Skip to Main Content

blogpost

New revenue recognition rules: Evaluating the impact on manufacturers

06.25.18

For over four years the business community has been discussing the impact Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, will have on financial reporting. As you evaluate the impact this standard will have on a manufacturers’ financial reporting practices, there are certain provisions of ASC 606 you should consider.

Then: Prior to ASC 606, manufacturers generally recognize revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the fees are fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured. For most, this typically occurs when a product ships and the title to the product transfers to the customer.

Now: Under ASC 606, effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018 for non-public entities (December 15, 2017 for public entities), an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Under this core principle, an entity should:

  1. Identify its contracts with its customers,
  2. Identify performance obligations (promises) in the contract,
  3. Determine the transaction price,
  4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and
  5. Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies the performance obligation. 

Who does it impact, and how?

For some manufacturers, ASC 606 will not impact their financial reporting practices since they satisfy their performance obligation when the product is shipped and the title has transferred to the customer. However, entities who manufacture highly specialized products may be required to recognize revenue over time if the entity’s performance creates an asset without an alternative use to the entity, and the entity has an enforceable right to compensation for performance completed to date.

Limitations

To determine if a product has an alternative use, the entity must assess whether it is restricted contractually from redirecting the asset for another use during production, or if there are practical limitations on the entity’s ability to redirect the product for another use. A contractual limitation must be substantive for it to be determined to not have an alternative use, e.g., the customer can enforce rights for delivery of the product. A restriction is not substantive if the product is largely interchangeable with other products the entity could transfer between customers without incurring a significant loss.

A practical limitation exists if the entity’s ability to redirect the product for another use results in significant economic losses, either from significant rework costs or having to sell the product at a loss. The alternative use assessment should be done at contract inception based on the product in its completed state, and not during the production process. Therefore, the point in time during production when a product becomes customized and not generic is irrelevant. If it is determined there is no alternative use, the entity has satisfied this criterion and must evaluate its enforceable right to compensation for performance completed to date.

Definitions and Distinctions

ASC 606 defines a contract as “an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations”. Accordingly, the definition of a contract may include, but not be limited to, a Purchase Order, Agreement for the Sale of Goods, Bill of Sale, Independent Contractor Agreement, etc. In applying this definition to business operations and revenue recognition, an entity must consider its individual business practices, and possibly individual customer arrangements in determining enforceability.

Once it is determined that the entity has an enforceable right to a payment, the amount of payment must also be considered. The amount that would “compensate” an entity for performance to date should be the estimated selling price of the goods or services transferred to date (for example, recovery of costs incurred plus a reasonable profit margin) rather than compensation for only the entity’s potential loss of profit if the contract were to be terminated. Accordingly, a payment that only covers the entity’s costs incurred to date or for the entity’s potential loss of profit if the contract was terminated does not allow for the recognition of revenue over time.

Compensation for a reasonable profit margin need not equal the profit margin expected if the contract was fulfilled as promised. Once the “enforceable right to compensation for performance completed to date” requirement has been met, an entity will then assess the appropriate method of recognizing revenue over a period of time using input or output methods, as provided under ASC 606.

For manufacturers of highly specialized products there may not be a simple answer for determining appropriate revenue recognition policies for each customer contract and evaluating the impact can be a challenging endeavor.

Next steps

If you would like guidance in analyzing the impact ASC 606 will have on a manufacturer’s financial reporting practices, including the potential impact it may have on bank covenants, borrowing base calculations, etc., please contact one of our dedicated commercial industry practice professionals.
 

Related Industries

Proposed House bill brings state income tax standards to the digital age

On June 3, 2019, the US House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3063, also known as the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2019, which seeks to modernize tax laws for the sale of personal property, and clarify physical presence standards for state income tax nexus as it applies to services and intangible goods. But before we can catch up on today, we need to go back in time—great Scott!

Fly your DeLorean back 60 years (you’ve got one, right?) and you’ll arrive at the signing of Public Law 86-272: the Interstate Income Act of 1959. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, P.L. 86-272 allows a business to enter a state, or send representatives, for the purposes of soliciting orders for the sale of tangible personal property without being subject to a net income tax.

But now, in 2019, personal property is increasingly intangible—eBooks, computer software, electronic data and research, digital music, movies, and games, and the list goes on. To catch up, H.R. 3063 seeks to expand on 86-272’s protection and adds “all other forms of property, services, and other transactions” to that exemption. It also redefines business activities of independent contractors to include transactions for all forms of property, as well as events and gathering of information.

Under the proposed bill, taxpayers meet the standards for physical presence in a taxing jurisdiction, if they:

  1.  Are an individual physically located in or have employees located in a given state; 
  2. Use the services of an agent to establish or maintain a market in a given state, provided such agent does not perform the same services in the same state for any other person or taxpayer during the taxable year; or
  3. Lease or own tangible personal property or real property in a given state.

The proposed bill excludes a taxpayer from the above criteria who have presence in a state for less than 15 days, or whose presence is established in order to conduct “limited or transient business activity.”

In addition, H.R. 3063 also expands the definition of “net income tax” to include “other business activity taxes”. This would provide protection from tax in states such as Texas, Ohio and others that impose an alternate method of taxing the profits of businesses.

H.R. 3063, a measure that would only apply to state income and business activity tax, is in direct contrast to the recent overturn of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a sales and use tax standard. Quill required a physical presence but was overturned by the decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Since the Wayfair decision, dozens of states have passed legislation to impose their sales tax regime on out of state taxpayers without a physical presence in the state.

If enacted, the changes made via H.R. 3063 would apply to taxable periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020. For more information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3063/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3063%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
 

Blog
Back to the future: Business activity taxes!

This site uses cookies to provide you with an improved user experience. By using this site you consent to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information on the cookies we use and how you can manage them.