The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) creates standards regarding Accounting in Australia. These include Interpretations that are applied by entities that prepare financial statements mandated by Corporations Act 2001; by the governments when planning financial statements; as well as entities within private or public sectors either for-profit or not-for-profit ventures that are involved as reporting entities or that prepare all-purpose financial statements.
AASB integrate IFRSs1, as well as Interpretations, generated by the IASB2, with paragraph additions on the applicability of every Standard within the Australian setting, when appropriate. These Standards as well comprise obligations that are explicit to Australian bodies. These obligations may be situated in AASB that integrate IFRSs or in other AASB standards. In the majority of cases, these obligations are limited to either the not-for-profit or public zones or incorporate supplementary disclosures that deal with local, regulatory, or other subjects. In generating public sector entities’ obligations, the AASB deems the obligations of IPSASs3, as subjected by the IPSASB4 of the International Federation of Accountants.
This Standard’s References to ‘Australian Accounting Standards – Reduced Disclosure Requirements’ regarding the 2nd Tier of obligations for all-purpose financial statements5 ,to differentiate them from references to those concerning the first Tier of obligations for preparing all-purpose financial statements6. For-profit entities in the private sector obeying Tier 1 conditions will concurrently obey IFRSs. Several other units obeying Tier 1 conditions will as well at the same time obey IFRSs.
AASB 1053 institutes a degree of difference in the financial reporting structure containing two Tiers of reporting conditions for generating all-purpose financial accounts: Tier 1: Australian Accounting Standards; and Tier 2: Australian Accounting Standards – Reduced Disclosure Requirements.
Tier 2 encompasses the recognition, measurement, and presentation Tier 1conditions and considerably reduced disclosures analogous to the conditions. Entities that apply Tier 1 conditions in preparing all-purpose financial accounts include private sector for-profit entities that have public responsibility as described within this Standard plus the Australian Government and State, Territory and Local Governments.
The entities that apply either Tiers conditions in preparing all-purpose financial accounts comprise private sector for-profit entities that do not have public responsibility; all private sector not-for-profit entities in addition to all the public sector entities except the Australian Government and State, Territory and Local Governments. At the same time, Tier 2 conditions would be accessible to all private sector not-for-profit entities and several public zone entities. Regulators could exercise authority to necessitate Tier 1 conditions application by the bodies they control.
The Tier 2 required disclosures and the disclosures required by the IASB’s IFRS for SMEs7 are extremely analogous. Conversely, Tier 2 obligations and the IFRS for SMEs are not openly analogous owing to Tier 2 including recognition and measurement conditions in proportion to those in IFRSs, while the IFRS for SMEs incorporates limited alterations to those conditions.
Additionally, the recognition, measurement and disclosure obligations that are relevant compliant with Tier 2 are to be amended as Australian Accounting Standards are amended, while the IFRS for SMEs is likely to be amended only occasionally for IFRSs revisions.
The Exposure Draft Revenue from Contracts with Customers (ED 222)
ED 1988 was produced to offer essential changes to the approach entities document revenue from customers. It had been created in cooperation of the IAB, and the FASB and mostly connected to entities relevant to AASB 111 Construction Contracts and AASB 118 Revenue. Following noteworthy response, the boards chose to amend certain features of the suggestions in addition to re-exposing this changes form additional remark as ED 222. Conversely, ED 222 does not alter the heart principle that a unit ought to recognize revenue when power transfers to the consumer.
At present AASB is taking into account the extent these can be practical to not-for-profit bodies. Consequently, it is probable that the suggestions in ED 222 will affect recognition of income for not for- profit units in. The following changes are proposed: units will not be obligated to segment separately priced merchandise in a single contract into multiple contracts. They will not as well be necessitated to split a collection of merchandise into detached performance requirements where they are extremely interconnected and are considerably modified to accomplish the contract. On the other hand, Revenue will not be accustomed for a preliminary bad debts expense estimate. In addition, performance requirements are now divided into those fulfilled over time and those contented at a point in time.
The ED offers criteria to aid unit in determining the categorization. Justifying product guarantees are now additionally closely associated with existing conditions. Variable deliberation will be recognized as revenue simply when it is sensibly assured to be established; and a accountability for arduous performance requirements will simply be recognized for requirements fulfilled over a period over one year.
According to the Boards, the new model would attain these advantages. It would eliminate the discrepancies and flaws in the existing revenue recognition text. It will offer a superior structure for tackling issues related to revenue recognition. It will improve comparability of revenue recognition performance among industries, units inside the industries, authorities, and capital markets. It will decrease the intricacy of affecting revenue recognition obligations by decreasing the existing obligations to a solitary principles-rooted standard. Provide information that is more useful to investors through improved disclosure requirements.
Currently, the IFRSs definition of Revenue is “the gross inflow of economic benefits during the period arising in the course of the ordinary activities of an entity when those inflows result in increases in equity, other than increases relating to contributions from equity participants”. As much as this definition is existence, the present revenue conditions in IFRS can be tricky to comprehend and is relevant to multifaceted transactions. Additionally, IAS 18 has restricted application direction on significant themes for example multiple-element arrangements revenue recognition. Consequently, some units have generated the accounting policies of IFRS via denoting elements of Australian GAAP. Conversely, the guidance of FASB relevant to revenue recognition within the ASC9 was codified from over 200 individual literature reviews provided by several standard setters. Existing FASB directions is explicit to certain deals or some industries and concentrate on very comprehensive matters. For numerous other topics, there are no FASB directions or the directions are indistinguishable.
It is specified on the ED that the accounting is all done for the revenue resultant from for contracts with consumers. This concern all bodies that take part in contracts to offer merchandizes to their consumers if not the contracts are in the extent of other IFRSs, for example the standard on leasing. The projected obligations would as well offer a measurement plus timing model for gains and losses recognition on some non-financial assets like property, plant, and equipment and intangible assets sales.
In addition, the ED delineates the principles a body would apply to account for decision-helpful information regarding revenue measurement and timing in addition to the associated cash flows.
The nucleus principle is that a body would perform revenue recognition to portray the merchandize transfer to consumers at a quantity that replicates the deliberation the body anticipates obtaining in exchange for the merchandizes. This is attained via the application of the following steps; Identify the contract(s) with a customer, Identify the separate performance obligations in the contract, Determine the transaction price, Allocate the transaction price to the separate performance obligations and Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies each performance obligation
The Boards are suggesting that bodies take on the new standard with hindsight for all periods accessible in the adoption period even though the ED offers limited relief from complete retrospective adoption. It affirms that the effectual date would be no before the annual periods commencing on or after 1 January 2015.
A body ought to recognize the contract to offer merchandizes to its consumer. The proposed standard contains any contracts that generate enforceable rights and obligations implied, written, oral or by the body’s habitual trade practice. For instance, a body’s precedent industry practices may manipulate its timing determination when an arrangement ought to be justified. A body that has a recognized starting performance practice anchored in oral conformities with its consumers may establish that these oral agreements realize a contract’s description. Consequently, under the anticipated standard the body may have to justify these arrangements immediately performance starts, while under existing practice, all revenue recognition would probably be deferred until the agreement is documented and signed.
Certain agreements may necessitate a written contract to obey jurisdictional law or trade guidelines, which ought to be measured in determining if a contract is real. Termination phrases are an imperative deliberation when determining if a contract is real. Any agreement wherein the seller has not offered any of the contracted merchandizes and has not acknowledged or is not allowed to obtain any of the merchandizes under the contract; consideration is deemed as “wholly unperformed”. If each side possesses a one-sided right to conclude a “wholly unperformed” contract devoid of recompensing the other side, in that case the proposed standard affirms that a contract is not existent and its accounting plus disclosure conditions are inapplicable. Conversely, if a single entity has the right to conclude an agreement, this contract is inside the proposed standard scope, and the accounting for example arduous contracts and disclosure obligations of the proposed standard would be relevant.
Existing IFRS does not offer particular application direction regarding oral contracts. Conversely, entities are mandated to focus on to the fundamental material and economic realism of an agreement and not only its lawful shape. Despite the concentration on substance above form, bearing in mind oral or implied conformity designating as contracts may be a noteworthy alteration actually for some bodies. For other bodies, it may cause earlier deliberation of oral contracts that is not waiting to start accounting for oral contract pending such contracts are officially documented.
In the majority of cases, bodies would use the five-step model to one contract with a consumer. Conversely, there may be circumstances wherein the body would merge numerous contracts for revenue recognition purposes. For instance, the proposed standard affirms that a body can justify a portfolio of comparable contracts jointly if the body anticipates that the outcome will not be significantly different from the outcome of executing the projected standard to the individual contracts.
The standard offers more direction on when to merge contracts than is incorporated in IAS 18 and ED 198. At present IFRS correspondents that use IAS 11 have a comparable condition in the standard. The main difference between IAS 11 and the projected standard is principle (c) paragraph 17(c) in the extract of the ED, which deems a performance condition bundle across dissimilar contracts. On the contrary, IAS 11 deems simultaneous or chronological performance. In general, the proposed principles are commonly in agreement with the fundamental codes in the present combining contracts revenue standards.On the other hand, the projected standard would openly need a body to merge contracts if the principles in paragraph 17 are realized. Consequently, some bodies that do not presently merge contracts may require doing so.
When the sides to an agreement embark on consequently transforming the extent or contract’s price, the seller must establish whether the alteration generates a new agreement or if it should be justified as the existing contract part. If a contract alteration alters only the transaction cost however not the performance requirements, the body would execute the obligations for assigning changes in transaction cost.
Even though the ED affirms that when the extra merchandizes are at a standalone selling price, the alteration is measured as a separate agreement. Within specific circumstances, the ED permits an exit from this obligation. For instance, a seller may provide an existing consumer a discount on extra goods since the seller would not sustain selling-allied prices that it characteristically acquires for new consumers. In this instance, the price of transaction is not capable of the standalone selling price of that merchandize if the merchandize were vended to a new consumer. On the other hand, in spite of this, the seller might conclude that the incremental deliberation is thoughtful of the standalone selling price of the additional merchandizes provided the discounts that would characteristically be given to this specific client. Consequently, the seller might end that this price would comprise a standalone selling price for this consumer.
Any contract alterations that do not conform to the principle above would not be deemed as separate agreements, neither would agreement alteration that change or eliminate earlier agreed to merchandizes. An entity would justify the outcome of these alterations in a different way, dependent on which scenario is most appropriate. The merchandize not yet offered are different from the merchandize offered before the alteration of the agreement, in this situation, the body would assign any deliberation not yet documented as revenue to the residual separate performance requirements.
Effectively, this manner treats the agreement alteration as a annihilation of the old agreement and the formation of a new agreement. Whereas not openly affirmed in the ED, I suppose that in this manner, a body would have to as well mirror in the allotment of the amended transaction price, any alterations in the standalone selling prices of the residual merchandize from the initial contract.
Existing AASB does not offer comprehensive application direction on how to establish whether an alteration in contractual conditions ought to be treated as a different contract or a alteration to an existing agreement. Consequently, the proposed obligations in the ED could cause a alteration in practice for some bodies.
It is significant to consider, though, that the appraisal of how to justify the contract alteration has to reflect on how any amendments to promised merchandize incorporate with the rest of the agreement. Specifically, though a contract alteration may append a new merchandize that would be different in a standalone contract; the new performance requirement may not be distinctive when it is an element of a contract alteration. For instance, in a building reformation scheme, a consumer may ask for a contract alteration to put in a new room. The company may normally vend the construction of an additional room on a standalone foundation, which would point to the overhaul is separate. Conversely, when that service is added to an existent agreement and the body has by now established that the whole project is a solitary performance requirement, the extra merchandize would be merged with the present bundle of merchandize.
AASB, 2007 ITC Request for Comment on a Proposed Revised Differential Reporting Regime for Australia and IASB Exposure Draft of A Proposed IFRS for Small and Medium-sized Entities
AASB. 2010. Application of Tiers of Australian Accounting Standards
Carmen Ridley and Colin Parker 2011.The Reduced Disclosure Regime - A practical guide to implementation - 2nd Edition
IASB .2007. Illustrative Financial Statements and Disclosure Checklist, February 2007
Jones, D. 2012. Annual Report for the Period Ended 31st July 2011, retrieved from www.annualreportonline.com on 12th April 2012.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. 2011. Principles of management. 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. 2008. Principles of management. 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Stephen J Marsden 2011Understanding Accounting Principles