insurance
contracts.“ | On September 29, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed
ASU that would make targeted improvements to the
recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure
requirements for long-duration contracts issued by
insurance entities. The proposed approach would affect
the assumptions used to measure the liability for future
policy benefits, the measurement of market risk benefits,
and the amortization of deferred acquisition costs.
Comments on the proposal were due by December 15,
2016. For more information, see Deloitte’s October 2016
Insurance Spotlight. |
Liabilities and equity:
targeted improvements | The purpose of this project is to “simplify
the accounting guidance related to
financial instruments with characteristics
of liabilities and equity.“ | On December 7, 2016, the Board issued a proposed ASU
that would replace (1) the existing guidance on “down-round“
features in ASC 815-40 with a new accounting
model and (2) the indefinite deferrals in ASC 480-10
with scope exceptions that have the same applicability.
Comments on the proposal are due by February 6, 2017.
For more information, see Deloitte’s December 8, 2016,
Heads Up. |
Nonemployee
share-based
payment accounting
improvements | The purpose of this project is “to reduce
cost and complexity and improve the
accounting for nonemployee share-based
payment awards issued by public and
private companies.“ | At its May 4, 2016, meeting, the Board tentatively decided
to expand the scope of ASC 718 to include all share-based
payment arrangements related to acquiring goods and
services from nonemployees. At its June 15, 2016, meeting,
the Board made tentative decisions about transition
methods for applying the proposed guidance and
disclosures. On November 30, 2016, the Board tentatively
decided to require the use of the contractual term (rather
than the expected term) as an input for measuring
nonemployee share-based payment transactions and
directed the staff to draft a proposed ASU for a vote by
written ballot. The FASB expects to issue the proposed
ASU in the first quarter of 2017. For more information, see
Deloitte’s December 16, 2015; May 4, 2016; and June 15,
2016, journal entries. |
Revenue recognition:
grants and contracts by
not-for-profit entities | The purpose of this project is to “improve
and clarify existing guidance on revenue
recognition of grants and contracts by
not-for-profit entities.” | At its April 20, 2016, meeting, the FASB decided to add this
project to its technical agenda. Stakeholders have raised
two main issues: (1) characterizing grants and contracts
with governmental agencies and others as (a) reciprocal
transactions (exchanges) or (b) nonreciprocal transactions
(contributions) and (2) differentiating between conditions
and restrictions for nonreciprocal transactions. The Board
deliberated these issues on June 15, 2016; August 31,
2016; and December 14, 2016. For more information, see
Deloitte’s June 16, 2016, journal entry. |
Share-based payments:
scope of modification
accounting in ASC 718 | This project is intended to reduce the cost
and complexity of applying modification
accounting in ASC 718. | On November 17, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed
ASU that would clarify which changes to the terms or
conditions of a share-based payment award should require
an entity to apply modification accounting under ASC 718.
Modification accounting would not apply if a change to an
award does not affect the total current fair value (or other
applicable measurement), vesting requirements, or the
classification of the award. Comments on the proposed
ASU were due by January 6, 2017. For more information,
see Deloitte’s November 18, 2016, Heads Up. |
Technical corrections
and improvements | The purpose of this project is to “provide
regular updates and improvements to the
[Codification] based on feedback received
from constituents.“ | On December 14, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-19,
which contains technical corrections and improvements
to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification. Most of the
amendments are effective immediately. |
Technical corrections
and improvements:
revenue from contracts
with customers | The purpose of the technical corrections
and improvements project is to “provide
regular updates and improvements to the
[Codification] based on feedback received
from constituents.“ | On December 21, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-20,
which amends certain aspects of the Board’s new revenue
standard, ASU 2014-09, to clarify, rather than change,
the new revenue standard’s core revenue recognition
principles. The effective date and transition requirements
in ASU 2016-20 are the same as those in the new revenue
standard. For more information, see Deloitte’s January 5,
2017, journal entry. |
Presentation and Disclosure Projects | ||
Conceptual framework:
presentation | The objective of the conceptual
framework project is to develop an
improved conceptual framework
that provides a sound foundation for
developing future accounting standards. | On August 11, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed concepts
statement that would add a new chapter on presentation
of financial statement information to the FASB’s conceptual
framework. Comments were due by November 9, 2016. |
Disclosure framework | The disclosure framework project consists
of two phases: (1) the FASB’s decision
process and (2) the entity’s decision
process. The overall objective of the
project is to “improve the effectiveness
of disclosures in notes to financial
statements by clearly communicating the
information that is most important to
users of each entity’s financial statements.
(Although reducing the volume of the
notes to financial statements is not the
primary focus, the Board hopes that a
sharper focus on important information
will result in reduced volume in most
cases.)“ | FASB’s Decision Process On March 4, 2014, the FASB issued an ED of a proposed
concepts statement that would add a new chapter to the
Board’s conceptual framework for financial reporting that
contains a decision process for the Board and its staff to
use in determining what disclosures should be required in
notes to financial statements. Comments on the ED were
due by July 14, 2014. For more information, see Deloitte’s
March 6, 2014, Heads Up. On September 24, 2015, the FASB issued an ED of proposed amendments to chapter 3 of Concepts that would add a statement that materiality is a legal concept and include a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of materiality. Comments on the ED were due by December 8, 2015. Entity’s Decision Process On September 24, 2015, the FASB issued a proposed
ASU that would amend the Codification to indicate that
the omission of disclosures about immaterial information
is not an accounting error. The proposal notes that
materiality is a legal concept that should be applied to
assess quantitative and qualitative disclosures individually
and in the aggregate in the context of the financial
statements taken as a whole. Comments on the proposal
were due by December 8, 2015. For more information, see
Deloitte’s September 28, 2015, Heads Up. The Board began its discussion of comments received on
December 14, 2016. |
Disclosure framework:
disclosure review —
defined benefit plans | The purpose of this project is to
improve the effectiveness of disclosure
requirements that apply to defined
benefit plans. | On January 26, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
that would modify the disclosure requirements for
employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other
postretirement plans. Comments on the proposal were
due by April 25, 2016. For more information, see Deloitte’s
January 28, 2016, Heads Up. At its July 13, 2016, meeting, the FASB discussed feedback
on its proposed ASU and directed its staff to conduct
additional research. |
Disclosure framework:
disclosure review — fair
value measurement | The purpose of this project is to
improve the effectiveness of fair value
measurement disclosures. | On December 3, 2015, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
that would modify the disclosure requirements related
to fair value measurement. Comments on the proposal
were due by February 29, 2016. For more information, see
Deloitte’s December 8, 2015, Heads Up. At its June 1, 2016, meeting, the FASB discussed comments
received on its proposed ASU and directed its staff to
reach out to investors and other financial statement users
regarding the proposal. |
Disclosure framework:
disclosure review —
income taxes | The purpose of this project is to
improve the effectiveness of income tax
disclosures. | On June 26, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that
would modify existing and add new income tax disclosure
requirements. The proposed requirements include
describing an enacted change in tax law; disaggregating
certain income tax information between foreign and
domestic; explaining the circumstances that caused a
change in assertion about the indefinite reinvestment
of undistributed foreign earnings; and disclosing the
aggregate of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable
securities held by foreign subsidiaries. Comments on the
proposed ASU were due by September 30, 2016. For more
information, see Deloitte’s July 29, 2016, Heads Up. On January 25, 2017, the Board discussed the feedback
received on the proposed ASU. No technical decisions
were made. |
Disclosure framework:
disclosures — interim
reporting | The purpose of this project is to improve
the effectiveness of interim disclosures. | At its May 28, 2014, meeting, the FASB decided to amend
ASC 270 “to reflect that disclosures about matters required
to be set forth in annual financial statements should be
provided on an updated basis in the interim report if there
is a substantial likelihood that the updated information
would be viewed by a reasonable investor as significantly
altering the ’total mix’ of information available to the
investor.” |
Disclosure framework:
disclosure review —
inventory | The purpose of this project is to improve
the effectiveness of inventory disclosures. | On January 10, 2017, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that
would modify or eliminate certain disclosure requirements
related to inventory and establish new requirements.
Comments on the proposed ASU are due by March 13,
2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s January 12,
2017, Heads Up. |
Disclosures by
business entities about
government assistance | The purpose of this project is to
“develop disclosure requirements about
government assistance that improves
the content, quality and comparability
of financial information and financial
statements and that is responsive to the
emerging issues in the changing financial
and economic environment in which
reporting entities operate.“ | On November 12, 2015, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
that would increase financial reporting transparency by
requiring specific disclosures about government assistance
received by businesses. The objective of the proposed
disclosure requirements is to enable financial statement
users to better assess (1) the nature of the government
assistance, (2) the accounting policies for the government
assistance, (3) the impact of the government assistance on
the financial statements, and (4) the significant terms and
conditions of the government assistance arrangements.
Comments on the proposed ASU were due by February 10,
2016. At its June 8, 2016, meeting, the FASB made tentative
decisions about the project’s scope, whether to require
disclosures about government assistance received but
not recognized directly in the financial statements, and
omission of information when restrictions preclude an
entity from disclosing the information required. For more information, see Deloitte’s November 20, 2015,
Heads Up and June 14, 2016, journal entry. |
Employee benefit plan
master trust reporting
(EITF Issue 16-B) | The purpose of this project is to improve
the presentation and disclosure guidance
for employee benefit plans that have
investments held in master trusts. | On July 28, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU in
response to the EITF consensus-for-exposure on employee
benefit plans’ presentation and disclosures related to
interests in a master trust. Comments on the proposed
ASU were due by September 26, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the EITF discussed the comments
received and reached a final consensus, which will be
effective for employee benefit plans for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2018; early adoption will
be permitted. The FASB ratified the consensus at its
November 30, 2016, meeting and expects to issue the final
ASU in the first quarter of 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s June 2016 EITF
Snapshot. |
Financial statements of
not-for-profit entities
(phase 2) | The purpose of this project is to
“reexamine existing standards for
financial statement presentation by
not-for-profit entities.” | The FASB issued a proposed ASU on April 22, 2015,
on which comments were due by August 20, 2015. On
October 28, 2015, the FASB discussed feedback received
on the proposal and decided to split the project into two
phases. The Board completed the first phase on August
18, 2016, when it issued ASU 2016-14, which simplifies
and improves how a not-for-profit organization classifies
its net assets, as well as the information it presents in
financial statements and notes about its liquidity, financial
performance, and cash flows. ASU 2016-14 indicates that the second phase of the
project is “expected to address more protracted issues
surrounding whether and how to define the term
operations and align measures of operations (or financial
performance) as presented in a statement of activities with
measures of operations in a statement of cash flows.” |
Improving the
presentation of net
periodic pension
cost and net periodic
postretirement benefit
cost | The purpose of this project is to “simplify
and improve the reporting of net
periodic pension cost and net periodic
postretirement benefit cost (’net benefit
cost’).“ | On January 26, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU
that would require an entity to (1) disaggregate the current
service cost component from the other components of net
benefit cost and present it with other current compensation
costs for the related employees in the income statement
and (2) present the remaining components of net benefit
cost elsewhere in the income statement and outside of
income from operations, if such a subtotal is presented.
In addition, the proposed ASU would limit the portion of
net benefit cost eligible for capitalization (e.g., as part of
inventory or property, plant, and equipment) to the service
cost component. Comments on the proposed ASU were
due by April 25, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the Board decided to provide a
practical expedient related to situations in which an entity
presents information about prior comparative periods
and directed the staff to draft a final ASU for a vote by
written ballot. The final ASU will be effective for public
business entities for annual reporting periods beginning
after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within
those annual periods. For other entities, the final ASU will
be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after
December 15, 2018, and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2019. The FASB expects to issue a final ASU
in the first quarter of 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s January 28, 2016,
Heads Up and November 3, 2016, journal entry. |
Simplifying the balance
sheet classification of
debt | The purpose of this project is to “reduce
cost and complexity by replacing the
fact-pattern specific guidance in GAAP
with a principle to classify debt as current
or noncurrent based on the contractual
terms of a debt arrangement and an
entity’s current compliance with debt
covenants.“ | On January 10, 2017, the FASB issued a proposed ASU on
determining whether debt should be classified as current
or noncurrent in a classified balance sheet. In place of the
current, fact-specific guidance in ASC 470-10, the proposed
ASU would introduce a classification principle under which
a debt arrangement would be classified as noncurrent if
either (1) the “liability is contractually due to be settled more
than one year (or operating cycle, if longer) after the balance
sheet date” or (2) the “entity has a contractual right to defer
settlement of the liability for at least one year (or operating
cycle, if longer) after the balance sheet date.” Under an
exception to the classification principle, an entity would not
classify debt as current solely because of the occurrence of
a debt covenant violation that gives the lender the right to
demand repayment of the debt, as long as the lender waives
its right before the financial statements are issued (or are
available to be issued). Comments on the proposal are due
by May 5, 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s January
12, 2017, Heads Up. |
Appendix B: Significant Adoption Dates and Deadlines
See the Key Dates page for a description of significant adoption dates and deadline dates for FASB/EITF, AICPA, SEC, PCAOB, GASB, FASAB, and IASB/IFRIC standards and proposals.
Appendix C: Glossary of Standards and Other Literature
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-04, Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-03, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections (Topic 250) and
Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Amendments to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to Staff
Announcements at the September 22, 2016 and November 17, 2016 EITF Meetings (SEC Update)
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-02, Clarifying When a Not-for-Profit Entity That Is a General Partner or a
Limited Partner Should Consolidate a For-Profit Limited Partnership or Similar Entity
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-01, Clarifying the Definition of a Business
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue From
Contracts With Customers
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, Leases
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-14, Revenue From Contracts With Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the
Effective Date
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09, Revenue From Contracts With Customers
FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-01, Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects —
a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force
FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Simplifying the Classification of Debt in a Classified Balance Sheet (Current
Versus Noncurrent)
FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Disclosure Framework — Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for
Inventory
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 810, Consolidation
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805, Business Combinations
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 606, Revenue From Contracts With Customers
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 350, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 323, Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 958-810, Not-for-Profit Entities: Consolidation
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 810-20, Consolidation — Control of Partnerships and Similar Entities
FASB Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 470-10, Debt: Overall
FASB Statement No. 141(R), Business Combinations
SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 11.M, Disclosure of the Impact That Recently Issued Accounting Standards Will Have on the
Financial Statements of the Registrant When Adopted in a Future Period
Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC FAQs, Frequently Asked Questions on the New Accounting Standard on
Financial Instruments — Credit Losses
GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities
GASB Invitation to Comment, Financial Reporting Model Improvements — Governmental Funds
FASAB Statement No. 51, Insurance Programs
FASAB Statement No. 7, Measurement of the Elements of Accrual-Basis Financial Statements in Periods After Initial Reporting
FASAB Exposure Draft, Budget and Accrual Reconciliation — amending Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards (SFFAS) 7, SFFAS 22, and SFFAS 24
IFRS 3, Business Combinations
IAS 36, Impairment of Assets
IAS 28, Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures
IAS 23, Borrowing Costs
IAS 12, Income Taxes
IASB Exposure Draft, Annual Improvements to IFRS Standards 2015–2017 Cycle
Appendix D: Abbreviations
Abbreviation | Definition |
|---|---|
AICPA | American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants |
ASC | FASB Accounting Standards Codification |
ASU | FASB Accounting Standards Update |
CME | Chicago Mercantile Exchange |
CPE | continuing professional education |
CTM | collateralized-to-market |
ED | exposure draft |
EDGAR | Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and
Retrieval |
EITF | Emerging Issues Task Force |
EST | Eastern Standard Time |
FAF | Financial Accounting Foundation |
FAQs | frequently asked questions |
FASAB | Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board |
FASB | Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FDIC | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation |
FRM | SEC Financial Reporting Manual |
GAAP | generally accepted accounting principles |
GASB | Governmental Accounting Standards Board |
IAS | International Accounting Standard |
IASB | International Accounting Standards Board |
IFRIC | IFRS Interpretations Committee |
IFRS | International Financial Reporting Standard |
ISDA | International Swaps and Derivatives
Association |
ITC | invitation to comment |
LCH | London Clearing House |
LIFO | last in, first out |
NCUA | National Credit Union Administration |
NFP | not-for-profit entity |
NMS | national market system |
OCC | Office of the Comptroller of the Currency |
P&U | power and utilities |
PCAOB | Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board |
SAB | SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin |
SAS | Statement on Auditing Standards |
SEC | Securities and Exchange Commission |
SSARS | Statement on Standards for Accounting and
Review Services |
STM | settled-to-market |
TRG | transition resource group |
XBRL | eXtensible Business Reporting Language |
Footnotes
1
The quoted material related to the projects’ objectives is from the respective project pages on the FASB’s Web site.