On the Radar
Revenue Recognition
The core principle of the revenue standard
is to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to
customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to
which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those
goods and services. Significant judgments frequently need to
be made when an entity evaluates the appropriate recognition
of revenue from contracts with customers. These judgments
are often required throughout the revenue standard’s
five-step process that an entity applies to determine when,
and how much, revenue should be recognized.
|
Application of the five steps illustrated above requires a critical
assessment of the specific facts and circumstances of an entity’s arrangement with
its customer. Some of the more challenging and judgmental aspects of applying the
revenue standard are highlighted below.
Entities often have
difficulty determining the appropriate judgments to
apply in the identification of performance obligations
and the assessment of whether an entity is a principal
or an agent, as described below. Not surprisingly, these
are two topics of the revenue standard on which entities
commonly seek the SEC staff’s views in prefiling
submissions. In addition, these topics are frequently
discussed in SEC staff speeches at the annual AICPA
& CIMA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB
Developments.
Identifying Performance Obligations
A performance obligation is the unit of account for which revenue is recognized,
and the identification of performance obligations affects the revenue
recognition timing. A performance obligation is a promise that an entity makes
to transfer to its customer a “distinct” good or service. Contracts with
customers often include multiple promises, and it can be difficult for an entity
to (1) identify the activities it is undertaking that qualify as promises to
provide goods or services and (2) determine which promises are distinct. An
entity should answer two questions to evaluate whether a promised good or
service is distinct and, thus, a separate performance obligation:
-
Can the customer benefit from the good or service on its own or with other readily available resources (i.e., is the good or service capable of being distinct)?
-
Is the entity’s promise to transfer the good or service separately identifiable from other promises in the contract (i.e., is the good or service distinct within the context of the contract)?
Only when the answer to each question above is yes for a promised good or service
(or bundle of goods or services) is the promised good or service (or bundle of
goods or services) distinct and, therefore, a performance obligation. If the two
revenue recognition criteria for identifying a distinct good or service are not
met, an entity must combine goods or services until it identifies a bundle that
is distinct.
Answering the first question can be straightforward but is not always so. If an
entity typically sells a good or service on its own, or if the good or service
can be used with another good or service that the entity (or another vendor)
sells separately, the answer to the first question is likely to be yes. The key
is whether a customer can generate some economic benefits from the good or
service on its own or with other readily available resources.
Answering the second question is often more challenging. For an entity to assess
whether its promise to transfer a good or service is separately identifiable
from other goods or services in a contract, the entity should evaluate whether
the nature of the promise is to transfer each of those goods or services
individually or, instead, to transfer a combined item or items to which the
promised goods or services are inputs.
Broadly speaking, if multiple promised goods or services represent inputs to a
combined output, the combined output would typically be greater than (or
substantively different from) the sum of those inputs.
Assessing Whether an Entity Is a Principal or an Agent
It is not uncommon for more than one party to be involved in providing goods or
services to a customer. Whenever another party is involved, an entity must
evaluate whether its promise is to provide the goods or services itself as a
principal or to arrange for another party to provide the goods or services to a
customer. Such a determination significantly affects the amount of revenue an
entity records. This is because a principal records as revenue the gross amount
of consideration from the customer (with a corresponding cost for the amount
paid to the other party involved in providing goods or services to the customer)
while an agent records the net amount retained from the transaction.
The unit of account for performing the principal-versus-agent
assessment is called the “specified” good or service, which is the good or
service that an entity determines to be distinct by using the same criteria that
apply to the identification of performance obligations. The underlying principle
in determining whether an entity is a principal or an agent is to evaluate
whether the entity controls the specified good or service (i.e., an asset)
before transferring it to the customer. ASC 606-10-25-25 states, in part, that
“[c]ontrol of an asset refers to the ability to direct the use of, and obtain
substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset.” Determining
whether the entity controls the specified good or service before transferring it
to the customer — and, therefore, is the principal in the arrangement — may be
clear in some circumstances but may require significant judgment in others.
These indicators are intended to support a conclusion that the entity does or
does not control the specified good or service before transferring it to the
customer and should not be used as a checklist that overrides the underlying
principle of control.
The framework for evaluating whether an entity is a principal or an agent is also
relevant to the determination of the party to which control of a specified good
or service is transferred (i.e., which party is the entity’s customer). This
evaluation is particularly relevant when an intermediary (e.g., a distributor or
reseller) is involved in reselling the entity’s goods or services to an end
customer. If an entity determines that control of a specified good or service is
transferred to an intermediary, the intermediary is the entity’s customer, and
the entity records revenue based on the amount that it expects the intermediary
to pay. However, if the entity concludes that the intermediary does not obtain
control of the specified good or service before the good or service is
transferred to the end customer, the amount of revenue that the entity records
is based on the consideration (if known) that the entity expects the end
customer to pay.
Variable Consideration
Many revenue contracts include variable consideration, including
price concessions, rebates, incentives, royalties, and performance-based bonuses
or penalties. Generally, the revenue standard requires an entity to estimate
variable consideration, with recognition subject to a constraint such that it is
probable that a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized will not
occur. There are a few exceptions to the requirement to estimate variable
consideration, including sales- or usage-based royalties associated with a
license of intellectual property (IP) that is the predominant item. In addition,
entities must carefully evaluate whether variable consideration should be
allocated to one or more, but not all, performance obligations in a contract (or
one or more, but not all, distinct goods or services that are part of a series
of distinct goods or services that represent a single performance obligation).
For example, some usage-based fees may be allocated to a distinct day of service
that is part of a series of services.
Licensing
The revenue standard includes specific guidance on the licensing of an entity’s
IP. For example, revenue associated with the license of functional IP (e.g.,
software, film, music, drug compound/formula) is typically recognized at a point
in time (unless combined as a single performance obligation with a service that
is recognized over time) while revenue associated with a license of symbolic IP
(e.g., franchise, trade or brand name, logo) is typically recognized over time.
Accordingly, entities may need to apply different revenue recognition methods
for different types of licenses. However, the general framework used to account
for licensing of IP is essentially the same as the framework used to account for
the sale of other goods or services (i.e., the five-step model described above).
As noted above, one exception to the general framework is the accounting for
sales- or usage-based royalties associated with licensing of IP that is the
predominant item.
Licensing of IP can take many forms, and the economics and substance of such
transactions can often be difficult to identify. This is because (1) a license
is defined by the contractual rights conveyed to a customer and (2) the
accounting for such rights is highly dependent on how those rights are defined
and what, if any, additional promised goods or services are required to be
provided along with such rights. Therefore, an entity may find that no two
contracts are the same and that new judgments must be made with each
arrangement. As more and more entities expand their product offerings to include
technology-related products or services, assessing the appropriate revenue
recognition for licensing of IP continues to be a topic of focus for many
entities.
Financial Statement Disclosures
The revenue standard requires entities to disclose both
quantitative and qualitative information that enables users of financial
statements to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue
and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.
The illustration below gives an overview of the annual revenue disclosure
requirements for public entities. Nonpublic entities can elect not to provide
certain disclosures, and the disclosure requirements for interim periods are
significantly reduced in scope from the illustration below.
Annual Disclosures
SEC Comment Letters
Revenue remains a hot topic of SEC comment letters. Key themes of SEC comment
letters related to revenue recognition include the following:
Theme
|
Example(s)
|
---|---|
Significant judgments
|
|
Disclosures of performance obligations
|
|
Contract costs
|
|
Disclosures of disaggregation of revenue
|
|
Disclosures of contract balances
|
How contract balances are derived.
|
Disclosures of remaining performance obligations
|
When an entity expects to recognize
revenue.
|
The SEC also
continues to focus on non-GAAP metrics, including
adjustments that change the accounting policy or the
method of recognition of an accounting measure that
may be misleading and, therefore, impermissible. For
example, a non-GAAP performance measure that
reflects revenue recognized over the service period
under GAAP on an accelerated basis as if the
registrant earned revenue when it billed its
customers is likely to be prohibited because it is
an individually tailored accounting principle and
does not reflect the registrant’s required GAAP
recognition method. However, in certain
circumstances, the SEC may not object when a
registrant presents the amount of revenue billed to
a customer — that is, “billings” or “bookings” (with
appropriate characterization) as an operational
metric — because such measures are not considered
non-GAAP measures. For more information, see
Deloitte’s Roadmap Non-GAAP Financial Measures and
Metrics.
Accounting Standards Update on Revenue Contracts Acquired in Business Combinations
In October 2021, the FASB issued ASU 2021-08, which amends the guidance in
ASC 805 to address the recognition and measurement of revenue contracts with
customers acquired in a business combination. The ASU requires an entity to apply
the revenue standard when recognizing and measuring contract assets and contract
liabilities arising from those contracts. By contrast, fair value is the measurement
model that is applied to most assets and liabilities (e.g., customer relationship
intangibles) acquired in a business combination.
Postimplementation Review
After the FASB issues a major new accounting standard, it
performs a postimplementation review (PIR) process to evaluate whether the
standard is achieving its objective by providing users of financial statements
with relevant information that justifies the costs of providing it. This process
enables the Board to solicit and consider stakeholder input and FASB staff
research. At its July 28, 2021, and September 21, 2022, meetings, the FASB
discussed feedback received to date on the revenue standard as well as the
results of research performed on certain revenue topics, including disclosures,
short-cycle manufacturing, principal-versus-agent considerations, licensing, and
variable consideration. In the handouts prepared for the Board’s July 2021 and September 2022 meetings, the FASB staff
noted that stakeholder feedback on the revenue standard was positive overall,
particularly from users of financial statements since the standard results in
more useful and transparent information, improved disclosures, and comparability
across entities and industries. The staff further observed that while many
preparers noted significant one-time costs associated with implementation of the
standard, they also highlighted that the standard has been beneficial in the
long run.
On November 10, 2023, the FASB hosted a public roundtable on the
PIR of ASC 606. During this meeting, participants discussed the benefits and
costs of the revenue standard, implementation challenges, improvements to the
standard-setting process, and assessment of the PIR process.
The FASB staff will continue to monitor implementation of the
revenue standard and provide updates to the Board on any emerging issues
identified. As the PIR of the revenue standard progresses, the Board and its
staff may identify areas of improvement that could result in future standard
setting.
See Deloitte’s Roadmap Revenue Recognition for a more
comprehensive discussion of accounting and financial
reporting considerations related to the recognition of
revenue from contracts with customers under ASC 606.
Contacts
|
Sandie Kim
Audit & Assurance
Partner
Deloitte &
Touche LLP
+1 415 783
4848
|
If you are interested in Deloitte’s revenue recognition service
offerings, please contact:
|
Chris Chiriatti
Audit & Assurance
Managing Director
Deloitte & Touche LLP
+1 203 761 3039
|