Project Update

Leases—Joint Project of the FASB and the IASB

Last updated on October 28, 2014. Please refer to the Current Technical Plan for information about the expected release dates of exposure documents and final standards.

(Updated sections are indicated with an asterisk *)

This project update summarizes the project activities and decisions of the FASB and the IASB (Boards). It was prepared by the staff and is for the information and convenience of their constituents. All decisions of the Boards are tentative, may change at future Board meetings, and do not change current accounting and reporting requirements. Decisions of the Boards become final only after extensive due process.

Due Process Documents
Project Objective and Summary of the Proposed Model
Outreach/Field Work
*Decisions Reached at the Last Meeting
*Summary of Decisions Reached to Date
Next Steps
*Board/Other Public Meeting Dates
Background Information
*Contact Information

DUE PROCESS DOCUMENTS


On May 16, 2013, the FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842): a revision of the 2010 proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 840).

PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MODEL


Leasing is an important activity for many organizations—whether a public or private company, or a not-for-profit organization. It is a means of gaining access to assets, obtaining financing, and reducing an organization’s exposure to the risks of asset ownership. Many organizations lease assets such as real estate, airplanes, trucks, ships, and construction and manufacturing equipment. Because of the prevalence of leasing, it is important for users of financial statements to have a complete and understandable picture of an organization’s leasing activities.

The existing accounting models for leases require lessees and lessors to classify their leases as either capital leases or operating leases and to account for those leases differently. Those models have been criticized for failing to meet the needs of users of financial statements because they do not always provide a faithful representation of leasing transactions.

As a result, there has been a widespread request from users of financial statements and other stakeholders to change the accounting guidance so that lessees would be required to recognize assets and liabilities arising from leases.

In addition, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a report on off-balance sheet activities in 2005 and recommended that changes be made to the existing lease accounting requirements to ensure greater transparency in financial reporting. A number of academic studies have made similar recommendations.

The objective of the project is to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information.  This represents an improvement over existing leases standards, which do not require lease assets and lease liabilities to be recognized by many lessees.

A lessee would recognize assets and liabilities for leases with a lease term of more than 12 months.

OUTREACH/FIELD WORK


Preparer Outreach

The Boards and staff participated in fieldwork meetings, where members of the Boards and staff visited financial statement preparers, both public and nonpublic, lessees and lessors. During these meetings, the members of the Boards and staff met with more than 20 different companies, who provided detailed information about the types and volume of leases that they enter into, as well as the systems that they currently use to track their leases. The purpose of these meetings was for the Boards and staff to use the information provided by the preparers to obtain a detailed understanding of the practical application of the 2013 revised Exposure Draft to help them evaluate the costs of implementation and any potential ongoing compliance costs.

Investor/Analyst Outreach

The Boards and staff conducted outreach with investors and analysts in the months of May through September 2013. This outreach mainly focused on the lessee proposals, but the Boards and staff also received feedback on the lessor proposals. For a summary of investor and analyst feedback on the lessee proposals, click here.

Public Roundtable Meetings


The Boards hosted several public roundtable meetings on their revised joint proposals on leases that were published in May 2013: the revised proposed FASB Accounting Standards Update, Leases (Topic 842) and the IASB’s Exposure Draft, Leases.

The roundtable meetings are an important part of the Boards’ due process. The meetings provided an opportunity for those that submitted a comment letter to discuss the proposals with the Boards and staff in further detail. To ensure that they received input covering a variety of perspectives, the Boards and staff sought participation from preparers, auditors, investors, and others.

The public roundtable meetings were scheduled as follows:

  • Tuesday, September 10th at Conselho Regional de Contabilidade do Estado de Sao Paulo in Sao Paulo, Brazil (one session)
    • An audio replay is available here.
  • Monday, September 16th at the IASB Office in London, UK (two sessions)
    • An audio replay is available here.
  • Monday, September 23rd at the FASB Office in Norwalk, Connecticut, USA (two sessions)
    • An audio replay is available here.
  • Thursday, October 3rd at Sheraton Gateway in Los Angeles, California, USA (two sessions, one of which was focused on nonpublic entities)
    • An audio replay is available here.
  • Friday, October 4th at Suntec Singapore Convention & Exhibition Centre in Singapore (one session)
    • An audio replay is available here.

Webcast

On Monday, May 20, the Boards and staff hosted IN FOCUS: THE LEASES PROJECT, a live webcast taking place from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. EDT (3:30 to 4:30 p.m. GMT). The webcast featured FASB member Russell Golden, IASB member Darrel Scott, and FASB and IASB staff members discussing the proposal and answering questions submitted by viewers.

*DECISIONS REACHED AT THE LAST MEETING (October 22, 2014)


The Boards continued redeliberating the proposals in the May 2013 Exposure Draft, Leases, specifically discussing the definition of a lease.

Definition of a Lease

The Boards decided that a lease should be defined as “a contract that conveys the right to use an asset (the underlying asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration.” An entity would determine whether a contract contains a lease by assessing whether:
  1. The use of an identified asset is either explicitly or implicitly specified. A contract would not involve the use of an identified asset if a supplier has the substantive right to substitute the asset used to fulfill the contract. A supplier would have the substantive right to substitute an asset if:
    1. It has the practical ability to substitute the asset; and
    2. It can benefit from exercising that right of substitution.
  2. The customer controls the use of the identified asset. A contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset if, throughout the period of use, the customer has the right to:
    1. Direct the use of the identified asset; and
    2. Obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from directing the use of the identified asset.
The Boards decided that a customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset whenever it has the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used, including the right to change how and for what purpose the asset is used, throughout the period of use. If neither the customer nor the supplier controls how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the period of use, the customer is considered to have the right to direct the use of the identified asset in either of the following circumstances:
  1. The customer has the right to operate the asset or to direct others to operate the asset in a manner that it determines (with the supplier having no right to change those operating instructions); or
  2. The customer designed the asset, or caused the asset to be designed, in a way that predetermines during the period of use:
    1. How and for what purpose the asset will be used; or
    2. How the asset will be operated.
In addition, the Boards decided that a supplier’s protective rights over the identified asset typically define the scope of the customer’s use of the asset but do not, in isolation, prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of the asset.

The Boards did not reach a decision about whether a contract contains a lease only when the customer has the ability to derive the benefits from directing the use of an identified asset on its own or together with other readily available resources. The Boards instructed the staff to consider feedback from Board members and to bring the issue back to a future Board meeting.

*SUMMARY OF TENTATIVE DECISIONS REACHED TO DATE (As of October 22, 2014)


Accounting Models

Lessee Accounting Model

The FASB decided on a dual approach for lessee accounting, with lease classification determined in accordance with the principle in existing lease requirements (that is, determining whether a lease is effectively an installment purchase by the lessee). Under this approach, a lessee would account for most existing capital/finance leases as Type A leases (that is, recognizing amortization of the right-of-use (ROU) asset separately from interest on the lease liability) and most existing operating leases as Type B leases (that is, recognizing a single total lease expense). Both Type A leases and Type B leases result in the lessee recognizing a ROU asset and a lease liability.

The IASB decided on a single approach for lessee accounting. Under that approach, a lessee would account for all leases as Type A leases (that is, recognizing amortization of the ROU asset separately from interest on the lease liability).

Lessor Accounting Model

The Boards decided that a lessor should determine lease classification (Type A versus Type B) on the basis of whether the lease is effectively a financing or a sale, rather than an operating lease (that is, on the concept underlying existing U.S. GAAP and on IFRS lessor accounting). A lessor would make that determination by assessing whether the lease transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the underlying asset. In addition, the FASB decided that a lessor should be precluded from recognizing selling profit and revenue at lease commencement for any Type A lease that does not transfer control of the underlying asset to the lessee. This requirement aligns the notion of what constitutes a sale in the lessor accounting guidance with that in the forthcoming revenue recognition standard, which evaluates whether a sale has occurred from the customer’s perspective.

Lessor Type A Accounting

The Boards decided to eliminate the receivable and residual approach proposed in the May 2013 Exposure Draft. Instead, a lessor will be required to apply an approach substantially equivalent to existing IFRS finance lease accounting (and U.S. GAAP sales type/direct financing lease accounting) to all Type A leases.

Scope

Definition of a Lease

The Boards decided that a lease should be defined as “a contract that conveys the right to use an asset (the underlying asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration.” An entity would determine whether a contract contains a lease by assessing whether:
  1. The use of an identified asset is either explicitly or implicitly specified. A contract would not involve the use of an identified asset if a supplier has the substantive right to substitute the asset used to fulfill the contract. A supplier would have the substantive right to substitute an asset if:
    1. It has the practical ability to substitute the asset; and
    2. It can benefit from exercising that right of substitution.
  2. The customer controls the use of the identified asset. A contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset if, throughout the period of use, the customer has the right to:
    1. Direct the use of the identified asset; and
    2. Obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from directing the use of the identified asset.
The Boards decided that a customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset whenever it has the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used, including the right to change how and for what purpose the asset is used, throughout the period of use. If neither the customer nor the supplier controls how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the period of use, the customer is considered to have the right to direct the use of the identified asset in either of the following circumstances:
  1. The customer has the right to operate the asset or to direct others to operate the asset in a manner that it determines (with the supplier having no right to change those operating instructions); or
  2. The customer designed the asset, or caused the asset to be designed, in a way that predetermines during the period of use:
    1. How and for what purpose the asset will be used; or
    2. How the asset will be operated.
In addition, the Boards decided that a supplier’s protective rights over the identified asset typically define the scope of the customer’s use of the asset but do not, in isolation, prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of the asset.

Small-Ticket Leases

The Boards decided that the leases guidance should not include specific requirements on materiality.

The Boards also decided to permit the leases guidance to be applied at a portfolio level by lessees and lessors. The FASB decided to include the portfolio guidance in the basis for conclusions; the IASB decided to include the portfolio guidance in the application guidance.

The IASB decided to provide an explicit recognition and measurement exemption for leases of small assets for lessees.

Short-Term Leases (Lessee)

The Boards decided to retain the recognition and measurement exemption for a lessee’s short-term leases. The Boards also decided that the short-term lease threshold should remain at 12 months or less. Additionally, the Boards decided to change the definition of a short-term lease so that it is consistent with the definition of lease term.

Measurement

Lease Term and Purchase Options

The Boards decided that, when determining the lease term, an entity should consider all relevant factors that create an economic incentive to exercise an option to extend, or not to terminate, a lease. An entity should include such an option in the lease term only if it is reasonably certain that the lessee will exercise the option having considered the relevant economic factors. Reasonably certain is a high threshold substantially the same as reasonably assured in existing U.S. GAAP. The Boards decided that a lessee should reassess the lease term only upon the occurrence of a significant event or a significant change in circumstances that are within the control of the lessee.

The Boards decided that a lessor should not be required to reassess the lease term.

The Boards decided that an entity should account for purchase options in the same way as options to extend, or not to terminate, a lease.

Variable Lease Payments

The Boards decided that only variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate should be included in the initial measurement of lease assets and lease liabilities and that an entity should measure those payments using the index or rate at lease commencement.

The FASB decided that a lessee should reassess variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate only when the lessee remeasures the lease liability for other reasons (for example, because of a reassessment of the lease term).

The IASB decided that a lessee should reassess variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate when the lessee remeasures the lease liability for other reasons (for example, because of a reassessment of the lease term) and when there is a change in the cash flows resulting from a change in the reference index or rate (that is, when an adjustment to the lease payments takes effect).

The Boards decided that a lessor should not be required to reassess variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate.

In-Substance Fixed Payments

The Boards decided (1) to retain the principle that variable lease payments that are in-substance fixed payments should be included in the definition of lease payments and provide additional clarifying guidance and (2) to note in the Basis for Conclusions that the concept that some variable lease payments are in-substance fixed payments exists under current practice.

Discount Rate

With respect to the determination of the discount rate, the Boards decided:
  1. To clarify in the implementation guidance what “value” refers to in the definition of the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate, but otherwise make no changes to the definition in the May 2013 Exposure Draft.
  2. To describe the rate the lessor charges the lessee as the rate implicit in the lease, consistent with existing lessor guidance.
  3. To include initial direct costs of the lessor in determining the rate implicit in the lease.
With respect to reassessment of the discount rate, the Boards decided:
  1. To require a lessee to reassess the discount rate only when there is a change to either the lease term or the assessment of whether the lessee is (or is not) reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the underlying asset.
  2. Not to require a lessor to reassess the discount rate.
Nonpublic Business Entity Discount Rate Considerations

The FASB decided to retain the accounting policy election to use the risk-free rate for nonpublic business entities (that is, all other entities beside public business entities).

Lease Modifications and Contract Combinations


The Boards decided to define a lease modification as any change to the contractual terms and conditions of a lease that was not part of the original terms and conditions of the lease and that the substance of the modification should govern over its form.

The Boards decided that both a lessee and a lessor should account for a lease modification as a new lease, separate from the original lease, when (1) the lease grants the lessee an additional right-of-use not included in the original lease and (2) the additional right-of-use is priced commensurate with its standalone price (in the context of that particular contract).

For lease modifications that are not accounted for as separate new leases, the Boards decided that:
  1. When a lease modification results in a change in the scope or consideration of the lease, a lessee should remeasure the lease liability using a discount rate determined at the effective date of the modification. For modifications that increase the scope of, or change the consideration paid for, the lease, the lessee should make a corresponding adjustment to the right-of-use asset. For modifications that decrease the scope of the lease, the lessee should decrease the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset to reflect the partial or full termination of the lease and should recognize a gain or a loss on a proportionate basis to the decrease in scope.
  2. A lessor should account for (a) modifications to a Type B lease as, in effect, a new lease from the effective date of the modification, considering any prepaid or accrued lease rentals relating to the original lease as part of the lease payments for the modified lease and (b) modifications to a Type A lease in accordance with IFRS 9, Financial Instruments (IFRS), or Topic 310, Receivables (U.S. GAAP).
The Boards decided to include contract combination guidance in the final leases standard, similar to that which will be included in the forthcoming revenue recognition standard, that would indicate when two or more contracts should be considered a single transaction.

Separating Lease and Nonlease Components

The Boards decided to retain guidance similar to that proposed in the 2013 Exposure Draft for both lessees and lessors on identifying separate lease components.

The Boards decided to retain guidance similar to that proposed in the 2013 Exposure Draft for lessors on separating lease components from nonlease components and allocating consideration in the contract to those components. That is, a lessor should apply the guidance in the forthcoming revenue recognition standard on allocating the transaction price to separate performance obligations. A lessor also should reallocate the consideration in a contract when there is a contract modification that is not accounted for as a separate, new contract.

The Boards decided to change the proposals in the 2013 Exposure Draft for lessees regarding separating lease components from nonlease components and allocating consideration in a contract to those components as follows:
  1. A lessee should separate lease components from nonlease components unless it applies the accounting policy election discussed below.
  2. A lessee should allocate the consideration in a contract to the lease and nonlease components on a relative standalone price basis. Activities (or costs of the lessor) that do not transfer a good or service to the lessee are not components in a contract. A lessee also should reallocate the consideration in a contract when (a) there is a reassessment of either the lease term or a lessee’s purchase option or (b) there is a contract modification that is not accounted for as a separate, new contract.
  3. A lessee should use observable standalone prices, if available, and otherwise it would use estimates of the standalone price for lease and nonlease components (maximizing the use of observable information).
The Boards decided to permit a lessee, as an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset, to not separate lease components from nonlease components. Instead, a lessee should account for lease and nonlease components together as a single lease component.

Initial Direct Costs

The Boards decided that only incremental costs should qualify as initial direct costs.

The Boards decided that initial direct costs should include only incremental costs that an entity would not have incurred if the lease had not been obtained (executed) (for example, commissions or payments made to existing tenants to obtain the lease).

The Boards decided that both lessees and lessors should apply the same definition of initial direct costs.

The Boards decided the following regarding the accounting for initial direct costs:
  1. A lessor in a Type A lease (except those who recognize selling profit at lease commencement) should include initial direct costs in the initial measurement of the lease receivable by taking account of those costs in determining the rate implicit in the lease. A lessor who recognizes selling profit at lease commencement should recognize initial direct costs associated with a Type A lease as an expense at lease commencement.
  2. A lessor in a Type B lease should recognize initial direct costs as an expense over the lease term on the same basis as lease income.
  3. A lessee should include initial direct costs in the initial measurement of the right-of-use asset and amortize those costs over the lease term.
Subleases

The Boards decided that an intermediate lessor (that is, an entity that is both a lessee and a lessor of the same underlying asset) should account for a head lease and a sublease as two separate contracts (accounting for the head lease in accordance with the lessee accounting proposals and the sublease in accordance with the lessor accounting proposals), unless those contracts meet the contract combinations guidance adopted by the Boards at the April 2014 joint Board meeting.

The FASB decided that, when classifying a sublease, an intermediate lessor should determine the classification of the sublease with reference to the underlying asset (for example, the item of property, plant, and equipment that is the subject of the lease), rather than with reference to the right-of-use (ROU) asset arising from the head lease.

The IASB decided that, when classifying a sublease, an intermediate lessor should determine the classification of the sublease with reference to the ROU asset arising from the head lease.The Boards decided that an intermediate lessor should not offset lease assets and lease liabilities arising from a head lease and a sublease that do not meet the respective IFRS and GAAP financial instruments requirements for offsetting.

The Boards decided that an intermediate lessor should not offset lease income and lease expense related to a head lease and a sublease, unless it recognizes sublease income as revenue and acts as an agent (assessed in accordance with the “principal-agent” guidance in the recently published standard on revenue from contracts with customers).

Sale and Leaseback Transactions

Determining Whether a Sale Has Occurred

The Boards decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft that in order for a sale to occur in the context of a sale and leaseback transaction, the sale must meet the requirements for a sale in the recently issued revenue recognition standard. The Boards reaffirmed that the presence of the leaseback does not, in isolation, preclude the seller-lessee from concluding that it has sold the underlying asset to the buyer-lessor.

The FASB decided that if the seller-lessee determines that the leaseback is a Type A lease, assessed from the seller-lessee’s perspective, then no sale has occurred.

The IASB decided not to include any additional application guidance in the final leases standard regarding the determination of the sale. The IASB clarified, however, that if the seller-lessee has a substantive repurchase option with respect to the underlying asset, then no sale has occurred.

Accounting for the Sale/Purchase

The Boards decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft that a buyer-lessor should account for the purchase of the underlying asset consistent with the guidance that would apply to any other purchase of a nonfinancial asset (that is, without the presence of the leaseback).

The Boards decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft that a seller-lessee should account for any loss on a completed sale in a sale and leaseback transaction consistent with the guidance that would apply to any other similar sale.

The FASB decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft that a seller-lessee should account for any gain on a completed sale in a sale and leaseback transaction consistent with the guidance that would apply to any other similar sale.

The IASB decided that the gain recognized by a seller-lessee on a completed sale in a sale and leaseback transaction should be restricted to the amount of the gain that relates to the residual interest in the underlying asset at the end of the leaseback.

Repurchase Options in a Sale and Leaseback Transaction

The FASB decided to follow the recently issued revenue recognition guidance and clarify that a repurchase option exercisable only at the then-prevailing fair market value would not preclude sale treatment, provided that the underlying asset is nonspecialized and readily available in the marketplace. The repurchase option must be substantive in order to affect the accounting for the transaction. In reaching this decision, some FASB members thought that this application was consistent with language provided in the basis for conclusions of the recently issued revenue recognition standard.

Application Guidance for Determining Whether a Sale Has Occurred

The FASB decided to include application guidance, with respect to determining whether a sale occurs in the context of a sale and leaseback transaction, in the final leases standard.

Accounting for the Leaseback

The Boards decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft that if a sale is completed, the seller-lessee and the buyer-lessor should account for the leaseback in the same manner as any other lease.

Accounting for “Off-Market” Terms

The Boards decided that an entity should determine any potential “off-market” adjustment on the basis of the difference between either (1) the sale price and the fair value of the underlying asset or (2) the present value of the contractual lease payments and the present value of fair market value lease payments, whichever is more readily determinable.

For sale and leaseback transactions entered into at “off-market” terms, the Boards decided that an entity should account for:
  1. Any deficiency in the same manner as a prepayment of rent.
  2. Any excess as additional financing provided by the buyer-lessor to the seller-lessee.
Accounting for Failed Sale and Leaseback Transactions

The FASB decided to perform additional analysis on the accounting that should apply to “failed” sale and leaseback transactions.

The IASB decided to retain the guidance proposed in the 2013 Exposure Draft that both a seller-lessee and a buyer-lessor would account for a “failed” sale and leaseback transaction as a financing transaction.

The FASB decided that if a sale and leaseback transaction does not result in a sale, the “failed” sale should be accounted for as a financing transaction by the seller-lessee and buyer-lessor.

Related Party Leasing Transactions

The FASB decided to retain the related party leases guidance proposed in the 2013 Exposure Draft. The FASB reaffirmed that lessees and lessors should be required to account for their related party leases on the basis of the legally enforceable terms and conditions of the lease.

Leveraged Leases

The FASB reaffirmed the proposal in the 2013 Exposure Draft that leveraged lease accounting should be eliminated. That is, the lessor should account for leases that currently qualify as leveraged leases consistent with all other leases within the new leases guidance.

The FASB decided that existing leveraged leases should be grandfathered during transition.

Presentation

Balance Sheet Presentation

Lessee ROU Asset

The FASB decided that a lessee should either present as separate line items on the balance sheet or disclose in the notes Type A ROU assets (which are effectively purchases of the underlying asset) and Type B ROU assets. If a lessee does not present Type A ROU assets or Type B ROU assets as separate line items on the balance sheet, the lessee should disclose in the notes which line items in the balance sheet include Type A ROU assets and Type B ROU assets. A lessee is prohibited from presenting Type A ROU assets within the same line item as Type B ROU assets.

The IASB decided that a lessee should either present as a separate line item on the balance sheet or disclose in the notes ROU assets. If a lessee does not present ROU assets as a separate line item on the balance sheet, the lessee should present ROU assets within the same line item as the corresponding underlying assets would be presented if they were owned, and disclose in the notes which line item in the balance sheet includes ROU assets.

Lessee Lease Liability

The FASB decided that a lessee should either present as separate line items on the balance sheet or disclose in the notes Type A lease liabilities and Type B lease liabilities. If a lessee does not present Type A lease liabilities or Type B lease liabilities as separate line items on the balance sheet, the lessee should disclose in the notes which line items in the balance sheet include Type A lease liabilities and Type B lease liabilities. A lessee is prohibited from presenting Type A lease liabilities within the same line item as Type B lease liabilities.

The IASB decided that a lessee should either present as a separate line item on the balance sheet or disclose in the notes lease liabilities. If a lessee does not present lease liabilities as a separate line item on the balance sheet, the lessee should disclose in the notes which line item in the balance sheet includes lease liabilities.

Cash Flow Presentation

Lessee

The FASB decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft requiring a lessee to classify:
  1. Cash payments for the principal portion of the lease liability arising from Type A leases within financing activities
  2. Cash payments for the Interest portion of the lease liability arising from Type A leases within operating activities
  3. Cash payments arising from Type B leases within operating activities.
The IASB decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft for Type A leases requiring a lessee to classify:
  1. Cash payments for the principal portion of the lease liability within financing activities
  2. Cash payments for the interest portion of the lease liability in accordance with the requirements relating to interest paid in IAS 7, Statement of Cash Flows.
The IASB also decided to require a lessee to disclose a single figure for lease cash outflows elsewhere in the financial statements.

Lessor

The Boards decided to retain the guidance in the 2013 Exposure Draft requiring a lessor to classify cash receipts from leases within operating activities.

Disclosures

Lessee

Short-Term Leases

The Boards decided to require disclosure of the amount of expense related to short-term leases recognized in the reporting period as well as any qualitative disclosures the Boards decide upon for leases generally. If the short-term lease expense does not reflect the lessee’s short-term lease commitments, a lessee should disclose that fact and the amount of its short-term lease commitments.

Lessor

The Boards decided that a lessor should be required to disclose:
  1. Information about the nature of its leases, as well as information about significant assumptions and judgments made in applying the leases requirements;
  2. A table of lease income during the reporting period; and
  3. Information about how a lessor manages its risk associated with the residual value of its leased assets.
The Boards decided that a lessor should treat assets subject to Type B leases as a class of property, plant, and equipment (IFRS) or a major class of depreciable assets (U.S. GAAP), further distinguished by significant class of underlying asset. Accordingly, a lessor should provide the required property, plant, and equipment disclosures for assets subject to Type B leases separately from owned assets held and used by the lessor.

The Boards also decided that a lessor should be required to disclose:
  1. For Type A leases, a maturity analysis of the undiscounted cash flows that comprise the lessor’s lease receivables for each of the first five years following the reporting date and a total of the amount for the remaining years thereafter. A lessor should reconcile the maturity analysis to the balance of lease receivables presented separately in the balance sheet or disclosed separately in the notes; and
  2. For Type B leases, a maturity analysis of the undiscounted future lease payments to be received for each of the first five years following the reporting date and a total of the amount for the remaining years thereafter.
The FASB decided that a lessor should be required to provide an explanation of the significant changes in the components of the net investment in Type A leases other than the lease receivable during the reporting period. The FASB will consider disclosures related to Type A lease receivables when it discusses disclosures in its project on accounting for financial instruments—credit impairment.

The IASB decided that a lessor should be required to provide a qualitative and quantitative explanation of the significant changes in the net investment in Type A leases during the reporting period.

Related Party

The FASB decided that lessees and lessors should be required to apply the disclosure requirements for related party transactions in accordance with Topic 850.

NEXT STEPS

The Boards will continue their joint redeliberations of the May 2013 Exposure Draft.

Please see the Current Technical Plan for more information about the project timeline.

*BOARD/OTHER PUBLIC MEETING DATES (AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2013 EXPOSURE DRAFT)

The IASB meeting summaries and FASB meeting minutes are provided for the information and convenience of constituents who want to follow the Boards’ deliberations. All of the conclusions reported are tentative and may be changed at future Board meetings. Decisions become final only after a formal written ballot to issue a final Accounting Standards Update.

(View list of meetings prior to the issuance of the Exposure Draft)

Topic

IASB Meeting Summaries and Observer Notes

FASB Board Minutes

Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed definition of a lease.
October 2014 October 22, 2014
FASB-only Board Meeting
The FASB discussed nonpublic business entity discount rate considerations, related party leasing transactions, accounting for sale and leaseback transactions, and leveraged leases.
N/A August 27, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed sale and leaseback transactions and lessor disclosure requirements.
July 2014 July 23, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed subleases, lessee balance sheet presentation, and cash flow presentation.
June 2014 June 18, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed definition of a lease, separating lease and nonlease components, and initial direct costs.
May 2014 May 22, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed lease modifications and contract combinations, variable lease payments, in-substance fixed payments, and discount rate.
April 2014 April 23, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed the lessee accounting model, the lessor accounting model, small ticket leases, lease term, and short-term leases.
March 2014 March 18-19, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards began their redeliberations of the proposals included in the May 2013 Exposure Draft, Leases.
January 2014 January 23, 2014
Joint IASB/FASB Board Meeting
The Boards discussed a summary of feedback received on the leases project through outreach activities, roundtable meetings, and comment letters. The Boards also discussed the plans for redeliberations.
November 2013
November 20, 2013

*CONTACT INFORMATION

FASB IASB

Danielle Zeyher
Project Manager
dtzeyher@fasb.org

Patrina Buchanan
Technical Principal
pbuchanan@ifrs.org

Scott Muir
Practice Fellow
samuir@fasb.org

Roberta Ravelli
Practice Fellow
rravelli@ifrs.org
Lisa Muehlbauer
Assistant Project Manager
lamuehlbauer@fasb.org
Sarah Geisman
Technical Manager
sgeisman@ifrs.org
Jaffer Alqamoussi
Postgraduate Technical Assistant
jealqamoussi@fasb.org

Kathryn Donkersley
Technical Manager
kdonkersley@ifrs.org

Amy Winkler
Postgraduate Technical Assistant
aewinkler@fasb.org
 


Back to FASB Home
Back to IASB Home