Project Update

Revenue Recognition—Joint Project of the FASB and IASB

Last updated on January 13, 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 IASB (the Boards). It was prepared by the staff and is for the information and convenience of the Boards’ 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
Related FASB Documents
Background Information
*Contact Information


SUMMARY OF DECISIONS REACHED TO DATE (as of October 30, 2013)

The Summary of Decisions Reached to Date is 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 become final only after a formal written ballot to issue a final Accounting Standards Update.

Click here for the IASB update document.

Click here for a PDF version of the below tentative decisions to date.


STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE CONTRACT WITH A CUSTOMER

Contracts with Customers that Contain Nonrecourse, Seller-Based Financing

The Boards tentatively decided to provide additional guidance in the standard on determining whether a contract with a customer exists based on the customer’s commitment to perform its obligations under the contract.

Step 1 of the revenue model (that is, paragraph 14 of the 2011 Exposure Draft, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, as amended) specifies criteria that must be met in order for an entity to apply the revenue model to a contract with a customer. The Boards tentatively decided that an entity should make an overall qualitative assessment of the facts and circumstances of the contract with the customer to determine whether “the parties are committed to perform their respective obligations and they intend to enforce their respective contractual rights.” In relation to that criterion, the Boards also tentatively decided to clarify that:

  1. The assessment of the commitment and intention of the parties to the contract is to identify whether the contract is a substantive arrangement. A contract can be substantive even if the entity does not intend to enforce all of its rights under the contract.
  2. The assessment about the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled is considered when determining the transaction price. That assessment does not affect whether a contract meets the criteria in paragraph 14.


Collectibility

See discussion below in Step 3 under Collectibility.

Accounting for Contracts That Do Not Meet Step 1 of the Revenue Model


The Boards tentatively decided that if a contract does not meet the criteria in paragraph 14, consideration received by the entity should not be recognized as revenue until the entity’s performance is complete and either:

  1. All of the consideration in the arrangement has been collected and is nonrefundable; or
  2. The contract is cancelled and the consideration received is nonrefundable.

The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify that the criteria in paragraph 14 should be reassessed if they are initially not met.

Contract Modifications

The Boards discussed the application of the proposed contract modifications requirements in the 2011 ED. Specifically, the Boards discussed how those proposals would apply to modifications that current guidance on contracts in U.S. GAAP (Topic 605-35, Revenue Recognition—Construction-Type and Production-Type Contracts) and IFRSs (IAS 11, Construction Contracts) describes as contract claims in which changes in scope and price are unapproved or in dispute. The Boards tentatively decided that an entity should account for those contract claims in accordance with the proposed contract modifications requirements. The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify that a contract modification, including a contract claim, would be approved when the modification creates or changes the enforceable rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. The Boards noted that, consistent with the proposals on identifying the contract, a contract modification could be approved in writing or orally or the approval could be implied by customary business practice.

The Boards also tentatively decided:

  1. To require an entity to account for contract modifications that result only in a change to the transaction price in accordance with paragraph 22 of the 2011 ED, which is consistent with the accounting for contract modifications that result in a change in scope. Consequently, the revenue standard would not include the proposal in paragraph 20 of the 2011 ED, which would have required a modification that results only in a change to the transaction price to be treated consistently with changes in transaction price (paragraphs 77–80 of the 2011 ED).
  2. To clarify that, for modifications within the scope of paragraph 22(a) of the 2011 ED, the transaction price available for allocation to the remaining separate performance obligations should be the amount of consideration received from the customer but not yet recognized as revenue plus the amount of any remaining consideration that the customer has promised to pay that has not been recognized as revenue.
  3. To clarify that, for modifications within the scope of paragraph 22(a) of the 2011 ED and for which there is a subsequent change in the estimate of the transaction price, an entity should account for the modification prospectively unless the change in the transaction price relates to satisfied performance obligations, in which case the entity should account for that change in accordance with the proposed requirements in paragraphs 77–80 of the 2011 ED. A similar approach would apply to accounting for revenue that had previously been constrained.

STEP 2: IDENTIFY THE SEPARATE PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT

Identifying Separate Performance Obligations

The Boards tentatively decided:

  1. To retain the concept of a distinct good or service, which is used to determine whether a promise to transfer a good or service to a customer should be accounted for as a separate performance obligation; improve the assessment of 
  2. To approve the assessment whether a good or service is distinct that was proposed in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the 2011 ED by clarifying the criterion proposed at paragraph 28 and by replacing the proposed criterion in paragraph 29 of the 2011 ED with indicators; and
  3. To remove the practical expedient in paragraph 30 of the 2011 ED (which permitted an entity to account for two or more distinct goods or services as a single performance obligation if those goods or services have the same pattern of transfer to the customer).

To retain and improve the distinct concept in the 2011 ED (paragraphs 28 and 29), the Boards tentatively decided that an entity should account for a promised good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) as a separate performance obligation only if:

  1. The promised good or service is capable of being distinct because the customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer (this criterion is based on paragraph 28(b) of the 2011 ED); and
  2. The promised good or service is distinct within the context of the contract because the good or service is not highly dependent on, or highly interrelated with, other promised goods or services in the contract.

The Boards tentatively agreed that the assessment of whether a promised good or service is distinct in the context of the contract should be supported by indicators, such as:

  1. The entity does not provide a significant service of integrating the good or service (or bundle of goods or services) into the bundle of goods or services that the customer has contracted. In other words, the entity is not using the good or service as an input to produce the output specified in the contract.
  2. The customer was able to purchase or not purchase the good or service without significantly affecting the other promised goods or services in the contract.
  3. The good or service does not significantly modify or customize another good or service promised in the contract.
  4. The good or service is not part of a series of consecutively delivered goods or services promised in a contract that meet the following two conditions: 
    1. The promises to transfer those goods or services to the customer are performance obligations that are satisfied over time (in accordance with paragraphs 35 of the 2011 ED); and
    2. The entity uses the same method for measuring progress to depict the transfer of those goods or services to the customer.

Contract Issues Distribution Networks

The Boards discussed the application of the proposals in the 2011 ED to arrangements that arise in distribution networks. In those arrangements, an entity (such as a manufacturer) may transfer control of a product to its customer (who may be an intermediary, such as a dealer or retailer). The manufacturer may also promise other goods or services as sales incentives to encourage the sales of those products that have become part of the intermediary’s inventory.

If the promise to transfer those goods or services that are regarded as sales incentives was made in the contract or implied in the circumstances described in paragraph 24 of the 2011 ED, the Board affirmed that those promised goods or services should be accounted for as a performance obligation. However, if the promise was made after the transfer of control of the product to the intermediary, the Boards affirmed that the promise would not be a performance obligation.

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TRANSACTION PRICE

Variable consideration and the constraint on estimates of variable consideration

Overall

The Boards tentatively decided that, consistent with the proposal in the 2011 ED, an entity should evaluate whether to constrain the cumulative amount of revenue recognized if the amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled is variable. Paragraph 53 of the 2011 ED identified examples of variable consideration. The Boards tentatively decided to clarify the meaning of variable consideration to indicate that the constraint should apply to a fixed-price contract in which there is uncertainty about whether the entity would be entitled to that consideration after satisfying the related performance obligation.

Location of the Guidance Related to the Constraint

The Boards considered whether the constraint on revenue recognition should be applied as:

  1. A constraint on the cumulative amount of revenue recognized when an entity satisfies a performance obligation (Step 5); or
  2. A constraint of the transaction price (Step 3), which the 2010 Exposure Draft had previously proposed as the location of the constraint.

On the basis that the location of the constraint (that is, either in Step 5 or in Step 3) should not affect the amount or timing of revenue recognition, the Boards tentatively decided to move the constraint to Step 3 unless, during the drafting process of the revenue standard, it becomes apparent that decision will result in unintended consequences.

Objective of the Constraint

The Boards tentatively decided to specify a confidence level in the objective of the constraint of probable. (For the IASB, the confidence level will be expressed as “highly probable.” The Boards acknowledge that different terms were necessary to convey the same outcome because of existing definitions in US GAAP and IFRS.)

The Boards also tentatively decided that if an entity expects that including some, but not all, of the estimated amount of variable consideration (that is, a minimum amount) in the transaction price would not result in a significant revenue reversal, the entity should include that amount in the estimate of the transaction price. The objective of the constraint should be stated in the final revenue standard broadly as follows:

An entity shall include an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price to the extent it is probable that a significant revenue reversal will not occur. A significant revenue reversal will occur if there is a significant downward adjustment on the amount of cumulative revenue recognized from that contract with that customer.

The Boards also tentatively decided to retain the indicators in paragraph 82 of the 2011 ED (subject to improvements and clarifications) to help entities in assessing whether to recognize revenue based on estimates of variable consideration, including estimates of price concessions.

Reassessment

The Boards tentatively decided that an entity should update the estimated transaction price at each reporting date to represent faithfully the circumstances present at the reporting date and the changes in circumstances during the reporting period.

Sales and Usage-Based Royalties on Licenses of Intellectual Property

The Boards discussed the pattern of revenue recognition that would result from the application of the constraint to licenses of intellectual property with sales or usage-based royalties. In light of the resulting revenue pattern, the Boards tentatively decided to include a specific requirement for licenses of intellectual property in which the consideration is in the form of a sales or usage-based royalty. That requirement specifies that an entity should include consideration from the sales or usage-based royalty in the transaction price when or as the uncertainty has been resolved (that is, when the subsequent sales or usage occurs).

Collectibility

The Boards considered possible approaches for addressing customer credit risk in accounting for contracts with customers without a significant financing component. The Boards tentatively decided:

  1. To affirm their proposal in the 2011 ED that the transaction price, and therefore revenue, should be measured at the amount of consideration to which the entity is entitled (that is, an amount that is not adjusted for customer credit risk and the revenue recognized is not subject to a collectibility threshold); and
  2. To present prominently as an expense in the statement of comprehensive income any corresponding impairment losses (recognized initially and subsequently in accordance with financial instruments standards) arising from those contracts with customers.

The Boards also tentatively affirmed the proposals in the 2011 ED for accounting for contracts with customers with significant financing components.

Additionally, the Boards tentatively decided to present any impairments recognized in the current period or in a subsequent period in a consistent manner.

The Boards tentatively decided to clarify the determination of the transaction price by including additional guidance to enable an entity to distinguish between doubts about collectibility arising from customer credit risk that should be accounted for as either (1) variable consideration (that is, a price concession or discount) or (2) an impairment loss (that is recognized in accordance with financial instruments standards). In particular, the guidance will state that, in determining whether the promised consideration is variable (and therefore subject to the constraint on estimates of variable consideration), an entity should:

  1. Assess all relevant facts and circumstances related to the contract and the customer’s credit risk that might indicate that the entity would grant a price concession and, therefore, expects to be entitled to an amount that is less than the contractually stated price; and
  2. Consider whether attributes of the contract with a customer might indicate that the promised consideration is variable (because, for example, the incremental cost to the entity to transfer the good or service to the customer is negligible or the good that transfers to the customer is not expected to substantially diminish in value and it therefore serves as adequate collateral).
The Boards discussed assessments of customer credit risk (that is, collectibility) in the revenue model. The Boards affirmed previous tentative decisions to measure the transaction price, and therefore revenue, at the amount of consideration to which the entity is entitled (that is, an amount that is not adjusted for customer credit risk). The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify the requirements relating to estimates of variable consideration, specifically as they relate to assessing whether an entity has provided a price concession.

The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify the criteria that must be met before an entity can apply the revenue model to a contract with a customer by including an explicit collectibility threshold. To meet that threshold and apply the revenue model, an entity must conclude that it is probable that it will collect the consideration to which it will be ultimately entitled to in exchange for the goods or services that will be transferred to the customer. In making that assessment, the Boards noted that an entity would only consider customer credit risk and not other uncertainties, such as those related to performance or measurement, which would be accounted for in the timing of recognition and measurement of revenue. In setting the threshold, the Boards also acknowledged that the term probable has different meanings in US GAAP and IFRS; however, the Boards tentatively decided to set the threshold at a level that is consistent with current practice and existing standards for revenue recognition in US GAAP and IFRS.

Time Value of Money

The Boards tentatively affirmed the proposal in the 2011 ED that an entity should adjust the amount of promised consideration for the effects of the time value of money if the contract with a customer has a significant financing component.

The Boards also tentatively decided:
  1. To clarify the application of the indicators in paragraph 59 of the 2011 ED for determining whether a contract has a significant financing component;
  2. To clarify that if the transfer of goods or services to a customer is at the discretion of the customer, an entity should not adjust advance payments for the effects of the time value of money;
  3. To retain the proposed practical expedient and clarify that the practical expedient should also apply to contracts with a duration of greater than one year if the period between performance and payment for that performance is one year or less; and
  4. To clarify that the proposed revenue standard would not preclude an entity from presenting as revenue interest income that is recognized from contracts with a significant financing component.
     
STEP 4: ALLOCATE THE TRANSACTION PRICE TO THE SEPARATE PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT

Allocating the Transaction Price


The Boards discussed possible refinements and clarifications to the proposals in the 2011 ED for allocating the transaction price to separate performance obligations (that is, Step 4 of the revenue model).

The Boards tentatively decided to retain the residual approach in paragraph 73(c) of the 2011 ED as an appropriate technique to estimate the standalone selling price of a good or service if that standalone selling price is highly variable or uncertain. The Boards also clarified that the residual approach may be used in contracts in which there are two or more goods or services that have highly variable or uncertain standalone selling prices, if at least one of the other goods or services in the contract has a standalone selling price that is not highly variable or uncertain. When there are two or more goods or services with highly variable or uncertain standalone selling prices, the Boards clarified that an entity could use a combination of techniques to estimate their standalone selling prices by:

  1. First applying the residual approach to estimate the aggregate of the standalone selling prices for all of the goods or services with highly variable or uncertain standalone selling prices; and 
  2. Then using another technique to estimate the individual standalone selling prices relative to the aggregate standalone selling price estimated in (a) above. 

The Boards also tentatively decided to retain the criteria in paragraph 75 of the 2011 ED for determining when an entity can allocate a discount to one (or some) performance obligation(s) in the contract, and the criteria in paragraph 76 of the 2011 ED for determining when an entity can allocate contingent consideration to distinct goods or services. The Boards also clarified that:

  1. An entity should apply paragraph 75 (that is, allocation of a discount) before using a residual approach to estimate a standalone selling price for a good or service with a highly variable or uncertain standalone selling price; and 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 76 (that is, allocation of contingent consideration), an entity can allocate contingent consideration to more than one distinct good or service in the contract.
     
STEP 5: RECOGNIZE REVENUE WHEN (OR AS) THE ENTITY SATISFIES A PERFORMANCE OBLIGATION

Performance Obligations Satisfied over Time


The Boards tentatively decided to make the following refinements to the criteria proposed in paragraph 35 of the 2011 ED for determining whether an entity satisfies a performance obligation over time and, hence, recognizes revenue over time:

  1. Retain the criterion proposed in paragraph 35(a), which considers whether the entity’s performance creates or enhances an asset that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced; 
  2. Combine the “simultaneous receipt and consumption of benefits” criterion proposed in paragraph 35(b)(i) and the “another entity would not need to substantially re-perform” proposed criterion in paragraph 35(b)(ii) into a single criterion that would apply to “pure service” contracts; and 
  3. Link more closely the “alternative use” criterion in paragraph 35(b) and the “right to payment for performance completed to date’ criterion in paragraph 35(b)(iii) by combining them into a single criterion.

The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify aspects of the “alternative use” and “right to payment for performance completed to date” criteria. For example:

  1. The assessment of alternative use is made at contract inception and that assessment considers whether the entity would have the ability throughout the production process to readily redirect the partially completed asset to another customer. 
  2. The right to payment should be enforceable and, in assessing the enforceability of that right, an entity should consider the contractual terms as well as any legislation or legal precedent that could override those contractual terms.
Measuring Progress toward Complete Satisfaction of a Performance Obligation


The Boards discussed the following topics related to measuring progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation that is satisfied over time:

  1. The use of methods such as units produced or units delivered; and 
  2. Adjustments that should be made to input methods, such as costs incurred, in order to meet the objective for measuring progress that is proposed in paragraph 38 of the 2011 ED.

The Boards discussed the use of “units produced” or “units delivered” as appropriate methods for an entity to use to measure its progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation that is satisfied over time (in accordance with paragraph 35 of the 2011 ED). The Boards tentatively decided that methods such as units produced or units delivered could provide a reasonable proxy for the entity’s performance in satisfying a performance obligation in the following circumstances:

  1. A units produced method could provide a reasonable proxy for the entity’s performance if the value of any work in progress at the end of the reporting period is immaterial. 
  2. A units delivered method could provide a reasonable proxy for the entity’s performance if: 
    1. The value of any work in progress at the end of the reporting period is immaterial; and 
    2. The value of any units produced but not yet delivered to the customer at the end of the reporting period is immaterial.

The Boards tentatively decided to clarify in the standard that the adjustment to the input method (for uninstalled materials) that is proposed in paragraph 46 of the 2011 ED is to ensure that the input method meets the objective of measuring progress that is specified in paragraph 38 of the 2011 ED—that is, to depict the entity’s performance. The Boards also tentatively decided to refine the fact pattern in Illustrative Example 8 to help clarify the scope of the proposal. In addition, the Boards tentatively decided that the revenue standard should clarify that if an entity selects an input method such as costs incurred to measure its progress, the entity should make adjustments to that measure of progress if including some of those costs incurred (for example, wasted materials) would distort the entity’s performance in the contract.

Constraint see Step 3

OTHER AREAS OF THE 2011 EXPOSURE DRAFT

Scope


The Boards tentatively decided to confirm the scope of the 2011 ED, including the definition of a customer.

The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify:

  1. That a collaborative arrangement (as described in paragraph 10 of the 2011 ED) is not limited to the development and commercialization of a product 
  2. That a contract with a collaborator or a partner is within scope of the revenue standard if the counterparty meets the definition of a customer
  3. That the application of paragraph 11 of the 2011 ED specifies how an entity would apply the revenue standard when a contract with a customer is partially within the scope of the revenue standard and partially within the scope of other standards.
Losses Arising from Onerous Obligations in Contracts with Customers


The Boards tentatively decided to not develop new requirements for onerous contracts that would apply to contracts with customers in the scope of the revenue standard. As a result, the IASB tentatively decided that the requirements for onerous contracts in IAS 37, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, should apply to all contracts with customers in the scope of the revenue standard. The FASB tentatively decided to retain existing guidance related to the recognition of losses arising from contracts with customers, including the guidance relating to construction-type and production-type contracts in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition—Construction-Type and Production-Type Contracts. The FASB also indicated it would consider whether to undertake a separate project to develop new guidance for onerous contracts.

Contract Costs


The Boards tentatively decided to retain the proposal in the 2011 ED that an entity should recognize as an asset the incremental costs of obtaining a contract with the customer if the entity expects to recover those costs. The Boards also tentatively decided to retain the practical expedient that permits an entity to recognize those costs as an expense when incurred, if the amortization period of the asset the entity would have otherwise recognized is one year or less.

Public Entities

Disclosures: Disaggregation of Revenue (paragraphs 114 – 115 of the 2011 ED)

The Boards tentatively decided to retain both the requirement to disaggregate revenue and the objective for that requirement in paragraph 114 of the 2011 ED as follows:

An entity shall disaggregate revenue from contracts with customers into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors.
 
The Boards tentatively decided to include implementation guidance to explain that in determining categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors, an entity should consider how revenue may be disaggregated in:
  1. Disclosures presented outside the financial statements, for example, in earnings releases, annual reports, or investor presentations;
  2. Information reviewed by management for evaluating the financial performance of operating segments; and
  3. Other relevant analysis in which the entity or its users evaluate performance or resource allocation.
The Boards tentatively decided to move the example of categories included in paragraph 115 of the 2011 ED to the implementation guidance and to clarify that an entity is not required to use a minimum number of categories.

The Boards also tentatively decided that an entity should explain how the disaggregated revenue information correlates with its reportable segments as required to be disclosed under Topic 280, Segment Reporting/IFRS 8, Operating Segments.

Disclosures: Reconciliation of Contract Balances and Remaining Performance Obligations

Disclosures: Reconciliation of Contract Balances (paragraph 117 of the 2011 ED)


The Boards tentatively decided to replace the requirement in paragraph 117 of the 2011 ED to reconcile the contract balances with a combination of quantitative and qualitative disclosures including:
  1. The opening and closing balances of contract assets, contract liabilities, and receivables from contracts with customers (if not separately presented);
  2. The amount of revenue recognized in the current period that was included in the contract liability balance;
  3. An explanation of how the entity’s contracts and typical payment terms will affect the entity’s contract balances; and
  4. An explanation of the significant changes in the balances of contract assets and liabilities, which should include both qualitative and quantitative data. Examples of significant changes could include: 
    1. Changes to contract balances arising from business combinations;
    2. Cumulative catch-up adjustments to revenue (and to the corresponding contract balance) arising from a change in the measure of progress, a change in the estimate of the transaction price, or a contract modification;
    3. Impairment of a contract asset; or
    4. A change in the time frame for a right to consideration becoming unconditional (that is, re-classified as a receivable) or for a performance obligation to be satisfied (that is, the recognition of revenue arising from a contract liability) that has a material effect on the contract balances.
The Boards also tentatively decided to require disclosure of revenue recognized in the period that arises from amounts allocated to performance obligations satisfied (or partially satisfied) in previous periods (this may occur as a result of changes in transaction price or estimates related to the constraint on revenue recognized).

Disclosures: Remaining Performance Obligations (paragraphs 119 – 121 of the 2011 ED)


The Boards tentatively decided to retain the requirement to disclose information related to the remaining performance obligations in paragraph 119 of the 2011 ED and to clarify that:
  1. Renewals (that do not represent a material right) are not included in the disclosure of remaining performance obligations;
  2. The aggregate amount of the transaction price disclosed in paragraph 119(a) of the 2011 ED is the amount that would not be subject to a significant revenue reversal (that is, the constrained amount); and
  3. An entity is not precluded from including in the disclosures remaining performance obligations contracts with an original duration of less than one year.
In addition, the Boards tentatively decided to clarify that disclosure about the significant payment terms relating to an entity’s performance obligations (paragraph 118(b) of the 2011 ED) would include a qualitative discussion about any significant variable consideration that was not included in the disclosure of remaining performance obligations (paragraph 119(a) of the 2011 ED).

Disclosures: Contract Costs, Onerous Performance Obligations, and Qualitative Information

Disclosures: Assets Recognized from the Costs to Obtain or Fulfill a Contract with a Customer (Contract Costs) (paragraphs 128 – 129 of the 2011 ED)


The Boards tentatively decided to replace the requirement in paragraph 128 of the 2011 ED to reconcile the opening and closing balances of assets recognized from the costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer with a combination of quantitative and qualitative disclosures including:
  1. The closing balances of assets recognized from the costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer (in accordance with paragraphs 91 and 94 of the 2011 ED), by main category of asset (for example, costs to obtain contracts with customers, precontract costs, and setup costs);
  2. The amount of amortization recognized in the period; and
  3. The method the entity uses to determine the amortization for each reporting period.

Disclosures: Onerous Performance Obligations (paragraphs 122 – 123 of the 2011 ED)


The Boards tentatively decided to remove the proposed disclosure requirements for onerous performance obligations in paragraphs 122 and 123 (and the reference to onerous performance obligations in paragraph 127) from the 2011 ED.

Disclosures: Qualitative Information about Performance Obligations (paragraph 118 of the 2011 ED) and Significant Judgments (paragraphs 124 – 127 of the 2011 ED)


The Boards tentatively decided to retain the qualitative disclosures about performance obligations proposed in paragraph 118 of the 2011 ED and significant judgments as proposed in paragraphs 124 – 127 of the 2011 ED. The Boards also tentatively decided to require the following additional qualitative disclosures:
  1. The judgments made in determining the amount of the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer capitalized in accordance with paragraphs 91 and 94 of the 2011 ED;
  2. The methods and assumptions an entity uses when determining the amount of the transaction price that will not be subject to a revenue reversal (that is, the constrained amount); and
  3. A description of the practical expedients used in an entity’s accounting policies related to: 
    1. Adjusting the transaction price for the effects of the time value of money (paragraph 60); and
    2. Recognizing the incremental costs of obtaining a contract as an expense (paragraph 97).
Disclosures: Interim Requirements

The FASB tentatively decided to retain the proposal in the 2011 ED to amend Topic 270, Interim Reporting, to require an entity to provide the quantitative disclosures proposed in the 2011 ED (including any tentative amendments to those quantitative disclosures explained above) in its interim financial statements. Those quantitative disclosures (as tentatively amended) are:
  1. Disaggregated revenue;
  2. The opening and closing balances of contract assets, contract liabilities, and receivables from contracts with customers (if not separately presented);
  3. The amount of revenue recognized in the current period that was included in the contract liability balance;
  4. Those that relate to the entity’s remaining performance obligations; and
  5. Any adjustment to revenue in the current period that relates to performance from a performance obligation satisfied (or partially satisfied) in a previous period.
The IASB tentatively decided to amend IAS 34, Interim Financial Reporting, to require an entity to disaggregate revenue in its interim financial statements in accordance with paragraph 114 of the 2011 ED (as amended, as discussed above). For the other revenue disclosure requirements, the IASB observed that an entity would need to consider the general principles of IAS 34.

Transition, Effective Date, and Early Application

Transition


The Boards tentatively decided that an entity could apply the new revenue standard retrospectively including the optional practical expedients in paragraph 133/C3 (a), (b), and (d). However, the Boards tentatively decided that an entity could also elect an alternative transition method that would require an entity to:
  1. Apply the new revenue standard only to contracts that are not completed under legacy IFRSs/US GAAP at the date of initial application (for example, January 1, 2017, for an entity with a December 31 year-end, based on the effective date decision below);
  2. Recognize the cumulative effect of initially applying the new revenue standard as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the year of initial application (that is, comparative years would not be restated); and
  3. In the year of initial application, provide the following additional disclosures: 
    1. The amount by which each financial statement line item is affected in the current year as a result of the entity applying the new revenue standard; and
    2. An explanation of the significant changes between the reported results under the new revenue standard and legacy IFRSs/US GAAP.

Effective Date


The FASB tentatively decided to require a public entity to apply the revenue standard for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods therein.

The IASB tentatively decided to require an entity to apply the revenue standard for reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2017.

The Boards noted that the period of time from the expected issuance of the standard until its effective date is longer than usual. However, in this case the Boards decided that a delayed effective date is appropriate because of the unique attributes of the Revenue Recognition project, including the scope of entities that will be affected and the potentially significant effect that a change in revenue recognition has on other financial statement line items.

Early Application


The FASB reaffirmed its tentative decision in the 2011 ED to prohibit early application. The IASB reaffirmed its tentatively decision in the 2011 ED to permit early application.

Nonpublic Entities

Annual Disclosures: Disaggregation of Revenue

The Board tentatively decided to:
  1. Retain the guidance in the 2011 ED that a nonpublic entity should disclose qualitative information about how economic factors (such as type of customer, geographical location of customers, and type of contract) and significant changes in those economic factors affect the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows; 
  2. Clarify that a nonpublic entity may elect not to disclose the quantitative disclosure requirements of disaggregating revenue in accordance with paragraphs 114 and 115 of the 2011 ED, as amended at the February 2013 joint Board meeting; and
  3. Clarify that if a nonpublic entity elects not to disclose the quantitative disclosure requirements in paragraphs 114 and 115 of the 2011 ED, then a nonpublic entity should, at a minimum, disclose quantitative information about the disaggregation of revenue in accordance with the timing of transfer of goods or services (for example, revenue from goods or services transferred to customers at a point in time and revenue from goods and services transferred over time).
Annual Disclosures: Disclosure of Contract Balances and Costs

The Board tentatively decided to retain the guidance in paragraph 130(a) and (d) of the 2011 ED that a nonpublic entity may elect not to provide the disclosures about contract balances and assets recognized from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer (paragraphs 117 and 128 of the 2011 ED, as amended at the February 2013 joint Board meeting).

The Board tentatively decided to require nonpublic entities to provide the opening and closing balances of contract assets, contract liabilities, and receivables from contracts with customers (if not separately presented).

Annual Disclosures: Disclosure of Remaining Performance Obligations

The Board tentatively affirmed its decision in paragraph 130(b) of the 2011 ED that a nonpublic entity may elect not to disclose the amount of the transaction price allocated to the remaining performance obligations and an explanation of when the entity expects to recognize that amount as revenue (paragraphs 119–121 of the 2011 ED, as amended at the February 2013 joint Board meeting).

Annual Disclosures: Disclosure about Judgments, Assumptions, Methods, and Inputs

The Board tentatively decided that a nonpublic entity should comply with the requirement in paragraph 124 of the 2011 ED that an entity should disclose the judgments, and changes in judgments, made in applying the requirements that significantly affect the determination of the amount and timing of revenue from contracts with customers. An entity should explain the judgments, and changes in the judgments, used in determining the following:
  1. The timing of satisfaction of performance obligations. For performance obligations that an entity satisfies over time, an entity should disclose the methods used to recognize revenue (for example, a description of the output method or input method).
  2. The transaction price and the amounts allocated to performance obligations.
  3. The methods and assumptions an entity uses when determining the amount of the transaction price that will not be subject to a revenue reversal (that is, the constrained amount).
A nonpublic entity may elect not to disclose the following:
  1. For performance obligations that an entity satisfies over time, an explanation of why such methods used to recognize revenue are a faithful depiction of the transfer of goods or services (paragraph 125(b) of the 2011 ED).
  2. For performance obligations satisfied at a point in time, the significant judgments made in evaluating when the customer obtains control of promised goods or services (paragraph 126 of the 2011 ED).
  3. The information about the methods, inputs, and assumptions used to:
    1. Determine the transaction price
    2. Estimate standalone selling prices of promised goods or services
    3. Measure obligations for returns, refunds, and other similar obligations
    4. Measure the amount of the liability recognized for onerous performance obligations (paragraph 127 of the 2011 ED).
Interim Disclosures

The Board tentatively affirmed its decision in the 2011 ED not to amend Topic 270, Interim Reporting, to specify interim disclosures on revenue from contracts with customers for nonpublic entities.

Transition

The Board tentatively affirmed its decision in the 2011 ED not to prescribe an alternative transition method for nonpublic entities.

Effective Date

The Board tentatively decided to require a nonpublic entity to apply the revenue standard for an annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim and annual reporting periods thereafter.

Early Application

The Board tentatively decided that a nonpublic entity may elect to apply the requirements of the revenue standard no earlier than an annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods therein, as required for public companies. Additionally, a nonpublic entity may elect to apply the requirements of the revenue standard for:
  1. An annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim and annual reporting periods thereafter, or
  2. An annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein.
Implementation Guidance: Licenses


The Boards discussed improvements to the implementation guidance in the 2011 ED for license arrangements in which an entity grants a customer a right to use its intellectual property. The Boards tentatively decided that an entity should assess the nature of the promise for the license before applying the revenue recognition model to a license arrangement. This assessment is necessary because the Boards tentatively concluded that some license arrangements represent the promise to transfer a right and others represent a promise to provide access to the entity’s intellectual property. That conclusion is consistent with View B as explained in November 2012 Agenda Paper 7F/164F.

This assessment of the nature of the promise for the license is important. That is because when the license is distinct, the nature of the promise would affect whether the license results in a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time (that is, when the license is a promise to transfer a right) or a performance obligation satisfied over time (that is, when the license is a promise to provide access to the entity’s intellectual property).

The Boards discussed improvements to the implementation guidance for licenses and to the criteria for distinguishing between two types of licenses—licenses that provide access to the entity’s intellectual property (that is, a performance obligation satisfied over time) and licenses that provide a right to use the entity’s intellectual property (that is, a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time). The Boards suggested further drafting improvements and tentatively decided to:
  1. Place greater emphasis in the implementation guidance on the importance of identifying performance obligations before applying the criteria to distinguish between the two types of licenses.
  2. Include additional rationale in the implementation guidance that explains the intent of the criteria.
  3. Provide further examples to clarify the objective and application of the criteria.
     

Constraint on Licenses see Step 3

Implementation Guidance: Repurchase Agreements


The Boards discussed the following topics related to the implementation guidance on repurchase agreements in paragraphs IG38–IG48/B38-B48 of the 2011 ED:

  1. Sale-leaseback transactions that include a put option 
  2. Other amendments 
  3. Application questions 
  4. Call options—significant economic incentive not to exercise.

Sale-Leaseback Transactions That Include a Put Option

The Boards tentatively decided that a sale-leaseback transaction that includes a put option with a repurchase price that is less than the original sales price and for which the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise would be accounted for as a financing.

Other Amendments

The Boards tentatively decided to remove the word ‘unconditional’ from the implementation guidance for repurchase agreements.

The Boards clarified that in a product financing arrangement (that is, when an entity sells a product to another entity and repurchases that product as part of a larger component for a higher price) an entity would exclude the processing costs from the repurchase price in determining the amount of interest.

Application Guidance  

The Boards considered the application of the implementation guidance on repurchase agreements in the 2011 ED to the following scenarios and tentatively decided that no amendments to the guidance were necessary:

  1. Sale of a good to a customer with a guarantee that the customer will receive a minimum amount upon resale—the Boards confirmed that the existence of the guarantee would not preclude the transfer of control of the product to the customer. 
  2. Sale of a good to a customer that is subsequently repurchased for the purposes of leasing to the customer’s customer—the Boards confirmed that the repurchase of the good by the entity subsequent to the customer obtaining control of that good does not constitute a repurchase agreement as described in paragraph IG38/B38. However, in determining whether the customer obtained control of the good, an entity should consider the principal versus agent considerations in paragraphs IG16-IG19/B16-B19.

Call OptionSignificant Economic Incentive Not to Exercise

The Boards tentatively decided not to amend the 2011 ED to require an entity to consider whether it has a significant economic incentive not to exercise a call option when applying the implementation guidance for repurchase agreements.

Transfers of Assets That Are Not an Output of an Entity’s Ordinary Activities


The Boards tentatively decided to confirm the consequential amendments proposed in the 2011 ED for transfers of nonfinancial assets that are not an output of an entity’s ordinary activities. Those amendments would require an entity to apply the control and measurement requirements (including the constraint on revenue recognized) from the revenue model for the purposes of determining when the asset should be derecognized and the amount of consideration to be included in the gain or loss recognized on transfer.

The Boards also tentatively decided that the requirements in paragraphs 13–15 of the 2011 ED for determining whether a contract exists should apply to transfers of nonfinancial assets that are not an output of an entity’s ordinary activities.

Consequential Amendments Relating to Transfers of Assets That Are Not an Output of the Entity’s Ordinary Activities

The Board discussed the consequential amendments of its tentative decision in January 2013 relating to transfers of assets that are not an output of the entity’s ordinary activities. The Board tentatively decided that the guidance in the revenue standard that relates to recognition, measurement (including the constraint), and existence of a contract would apply to sales or transfers to noncustomers of nonfinancial assets, including in substance nonfinancial assets (held directly or in a subsidiary) that do not constitute a business.

Effect of the Revenue Recognition Model on Some Bundled Arrangements


The Boards discussed possible amendments to the proposals in the 2011 ED for (a) allocating the transaction price and (b) accounting for costs of obtaining a contract in bundled arrangements in which an entity promises to transfer services to the customer together with a distinct good that relates to the provision of those services (those bundled arrangements are common to the telecommunications and satellite television industries).

The Boards tentatively decided to retain the proposals in the 2011 ED and not make any amendments specifically for these bundled arrangements (in particular, not to amend the proposals in the 2011 ED for (a) allocating the transaction price, subject to the clarifications noted above, and (b) accounting for the costs of obtaining a contract).

The Boards also tentatively decided to clarify that in the revenue standard an entity could apply the proposals in the 2011 ED to these bundled arrangements using the portfolio approach described in paragraph 6 of the 2011 ED (that is, an entity may apply the principles in the 2011 ED to a portfolio of contracts with similar characteristics if the entity reasonably expects that the result of doing so would not materially differ from the result of applying the proposals to each of the entity’s contracts or performance obligations).

Effect of the Revenue Recognition Model on Asset Managers


The Boards discussed the application of the 2011 ED to the asset management industry. Specifically, the application of the:

  1. Constraint on revenue recognized 
  2. Contract cost proposals.

Constraint on Revenue Recognized

The Boards tentatively confirmed their proposal in the 2011 ED that an asset manager’s performance-based incentive fees should be subject to the constraint on revenue recognized (as amended in the November 2012 joint Board meeting).

Contract Costs Proposals

The Boards tentatively decided that no changes should be made to the contract cost proposals in the 2011 ED for upfront commission costs incurred in some asset management arrangements.

The FASB also tentatively decided to retain the cost guidance for financial services—investment companies in paragraph 946-605-25-8.

Application of the Model: Credit Card Reward Programs

Some preparers in the financial services industry requested clarification about the application of the revenue model to credit card reward programs in their feedback to the 2011 ED. Specifically, those respondents questioned whether the accounting illustrated in Example 24 in the 2011 ED would always apply to the award credits in a credit card reward program.

The Boards tentatively decided to amend paragraph IE21/IG79 (that is, the introductory paragraph to Example 24 in the 2011 ED) to clarify that the existence of a “customer loyalty program” and the promise to transfer award credits does not automatically give rise to a performance obligation. The Boards noted that in all arrangements, including, for example, where there are more than two parties to the arrangement, the entities in the arrangement should consider all the facts and circumstances in applying the revenue model to determine whether the promise to transfer award credits gives rise to a performance obligation.

NEXT STEPS

The November 6, 2013 meeting marks the completion of the Board’s discussions on revenue. The staff will continue drafting the final Update. Please see the Current Technical Plan for more information about the project timeline.

BOARD/OTHER PUBLIC MEETING DATES

The Board meeting minutes 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 become final only after a formal written ballot to issue a final standard.

Below is a list of the FASB Board/Public meetings for this project with links to the minutes for each meeting.

November 6, 2013 Board Meeting—Due Process Summary and Costs-Benefits Analysis
October 30, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Constraint on estimates of variable consideration, Licenses, Collectibility
September 17 and 18, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Collectibility, Constraint and Licenses
July 24, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Collectibility, Accounting for contracts that do not meet Step 1 of the revenue model, Constraint—minimums requirements
May 24, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Application of the Model: Credit Card Reward Programs
May 23, 2013 Board Meeting—Consequential Amendments Relating to Transfers of Assets That Are Not an Output of the Entity’s Ordinary Activities
March 20, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Nonpublic entity considerations—Disclosures, Transition, Effective date, and Early application; Public entity—Effective date
February 20, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Disclosures: disaggregation of revenue; Disclosures: reconciliation of contract balances and analysis of remaining performance obligations; Disclosures: contract costs, onerous performance obligations, and qualitative information; Disclosures: interim disclosures; Transition, effective date, and early application
January 30, 2013 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Scope, Repurchase agreements, Effect of the revenue recognition on asset managers, Transfers of assets that are not an output of an entity’s ordinary activities, Update on outreach regarding disclosure and transition disclosure
December 17, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Allocating the transaction price, Contract costs, Effect of the revenue recognition model on some bundled arrangements, and Constraining the cumulative amount of revenue recognized—licenses
November 19, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Constraining the cumulative amount of revenue recognized, Collectibility, and Implementation guidance: licenses
October 18, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Contract modifications, Measuring progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation
September 24 and 27, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Constraining the cumulative amount of revenue recognized, Collectibility, including accounting for contracts with customers that contain nonrecourse, seller-based financing, Time value of money, and Contract issues—distribution networks
July 19, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Identifying separate performance obligations, Satisfying performance obligations over time, Licenses, and Onerous contracts
May 22, 2012 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Comment letter summary—main issues, Summary of outreach activities, Redeliberations plan
October 19, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Revenue disclosures in interim reporting periods
September 19, 2011 Board Meeting—Effective date for nonpublic entities
July 21, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Effective date and early application
July 13, 2011 Board Meeting—Transition requirements for nonpublic entities
June 14-15, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Effect of the proposed model on telecom (and other) companies, Transition requirements, re-exposure of the revenue standard
June 8, 2011 Board Meeting—Rate regulated activities—alternative revenue programs, Disclosure requirements—applicability to nonpublic entities
May 31, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Production costs under long-term production programs
May 17-18, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Amortization and impairment, Disclosures about assets from fulfillment and acquisition costs, Onerous contracts, and Disclosure and Presentation
April 12-14, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Determining the transaction price, Allocating the transaction price, Licenses and rights to use, Fulfillment costs, and Sale and Repurchase Agreements
March 23, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Collectibility and Uncertain Consideration
March 21, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Time value of money
March 1, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Onerous contracts
February 16-17, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Identification of separate performance obligations, Revenue recognition for services, Combining contracts, Contract modifications, Definition of a performance obligation, Breakage and prepayments for future goods or services, Onerous performance obligations
February 2, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Costs of obtaining a contract
February 1, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Warranties
January 20, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Segmenting a contract, Identifying separate performance obligations, Determining the transfer of goods and services
January 19, 2011 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Segmenting a contract, Identifying separate performance obligations, Determining the transfer of goods and services
December 14, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Comment letter summary—main issues, Summary of outreach activities, Redeliberations plan
November 17, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Oral Update
May 17, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Repurchase agreements and nonfinancial asset sales
May 5, 2010 Board Meeting—Effects of the proposed model on real estate transactions
March 22, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Scope
March 16, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Disclosure and Accounting for costs in contracts with customers
February 16, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Scope, Transition Requirements, and Effective Date
February 3, 2010 Board Meeting—Effects of the proposed model on existing cost guidance
January 18, 2010 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Disclosure
December 16, 2009 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Obligations for product warranties and product liability, Sale of goods with the right of return, Estimates of uncertain consideration
November 18, 2009 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Licensing contracts, Subsequent measurement of performance obligations, Contract costs
October 26, 2009 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Contract segmentation, Allocation of the transaction price, and Recognizing revenue in a contract segment
September 23, 2009 Board Meeting—The proposed model and receivables accounting, Control, and Options to acquire additional goods and services
August 19, 2009 Board Meeting—Presentation of contracts with customers
July 23, 2009 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Comment letter summary
June 10, 2009 Board Meeting—Gross versus net presentation of revenues, Combination, segmentation, and modification of contracts, and Nonmonetary exchanges
May 21, 2009 FASB/IASB Joint Meeting—Measurement of rights
April 1, 2009 Board Meeting—Measurement of rights
September 24, 2008 Board Meeting—Subsequent measurement of performance obligations
July 16, 2008 Board Meeting—Plan for completing the project and measurement of performance obligations.
May 14, 2008 Board Meeting—Draft of Chapter 5 and Board preference for Customer Consideration approach
April 21, 2008 FASB-IASB Joint Meeting—Overview of PAAinE Discussion Paper on Revenue Recognition
April 9, 2008 Board Meeting—Drafts of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 for the Discussion Paper
January 30, 2008 Board Meeting—Customer Consideration Model Measurement, Performance Obligations, and Examples
October 22, 2007 FASB-IASB Joint Meeting—Due Process, Measurement Model, Customer Consideration Model, and Examples
October 24, 2006 FASB-IASB Joint Meeting—Due Process Document
July 26, 2006 Board Meeting—Application of the Board’s Decision on the Meaning of Performance
April 27, 2006 FASB-IASB Joint Meeting—Accounting for Performance
March 1, 2006 Board Meeting—Accounting for Wholly Executory Contracts and Assessing when Performance has Occurred

The IASB meeting summaries and observer notes for meetings from March 2006 can be found by clicking here. Meeting summaries for meetings before March 2006 can be found in the IASB Update, which is available by clicking here.

RELATED FASB DOCUMENTS 

Comment Letters on Project Proposal

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In January 2002, the FASB discussed the objective and scope of a potential major project on the recognition of revenues and liabilities in financial statements. That project would lead to a new comprehensive accounting standard on revenue recognition and also would amend the related guidance on revenues and liabilities in some of the FASB Concepts Statements. The Board issued a project proposal with a 60-day public comment period. In May 2002, after considering 32 comment letters on the project proposal, the FASB to its technical agenda a project to develop a comprehensive revenue recognition standard and to amend the related guidance on revenues and liabilities in some FASB Concepts Statements. 

The project started with two interrelated approaches that were pursued simultaneously—the "top-down" approach and the "bottom-up" approach. In the top-down approach, the staff developed conceptual guidance for the recognition and measurement of revenues that would form the basis of a new standard. In the bottom-up approach, the staff analyzed existing authoritative guidance and the revenue recognition principles and practices related to that guidance. The bottom-up approach identified various revenue models, which the Boards have considered in the development of a single revenue model for various industries.

In June 2002, the IASB added the revenue recognition project to its technical agenda. In September 2002, the FASB and the IASB formally agreed to work jointly on the revenue recognition project. The Boards will continue to share staff resources and work  jointly to issue a final standard.

Before May 2005, the Boards were developing a revenue recognition model that would measure assets and liabilities at fair value (the so-called "fair value" or "measurement" model). (See Case in Point: Consumer Electronics Retailer for an example of that model.) In that approach, the Boards tentatively agreed that performance obligations should be measured at fair value—that is, the price that the reporting entity would have to pay an unrelated party to assume legal responsibility for performing all of its remaining obligations. However, some Board members had concerns about reasonably estimating those prices when they are not observable (which they often would not be). Other Board members had concerns about the pattern of revenue recognition when applying that model. As a result, the Boards agreed to develop an alternative model—the customer consideration model. In that model, performance obligations would be measured at an allocated customer consideration (that is, transaction price) amount.

In October 2006, the Boards decided to further develop both the fair value model and the customer consideration model. That initiative was undertaken by the staff using two small groups of Board advisors drawn from both Boards and was completed in July 2007. The Boards discussed the two models from October 2007 to May 2008. As a result of those discussions, the Boards coalesced around a single contract-based revenue recognition model. In May 2008, the Boards reached a preliminary view in favor of the allocated customer consideration approach of measuring performance obligations. The Discussion Paper, Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers, was issued in December 2008 and contained the Boards’ preliminary views on that allocated customer consideration approach.

In general, respondents to the Discussion Paper supported the Boards’ preliminary views. However, they asked the Boards to further develop those views in key areas such as how an entity would determine how to divide a contract into separate performance obligations, how to determine the amount of consideration to allocate to those performance obligations, and how an entity would determine when a performance obligation is satisfied. The Boards refined their proposals in the Discussion Paper while considering input from constituents through an extensive outreach program. In June 2010, the more fully-developed proposals were issued for public comment in the Exposure Draft, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.

Additional information about the project and the Boards’ proposals can be found in the Background Information and Basis for Conclusions section of the Exposure Draft. 

*CONTACT INFORMATION

FASB
Kristin Bauer
FASB Practice Fellow (Project Lead)
kdbauer@fasb.org
IASB
Henry Rees
IASB Technical Principal
hrees@ifrs.org
Brian Schilb
FASB Practice Fellow
bjschilb@fasb.org
Allison McManus
IASB Senior Technical Manager
amcmanus@ifrs.org
Elizabeth Gagnon
FASB Project Manager
Nonpublic Entity Liaison
eagagnon@fasb.org

Glenn Brady
IASB Senior Technical Manager
gbrady@ifrs.org

Emily Booth
FASB Postgraduate Technical Assistant
elbooth@fasb.org
Gary Berchowitz
IASB Practice Fellow
gberchowitz@ifrs.org
  Natasha Dara
IASB Technical Associate
ndara@ifrs.org