by Magnus Orrell and Joseph Renouf, Deloitte & Touche LLP
Download the PDF version.
Welcome to the April 2017 edition of Accounting Roundup. Highlights of this issue include the following:
The AICPA’s release of a framework on cybersecurity risk management.
The final judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the litigation related to the SEC’s conflict minerals rule and the court’s remanding of the case to the Commission.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
IAASB: On April 6, 2017, IFAC announced that it has extended the term of Prof. Arnold Schilder as IAASB chairman. The extension “is due to the current review of potential enhancements to international standard-setting arrangements being undertaken by key stakeholders.”
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.
also provides a convenient and flexible way to earn CPE credit — right at your desk.
to receive notifications about future webcasts.
For more information, please see our complete
or click a link below for
more information about any of these upcoming
webcasts (all webcasts begin at 2:00
p.m. (EDT) unless otherwise noted):
Don’t miss out — register for these webcasts today.
On April 25, 2017, Deloitte issued a
that addresses FAQs that have arisen regarding
the FASB’s new leases standard,
ASU 2016-02. Topics covered include the definition of a lease,
lease payments, and presentation and disclosure.
SEC Reemphasizes Its Continued Focus on the New
Revenue Standard, Including Advancing ICFR
Accounting — New Standards and Exposure Drafts
IASB Proposes Minor Amendments to IFRS 9
Entities reporting under IFRSs.
On April 21, 2017, the IASB published an
that addresses concerns about how
certain prepayable financial assets are classified under IFRS 9 (on financial instruments).
Under the ED, certain financial assets containing prepayment features that might result in
so-called negative compensation could be measured at amortized cost or at fair value through
other comprehensive income (depending on a company’s business model) if two conditions
The assessment that the prepayment amount is not solely a payment of principal and
interest on the principal amount outstanding only hinges on the fact that “the party
that chooses to terminate the contract early . . . may
compensation for doing so.”
“[W]hen the entity initially recognises the financial asset, the fair value of the
prepayment feature is insignificant.”
Next Steps: Comments on the ED are due by May 24, 2017.
Entities in industries within the scope of the working drafts.
In April 2017, the AICPA’s revenue recognition task forces released for public
comment 11 working drafts on accounting issues associated with the implementation of the
new revenue standard for airlines, gaming, hospitality, and time-share entities. The working
drafts address the following topics:
Passenger ticket breakage, ancillary fees, interline transactions, brand name and
customer lists, interline loyalty transactions, and change fees (airlines).
AICPA Issues Framework Related to Cybersecurity Risk Management
Entities and CPAs providing advisory or attestation services.
On April 26, 2017, the AICPA issued a framework related to cybersecurity risk
management. The purpose of the framework is to “enable all organizations — in industries
worldwide — to take a proactive and agile approach to cybersecurity risk management and to
communicate on those activities with stakeholders.”
AICPA Issues Proposed SAS on Employee Benefit Plans
Auditors of employee benefit plans.
On April 20, 2017, the ASB of the AICPA issued a
audits of financial statements of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974. The proposed SAS is being issued in response to a 2015
Department of Labor report that criticized the quality of employee benefit plan audits.
Comments on the proposed SAS are due by August 21, 2017.
CAQ Updates Publication on Assessing External Auditors
On April 18, 2017, the CAQ released an updated version of its
assessing external auditors. The purpose of the publication is “to assist audit committees in
carrying out their responsibilities of appointing, overseeing, and determining compensation
for the external auditor.” The update takes into account “upcoming changes in accounting
rules and standards and other potential risk areas.”
IAASB Proposes Standard on Auditing Accounting Estimates
On April 20, 2017, the IAASB issued an
of a proposed standard that would
significantly change “how auditors evaluate accounting estimates and related disclosures.”
Under the proposal, auditors would be required “to sharpen their focus on risks of material
misstatements arising from accounting estimates, and to address those risks with more
granular audit requirements.”
Comments on the proposed standard are due by August 1, 2017.
For more information, see the
on IFAC’s Web site.
Governmental Accounting and Auditing Developments
FASAB Issues Technical Release on Property, Plant, and Equipment
Entities applying federal financial accounting standards.
On April 10, 2017, the FASAB issued
Technical Release 17, which amends certain previously published technical releases to conform them with FASAB Statement 50, which provides guidance on establishing opening balances for general property, plant, and equipment (PP&E). Specifically, the technical release reiterates that Statement 50 rescinded Statement 35 (on estimating the historical cost of general PP&E) and clarifies that Statement 6 (on accounting for PP&E), which was amended by Statement 50, now contains “all standards- level implementation guidance for general [PP&E] (with the exception of certain provisions
applicable to internal use software).”
Technical Release 17 became effective upon issuance.
GASB Issues Implementation Guide
Entities reporting under financial accounting and reporting standards for state and
On April 28, 2017, the GASB issued an
guidance that clarifies, explains, or elaborates on GASB Statements.”
The implementation guide is effective for reporting periods beginning after June
15, 2017. Early application is encouraged.
GAO Proposes Updates to “Yellow Book”
Auditors of federal, state, and local governments.
On April 5, 2017, the GAO issued an
that proposes changes to its “Yellow
Book,” which contains generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). The
Revisions to the chapter format.
Clarification of the independence requirements to which the auditor is subject “when
the engaging party differs from the responsible party.”
Inclusion of guidance stating that “any services performed by auditors related to
preparing accounting records and financial statements, other than those defined as
impairments to independence, create significant threats to auditors’ independence
and that auditors should document the threats and safeguards applied to eliminate
and reduce the threats to an acceptable level or decline to perform the services.”
Revisions to the CPE requirements in an attempt to increase GAGAS proficiency.
Expansion of peer review standards.
New definition of waste and additional “requirements for reporting or communicating
waste that auditors become aware of during audits.”
Incorporation of SSAE 18 and SSARS 21 into GAGAS “for auditors conducting
attestation engagements and reviews of financial statements, respectively.”
Updates to guidance related to internal controls.
Comments on the ED are due by July 6, 2017.
For more information, see the
on the GAO’s Web site
IPSASB Issues Consultation Paper on Heritage Reporting
On April 11, 2017, the IPSASB released a
feedback on the financial reporting for heritage items, which the paper defines as “items
that are intended to be held indefinitely and preserved for the benefit of present and future
generations because of their rarity and/or significance in relation, but not limited, to their
archeological, architectural, agricultural, artistic, cultural, environmental, historical, natural,
scientific or technological features.” According to IPSASB Chairman Ian Carruthers, the paper
“is a first step toward developing financial reporting guidance to support accountability and
decision making in this area.”
Comments on the consultation paper are due by September 30, 2017.
For more information, see the
on IFAC’s Web site.
Regulatory and Compliance Developments
SEC Issues Small-Entity Compliance Guide on Intrastate Offering
On April 19, 2017, the SEC issued a
small-entity compliance guide
guidance on the SEC’s October 2016 final rules that “modernize how issuers can raise money
to fund their businesses through intrastate offerings while maintaining investor protections.”
Topics covered in the guide include requirements of Rules 147 and 147A, restrictions on
resales, filing requirements and relationship with state securities laws, and integration
Federal Court Remands Conflict Minerals Case to SEC
On April 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia released its
final judgment in the litigation related to the SEC’s conflict minerals rule and remanded the
case to the Commission. After the April 3, 2017, ruling by the district court, the SEC announced
that it is suspending enforcement of some requirements in the conflict minerals rule.
released by the Division of Corporation Finance notes:
The court’s remand has now presented significant issues for the Commission to address. At the
direction of the Acting Chairman, we have considered those issues. In light of the uncertainty
regarding how the Commission will resolve those issues and related issues raised by commenters,
Division of Corporation Finance has determined that it will not recommend
enforcement action to the Commission if companies, including those that are subject
to paragraph (c) of Item 1.01 of Form SD, only file disclosure under the provisions of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Item 1.01 of Form SD. This statement is subject to any further action
that may be taken by the Commission, expresses the Division’s position on enforcement action only,
and does not express any legal conclusion on the rule. [Emphasis added]
In April 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
that parts of the SEC’s
on conflict minerals and of
Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the extent that they
require “regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their website
that any of their products have ‘not been found to be “DRC conflict free.” ’ ” In August
2015, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling.
For more information, see
Michael Piwowar’s public statement
on the SEC’s Web site. Also see the GAO’s
to congressional committees about its review
of disclosures provided in connection with the conflict minerals rule.
SEC Staff Releases FAQs on IFRS Taxonomy and Updates FAQs on
On April 27, 2017, the SEC staff issued
on the IFRS taxonomy, which became
available on March 1, 2017, for use by foreign private issuers that submit their financial
statements in accordance with IFRSs. In addition, the SEC staff updated its
XBRL, which enables entities to embed XBRL data directly into HTML.
SEC Staff Updates C&DIs
In April 2017, the staff in the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued the
Questions 201.02 and 202.01 of the Regulation Crowdfunding C&DIs
201.02 addresses the dollar amount an issuer should use “to determine the threshold
at which disclosure of related party transactions is required under Rule 201(r),” and
Question 202.01 covers how an issuer determines “the number of holders of record
for purposes of determining eligibility to terminate its duty to file ongoing reports
pursuant to Rule 202(b)(2) of Regulation Crowdfunding."
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).
Status and Next Steps
Recognition and Measurement Projects
Accounting for financial
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,
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
The Board added this project to its technical agenda on
November 16, 2016.
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.
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
At its March 8, 2017, meeting, the FASB discussed the
feedback received at its December 16, 2016, public
roundtable and voted to move forward with a proposed
ASU that reorganizes the consolidation guidance.
The objective of this project is to make
targeted improvements to the related-
party guidance for VIEs.
At its March 8, 2017, meeting, the Board decided to add
to its agenda a project on an elective private-company
scope exception to the VIE guidance for entities under
common control and certain targeted improvements to the
existing related-party guidance in the VIE model. For more
information, see Deloitte’s March 14, 2017,
customer of the
operation services in
a service concession
The purpose of this project is to
resolve diversity in practice related to
the accounting for service concession
On November 4, 2016, the FASB issued a
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,
On March 29, 2017, the Board ratified the final consensus
reached at the March 16, 2017, EITF meeting and directed
the staff to draft a final ASU for a vote by written ballot. The
FASB expects to issue the ASU in the second quarter of
2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s March 2017
accounting for asset
(phase 3 of the
definition of a business
The purpose of this phase of the
project is to consider whether there
are differences in the acquisition and
derecognition guidance for assets and
businesses that could be aligned.
The Board has not yet begun deliberating this phase of the
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. On February 8, 2017, the Board discussed feedback received. No technical decisions were made. 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 FASB 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 a scope exception that has the same applicability. Comments on the proposal were due by February 6, 2017.
On March 22, 2017, the Board affirmed its decision to replace the indefinite deferral in ASC 480 with a scope exception. On April 19, 2017, the Board decided that (1) the existence of a down-round feature should not preclude equity classification for an instrument that contains it and (2) a public business entity should reflect the effect of the trigger of a down-round feature as an adjustment to EPS.
For more information, see Deloitte’s December 8, 2016, Heads Up.
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.“
On March 7, 2017, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that would simplify the accounting for share-based payments granted to nonemployees for goods and services. Under the proposal, most of the guidance on such payments would be aligned with the requirements for share-based payments granted to employees. Comments on the proposed ASU are due by June 5, 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s March 10, 2017, Heads Up.
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; December 14, 2016; February 22, 2017; and April 19, 2017. 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. On February 22, 2017, the Board discussed comments received on the proposed ASU and decided to reaffirm and clarify a number of the proposed amendments. The Board asked the staff to draft a final ASU for a vote by written ballot. For all entities, the final ASU will be effective prospectively for awards modified in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption will be permitted. The FASB expects to issue a final ASU in the second quarter of 2017. For more information, see Deloitte’s November 18, 2016, Heads Up and February 22, 2017, journal entry.
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.“
The Board has not yet commenced deliberations of its next technical corrections and improvements.
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.
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 Statement 8 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.
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.”
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 were 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.
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 on DART 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
AICPA Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services No. 21, Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services: Clarification and Recodification
AICPA Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 18, Attestation Standards: Clarification and Recodification
AICPA Proposed Statement on Auditing Standards, Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements of Employee Benefit Plans Subject to ERISA
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-11: Change Fees
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-6(i): Interline Transactions — Loyalty Payments
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-6(a, d): Brand Name and Customer List — Timing of Revenue Recognition
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-5: Interline Transactions — Identifying Performance Obligations for Air Travel (Including at the Segment Versus the Ticket Level) and Principal vs. Agent Considerations
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-4: Ancillary Fees and Services
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Airlines Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #2-3: Passenger Ticket Breakage and Accounting for Travel Vouchers
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Gaming Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #6-8a: Loyalty Credits and Other Discretionary Incentives (Excluding Status Benefits)
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Hospitality Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #7-3: Accounting for Owned and Leased Property Revenues
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Hospitality Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #7-2: Accounting for Revenues in a Hotel Management Service Arrangements
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Hospitality Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #7-1: Franchise Fees
AICPA Revenue Recognition Task Force Working Draft, Time-Share Entities Revenue Recognition Issue #16-6: Revenue of Revenue — Management Fees
SEC Final Rule Release No. 34-67716, Conflict Minerals
CAQ Publication, External Auditor Assessment Tool
FASAB Statement No. 50, Establishing Opening Balances for General Property, Plant, and Equipment
FASAB Statement No. 35, Estimating the Historical Cost of General Property, Plant, and Equipment: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6 and 23
FASAB Statement No. 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment
FASAB Technical Release No. 17, Conforming Amendments to Technical Releases for SFFAS 50, Establishing Opening Balances for General Property, Plant, and Equipment
GAO Exposure Draft, Government Auditing Standards
IFRS 9, Financial Instruments
IASB Exposure Draft, Prepayment Features With Negative Compensation — proposed amendments to IFRS 9
Proposed ISA 540 (Revised), Auditing Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures
IPSASB Consultation Paper, Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector
Appendix D: Abbreviations
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Auditing Standards Board
FASB Accounting Standards Codification
FASB Accounting Standards Update
compliance and disclosure interpretation
Center for Audit Quality
continuing professional education
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Eastern Daylight Time
Emerging Issues Task Force
frequently asked question
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Financial Accounting Standards Board
generally accepted accounting principles
generally accepted government auditing standards
Government Accountability Office
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
HyperText Markup Language
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
International Accounting Standard
International Accounting Standards Board
International Federation of Accountants
IFRS Interpretations Committee
International Financial Reporting Standard
International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
property, plant, and equipment
Statement on Auditing Standards
Securities and Exchange Commission
Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements
Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services