|
||||
|
||||
Response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board's and the International Accounting Standard Board's Joint Discussion Paper Entitled, 'Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers'Robert H. ColsonGrant Thornton LLP Robert J. BloomfieldCornell University - Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management Theodore E. ChristensenBrigham Young University - Marriott School of Management Karim JamalUniversity of Alberta - Department of Accounting, Operations & Information Systems Stephen R. MoehrleUniversity of Missouri at Saint Louis - Accounting Area James A. OhlsonNew York University (NYU) - Leonard N. Stern School of Business; New York University (NYU) - Department of Accounting, Taxation & Business Law Stephen H. PenmanColumbia University - Department of Accounting Gary PrevitsCase Western Reserve University - Department of Accountancy Thomas L. StoberUniversity of Notre Dame - Department of Accountancy Shyam SunderYale University - School of Management Ross L. WattsMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Sloan School of Management July 2, 2009 Johnson School Research Paper Series No. #37-09 Abstract: The FASB and the IASB recently issued a joint discussion paper entitled, Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers. The Boards requested comments on whether their proposed model for revenue recognition would improve the usefulness of the financial statement information for financial decision makers. This paper sets forth the AAA's Financial Accounting Standards Committee's responses to several of the Boards' specific questions. In summary, we support the Boards' proposed comprehensive revenue recognition standard based on the following options: (1) the customer consideration approach (based on initial contract price measurement); (2) no recognition of revenue at contract inception (by assigning the initial contract price to performance obligations); (3) allocation of the transaction price to multiple performance obligations based on the relative stand-alone prices of each performance obligation. We also recommend that the Boards carefully consider the following clarifications as they develop the final exposure draft. The definition of a contract should include the words legally enforceable to describe the contract. A performance obligation must be verifiable. While the transfer of an asset to the customer or the acceptance of a service by the customer normally signals the recognition of revenue, we encourage the Boards to carefully consider situations (like long-term construction or mining) when the completion of intermediate performance obligations could trigger revenue recognition prior to the transfer of title. Absent special consideration of these situations, companies may be forced to re-write contracts in sub-optimal ways in an effort to recognize revenue continuously throughout a long-term construction project or in the process of mining or farming. Consider the difficulties that may arise in allocating the initial transaction price to multiple performance obligation contracts when the individual performance obligations are not normally sold on a stand-alone basis.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19 Keywords: Financial Accounting Standards Board, International Accounting Standards Board, Revenue Recognition, Contracts JEL Classification: M40, M41, M44, M47 working papers seriesDate posted: July 4, 2009 ; Last revised: January 27, 2013Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.625 seconds