SUMMARY OF BOARD DECISIONS
Summary of Board decisions are provided for the information and
convenience of constituents who want to follow the Board’s deliberations. All of
the conclusions reported are tentative and may be changed at future Board
meetings. Decisions are included in an Exposure Draft for formal comment only
after a formal written ballot. Decisions in an Exposure Draft may be (and often
are) changed in redeliberations based on information provided to the Board in
comment letters, at public roundtable discussions, and through other
communication channels. Decisions become final only after a formal written
ballot to issue a final standard.
September 23, 2009 Board Meeting
Financial
statement presentation. The Board began deliberating the proposals
in the October 2008 Discussion Paper, Preliminary Views on Financial
Statement Presentation, making the tentative decisions described below.
- An entity would be required to present financial statement items in
sections that distinguish between business activities (value creating
activities) and financing activities (funding of that value creation) in each
of the financial statements, as proposed in the Discussion Paper.
- In a change from the Discussion Paper, the Board agreed to be more
specific in defining the financing section. The Board directed the
staff to draft a definition of the financing section that includes at least
two components: treasury assets and financing liabilities. That draft
definition will be considered at a future meeting.
- The Board decided to retain an approach to classification within the
business section that is based on how a reporting entity organizes
its activities and how it uses its assets and liabilities. In a change from
the Discussion Paper, the Board decided that there would not be an operating
or investing category within the business section. Rather, additional
groupings of information within the business section (that is, categories)
would reflect the facts and circumstances of that entity and would be left to
management’s discretion. At a future meeting, the Board will discuss
application guidance to help management determine meaningful groupings of
information within an entity’s business section.
- As proposed in the Discussion Paper, the Board would require an entity to
present information about discontinued operations in a separate section in
each of its primary financial statements (except the statement of changes in
equity).
- The Board decided that an entity would not be required to present
information about net debt in its financial statements. The Discussion Paper
did not address presentation of net debt information.
Revenue
recognition. The Board discussed three revenue recognition
topics:
- The relationship between the proposed model and receivables accounting
- The definition of control for determining when goods and services are
transferred to a customer
- Options to acquire additional goods and services.
The Proposed Model and Receivables Accounting
The proposed revenue recognition model focuses on contracts with customers. A
contract comprises rights and performance obligations. The Board affirmed its
preliminary view in the Discussion Paper, Preliminary Views on Revenue
Recognition in Contracts with Customers, that unperformed rights and
performance obligations of a contract should be reported on a net basis as
either a contract asset or a contract liability.
The Board then considered the relationship between accounts receivable and a
contract asset or contract liability. The Board decided that an entity should
account for an unconditional right to consideration in accordance with existing
guidance on receivables. A right to consideration is unconditional when nothing
other than the passage of time makes payment of that consideration due.
Control
The Discussion Paper proposed that an entity should recognize revenue when it
satisfies its performance obligations to a customer by transferring goods or
services to the customer. An entity has transferred a good or a service when the
customer obtains control of it.
The Board decided that the proposed standard would require an entity to
assess whether control has been transferred from the perspective of the
customer. The proposed standard also would provide a definition of control and
accompanying indicators to help entities assess the transfer of control from a
customer perspective.
The Board considered the following working definition of control and related
indicators:
Control of a good or a service is an entity’s present ability to direct the
use of and receive the benefit from that good or service.
- The customer has an unconditional obligation to pay for the asset (and
the payment is nonrefundable).
- The customer has legal title to the asset.
- The customer can sell the asset to (or exchange the asset with) another
party.
- The customer has physical possession of the asset.
- The customer has the practical ability to take possession of the asset.
- The customer specifies the design or function of the asset.
- The customer has continuing managerial involvement with the asset.
- The customer can secure or settle debt with the asset.
The staff will continue to refine the definition of control and the
indicators for discussion at future meetings.
Options to Acquire Additional Goods and Services
The Board considered how an entity would determine whether options to acquire
additional goods and services are part of a present contract with a customer,
and, if so, how the entity would account for them.
The Board decided that an option to acquire additional goods and services in
a contract with a customer would be recognized as a performance obligation only
if the option provides a material right to the customer that the customer would
not receive without entering into that contract. An entity would account for
that performance obligation by allocating to it a portion of the transaction
price.
The Board decided that an entity can use various methods to allocate
consideration to those optional goods and services. In some cases, an entity can
estimate the standalone selling price of an option as a basis for allocation.
That estimate would reflect the discount the customer would obtain when
exercising the option, adjusted for the following:
- The discount that the customer could receive without exercising the option
- The likelihood that the option would be exercised.
The Board decided that with renewal and cancellation options, an entity could
allocate the transaction price to the optional goods and services by reference
to the goods and services expected to be provided and the corresponding expected
consideration.
FASB
ratification of EITF consensuses and tentative conclusions. The
Board considered and ratified the following consensuses reached at the September
9-10, 2009 EITF meeting.
- Issue No. 08-1, "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables."
This
Issue applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that are currently
within the scope of Subtopic 605-25 (previously included in EITF Issue No.
00-21, "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables"). The Issue also:
- Provides principles and application guidance on whether multiple
deliverables exist, how the arrangement should be separated, and the
consideration allocated.
- Requires an entity to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated
selling prices of deliverables if a vendor does not have vendor-specific
objective evidence or third-party evidence of selling price.
- Eliminates the use of the residual method and requires an entity to
allocate revenue using the relative selling price method.
The
consensus significantly expands the disclosure requirements for
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements.
This Issue should be applied
on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially
modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with earlier
application permitted. Alternatively, an entity can elect to adopt this Issue
on a retrospective basis.
- Issue No. 09-3, “Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software
Elements.”
This Issue focuses on determining which arrangements are
within the scope of the software revenue guidance in Topic 985 (previously
included in AICPA Statement of Position 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition)
and which are not. This Issue removes tangible products from the scope of the
software revenue guidance and provides guidance on determining whether
software deliverables in an arrangement that includes a tangible product are
within the scope of the software revenue guidance.
The disclosure
requirements, effective date, and transition methods for this Issue are the
same as those for Issue 08-1. An entity must adopt both Issue 08-1 and Issue
09-3 in the same period using the same transition method.
The Board also considered and ratified the following consensuses-for-exposure
reached at the September 9-10, 2009 EITF meeting.
- Issue No. 09-2, "Research and Development Assets Acquired in an Asset
Acquisition." The Board agreed to a comment period that commences no later
than September 30, 2009, and ends no later than October 26, 2009.
The
consensus-for-exposure would require that all tangible and intangible research
and development assets acquired in an asset acquisition be capitalized
regardless of whether those assets have a future alternative use. Any
contingent consideration in an asset acquisition would be accounted for in
accordance with existing U.S. GAAP. An entity would be required to
differentiate between contingent consideration that relates to the acquisition
of the assets and contingent consideration that relates to the performance of
future services from the seller.
- Issue No. 09-B, "Consideration of an Insurer’s Accounting for
Majority-Owned Investments When Ownership Is through a Separate Account." The
Board agreed to a comment period that commences no later than September 30,
2009, and ends no later than October 26, 2009.
The
consensus-for-exposure would not require an insurer to consolidate a mutual
fund if the insurer holds a majority-owned investment in the mutual fund
through its separate account. The insurer also would not be required to
consolidate a mutual fund if the insurer holds a majority-owned investment
through a combination of interests held by its separate and general accounts,
but neither the separate account nor the general account individually has a
majority interest.
- Issue No. 09-E, "Accounting for Stock Dividends, Including Distributions
to Shareholders with Components of Stock and Cash." The Board agreed to a
comment period that commences no later than September 30, 2009, and ends no
later than October 26, 2009.
The consensus-for-exposure would require
that the stock portion of a distribution to shareholders that contains
components of cash and stock and allows shareholders to select their preferred
form of the distribution (with a limit on the minimum amount of cash that will
be distributed in total) be considered a stock dividend for purposes of
determining earnings per share. Only the minimum portion of the distribution
that will be issued in shares would be accounted for as a stock dividend.
The consensus-for-exposure states that all stock dividends (not just
those that provide the shareholder with the distribution option) should be
reflected in earnings per share on the later of the ex-dividend date or the
date the number of shares to be issued is known.
Accounting
for financial instruments. The staff provided the Board with a
summary of the feedback received during the FASB and IASB’s financial instrument
roundtable meetings in Tokyo, London, and Norwalk and the FASB’s discussion of
core deposit liabilities with U.S. investors. The Board did not make a decision
on which measurement attribute should be used to measure core deposit
liabilities. However, the Board did decide on an approach for remeasurement if
the Board were to decide at a future date that such information would be useful
to investors.
The Board agreed to a remeasurement approach that has the
following characteristics:
- A present value of the average core deposit liability amount discounted by
the difference between the alternative funds rate and the
all-in-cost-to-service rate over the implied maturity.
- The core deposit liability amount that would be subject to the
remeasurement would be determined as an average amount over the implied
maturity time period, which would result in the consideration of future
deposits. Considering and valuing future deposits would result in an
intangible asset being reflected in the valuation.