Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Accounting 101 for development directors: Five things to know

By:
Leah Pillsbury is a Staff Auditor at BerryDunn. Before joining the firm, Leah spent a decade working at not-for-profits, primarily as a fundraiser, specializing in capital campaigns. Leah’s time spent in the fundraising capacity has given her valuable perspective insight into the not-for-profit audit experience.
Leah Pillsbury
12.11.18

Good fundraising and good accounting do not always seamlessly align. While they all feed the same mission, fundraisers work to meet revenue goals while accountants focus on recording transactions in compliance with accounting standards. We often see development department totals reported to boards that are not in line with annual financial statements, causing confusion and concern. To bridge this information gap, here are five accounting concepts every not-for-profit fundraiser should know:

1.

GAAP Accounting: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) refers to a common set of accounting standards and procedures. There are as many ways for a donor to structure a gift as there are donors?GAAP provides a common foundation for when and how you should record these gifts.

2.

Pledges: Under GAAP, if there is a true, unconditional “promise to give,” you should record the total pledge as revenue in the current year (with a little present value discounting thrown in the mix for payments expected in future periods). A conditional pledge relies on a specific event happening in the future (think matching gift) and is not considered revenue until that condition is met. (See more on pledges and matching gifts here.) 

3.

Intentions: We sometimes see donors indicating they “intend” to donate a certain amount in the future. An intention on its own is not considered a true unconditional promise under GAAP, and isn’t recorded as revenue. This has a big impact with planned giving as we often see bequests recorded as revenue by the development department in the year the organization is named in the will of the donor—while the accounting guidance specifically identifies bequests as intentions to give that would generally not be recorded by the finance team until the will has been declared valid by the probate court.

4.

Restrictions: Donors often impose restrictions on some contributions, limiting the use of that gift to a specific time, program, or purpose. Usually, a gift like this arrives with some explicit communication from donors, noting how they want to apply the gift. A gift can also be considered restricted to a specific project if it is made in direct response to a solicitation for that project. The donor restriction does not generally determine when to record the gift but how to record it, as these contributions are tracked separately.

5. Gifts vs. Exchange: New accounting guidance has been released that provides more clarity on when a gift or grant is truly a contribution and when it might be an exchange transaction. Contact us if you have any questions.


Understanding the differences in how the development department and finance department track these gifts will allow for better reporting to the board throughout the year—and fewer surprises when you present financial statements at the end of the year. Stay tuned for parts two and three of our contribution series. Have questions? Please contact Emily Parker of Sarah Belliveau.

 

Related Services

A capital campaign is a big undertaking. During the planning stage of a capital campaign you need to not only focus on your donor outreach strategy, but also on outreach materials. From an accounting standpoint, the language you use can have a big impact on how the funds will be tracked and ultimately used by the organization. We recommend our clients share their outreach materials with us early in the process so we can measure them against standard accounting practice and regulations. Here are a few things to consider and plan as you get started.

Three components to understand

1.

Pledges. Make sure you understand the difference between a pledge and an intention. From an accounting perspective, only an “unconditional promise to give” is recorded as revenue—an intention to give does not usually meet that criteria. It’s especially important to have this conversation if there is a planned giving element of the campaign, because accounting for bequests can be confusing at times. (You can learn more about intentions here).

2.

Matching Gifts. Matching gift drives can be very successful aspects of your campaign. Be aware that pledges to match gifts from other donors are not considered revenue for accounting purposes until those conditions have been met.

3.

Gift Restriction. For many donors, capital campaigns are particularly appealing, because they fund exciting and tangible projects. Donors who give for a specific building project or scholarship fund are imposing a restriction on how you can use that money. Restrictions can be explicit, as in the case when a gift is accompanied by a note describing the purpose of the gift. However, accounting guidelines also stipulate that restrictions can be implicit—arising from the circumstances surrounding the gift, not necessarily specific instructions from the donor. For example, if a campaign appeal for a new community building focuses just on that project, gifts in response to that appeal may be restricted to building expenses, and can’t be spent on other expenses of the organization.

Not sure where to start? Here are three helpful tools to get the conversation going.

Three must-haves to build your campaign

1.

Gift Acceptance Policy. Hopefully, your not-for-profit has a written gift acceptance policy. If not, start there. A gift acceptance policy outlines guidelines for pledges, restrictions, and the full range of contribution types-from stocks and bonds to real estate and life insurance policies. A good policy serves as a guide for fundraisers and protects the organization from accepting gifts that may not be beneficial.

2.

Campaign Counting Policy. An essential part of campaign planning is the development of a counting policy, which outlines what gifts are counted toward the overall goal—and how. This is especially important because the campaign counting may differ from how your accounting team records the revenue of the campaign.

3. Pledge Form. Finally, there is the pledge form, where it all comes together. A campaign pledge form should align with the organization’s gift acceptance and counting policies and be written in a way that ensures pledges and gift restrictions are accounted for properly.


In developing each of these tools, be sure to involve your finance department, but also outside experts, such as your legal counsel or your auditing firm, as they can add extra support and knowledge. While launching a capital campaign can seem daunting, proper planning allows the rest of the campaign to run smoothly.  Have questions? Please contact Emily Parker or Sarah Belliveau.

Article
A CPA's guide to starting a capital campaign

Read this if you are a financial manager of an ESOP.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) must generally buy back, or repurchase, participants’ shares when they leave the plan or want to diversify holdings. If the ESOP does not purchase the stock the company is required to purchase the shares from the participant under the “put option” described in Internal Revenue Code (IRS) Section 409(h).These rules require the company to either provide enough cash to the ESOP to fund stock repurchases, if adequate other assets are not available within the ESOP, or to fund the repurchase of shares outside of the ESOP. Anticipating the amount and timing of these repurchases requires a lot of number crunching and assumptions to arrive at an estimated “Repurchase Obligation” at a point in time. In most cases, ESOPs enlist the help of valuation specialists, actuaries, or outsider vendors to prepare a study.

All this is done as a component of ESOP cash flow planning but also begs the question, what do you need to record or disclose in your company’s financial statements related to this obligation?

The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s guidance on the subject is contained in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718, Compensation - Stock Compensation. More specifically, ASC Section 718-40-50 clearly outlines the terms, allocated share and fair value information, compensation and other related disclosure requirements for ESOPs in paragraphs 1a through g. One of these requirements—paragraph f—requires disclosure of “the existence and nature of any repurchase obligation...” While the existence of a potential repurchase obligation is undeniable due to the requirements of IRC Section 409(h), disclosure of the nature of the obligation may require judgement and a careful reread of the plan documents.

Existence of the obligation

What private companies record for redemptions is straightforward. They are required to accrue obligations related to redemption events initiated on or before the balance sheet date and disclose share and obligation balance information related to those transactions of material.

Disclosures must include the number of allocated shares and the fair value of those shares as of the balance sheet date. This sounds like a general disclosure of terms, but the intention is to communicate maximum repurchase obligation exposure. If redemptions subsequent to the balance sheet date require material and imminent use of cash, the company should consider whether it is required to disclose them as a subsequent event (including amounts) under ASC Topic 855, Subsequent Events.

Nature of the obligation

So, what do you need to disclose specific to the nature of your company’s ESOP shares repurchase obligation?

Put options against the ESOP trust (i.e., rights afforded under the ESOP requiring the trust to purchase outstanding stock at given prices within specific time horizons). Plan terms allowing redemption payments in excess of a certain threshold to be made over a defined period of time (e.g., retiring employees with vested balances greater than $5,000 may receive their payments in equal installments over a five-year period, while those with lower balances may receive their benefit in a lump sum).

If your company’s ownership has an ESOP component or you are considering an ESOP as part of your exit strategy, please reach out to Linda Roberts and Estera Ciparyte-McDonald. They can help you better understand the myriad considerations to be taken into account, and the required and potential financial statement impact and disclosures.

Article
ESOP repurchase obligations―Planning for future pay ups

Read this if you are a home health agency (HHA).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule, CY2021, was published on June 30, 2020. The proposed rule indicates that the Request for Advance Payment (RAP) currently permitted will be eliminated for all 30-day home health periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021. If adopted, this proposed rule will impact the timing of cash flow for HHAs. HHAs will no longer receive an advanced payment, but rather will not be paid until approximately 45-60 days after the period of care has begun. The change in timing of the payment should be considered as part of your HHA’s cash flow forecasting.

Note: Although the RAP payment has been eliminated, HHAs will still be required to submit a zero dollar RAP bill at the beginning of each 30-day period to establish home health services. 

Also included in the proposed rule is a transition from a RAP to a Notice of Admission (NOA) in 2022. This is similar to the Notice of Election under the hospice benefit, since there will no longer be a RAP. It is proposed that HHAs would submit a one-time NOA that establishes care in place of the RAP for the patient until discharged. 

There will be a payment penalty if either the zero dollar RAP in CY2021 or NOA in 2022 is not submitted within five calendar days from the start of care. The penalty is proposed to be a payment reduction of 1/30th to the wage and case-mix adjusted 30-day period of care reimbursement for each day late until submitted, reducing the total reimbursement for patient care. HHAs should be monitoring the timeliness of RAP submissions to be prepared for this proposed change and avoid potential reimbursement reduction if this proposed rule is passed. Read the entire proposed rule.

Please contact a BerryDunn Home Health team member to assist you with evaluating the cash flow impact these proposed changes may have to your organization. 

Article
Medicare Home Health Notice of Admission Proposed Rule CY2021 and its cash flow impact

Read this if you are an engineering or architecture firm working with government agencies reimbursing overhead established in an overhead rate schedule based on direct labor.

It seems everyone is both anxious to gain forgiveness of their PPP loans and worried about the ramifications of requesting and being granted forgiveness. There is so much you need to consider to understand the potential impact forgiveness may have on your future cash flow and revenues. Let’s focus, though, on your overhead rate.

Some things to consider:

  • PPP loan forgiveness may significantly reduce your overhead rate. As a result, future contracts and related revenues from federal, state, or local government agencies will be impacted. 

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.201-5 dictates that the applicable portion of any income, rebate, allowance, or other credit relating to any allowable cost and received by the contractor shall be credited to the government. If the credit will be used to reduce the indirect labor costs and rent, some of the largest costs of A/E firms, the overhead rate might be reduced by as much as 25% to 30%. 
  • Guidance on the timing of credit offset is still unclear.

    Do you offset 2020 expenses for forgiveness not settled until 2021 to better match cash flows and credit expenses relevant to forgiveness? Or reflect the forgiveness in the Schedule during the period forgiveness was formally received?
  • The IRS is currently communicating that the costs incurred to gain PPP loan forgiveness will not be deductible expenses, thus increasing 2020 taxable income.

    If your company is in a taxable position, federal income taxes will increase as a result and impact cash flows. And remember, federal income taxes are unallowable costs in overhead rate schedules under FAR Part 31.201-41.

Depending on the concentration of your contracts with federal agencies, the significance of overhead rate reimbursement on contract revenues and expectations for growth, it may actually be more beneficial to pay the loan back instead of asking for forgiveness.

The Department of Defense (DOD) weighs in:

Often the first agency to establish policy or make changes, the DOD has issued guidance in the form of answers to FAQs about CARES Act impacts on DOD pricing and contracting. Q23 specifically addresses the issue of PPP loan forgiveness. It states, “to the extent that PPP credits are allocable to costs allowable under contract, the Government should receive a credit or a reduction in billing for any PPP loans or loan payments that are forgiven.” You can read that and other CARES Act credit guidance here. Even if you don’t directly work with DoD, other federal agencies and state DOT’s generally adopt DoD’s guidance. 

What if we apply forgiveness credit against direct labor? 

You might wonder, why not just apply the credit against direct and indirect labor in proportion to the actual payroll paid during the PPP loan covered period? If this was possible, the overhead rate might actually increase. Unfortunately, billing the government for direct labor costs offset on the overhead rate schedule with the credit of PPP loan forgiveness would violate FAR Part 31 cost principles. Since you can’t bill for credited costs, revenues for contracts with government agencies would be further reduced. 

We advise a wait and see approach.

The best action plan to do right now is to wait for better and clearer guidance. Industry associations such as ACEC are advocating for more favorable PPP loan forgiveness treatment. Furthermore, there are still quite a few unanswered questions by the SBA. 

If you have any questions related to your overhead rate and the impact of PPP loan forgiveness on your revenue from contracts with government agencies, please contact us. We’re here to help. 


 

Article
PPP loan forgiveness will likely impact your overhead rate!

Read this if your organization, business, or institution has leases and you’ve been eagerly awaiting and planning for the implementation of the new lease standards.

Ready? Set? Not yet. As we have prepared for and experienced delays related to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases, and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 87, Leases, we thought the time had finally come for implementation. With the challenges that COVID-19 has brought to everyone, the FASB and GASB recognize the significant impact COVID-19 has had on commercial businesses, state and local governments, and not-for-profits and both have proposed delays in effective dates for various accounting standards, including both lease standards.

But wait, there’s more! In response to feedback FASB received during the comment period for the lease standard, the revenue recognition standard has also been extended. We didn’t see that coming, and expect that many organizations that didn’t opt for early adoption will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

FASB details and a deeper dive

On May 20, 2020, FASB voted to delay the effective date of the lease standard and the revenue recognition standard. A formal Accounting Standards Update (ASU) summarizing these changes will be released early June. Here’s what we know now:

  • Revenue recognition―for entities that have not yet issued financial statements, the effective date of the application of FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue Recognition, has been delayed by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019). This does not apply to public entities or nonpublic entities that are conduit debt obligors who previously adopted this guidance.
  • Leases―for entities that have not yet adopted the guidance from ASC 842, Leases, the effective date has been extended by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021).
  • Early adoption of either standard is still allowed.

FASB has also provided clarity on lease concessions that are highlighted in Topic 842. 

We recognize many lessors are making concessions due to the pandemic. Under current guidance in Topics 840 and 842, changes to lease contracts that were not included in the original lease are generally accounted for as lease modifications and, therefore, a separate contract. This would require remeasurement of the new lease contract and related right-of-use asset. 

FASB recognized this issue and has published a FASB Staff Questions and Answers (Q&A) Document, Topic 842 and Topic 840: Accounting for Lease Concessions Related to the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Under this new guidance, if lease concessions are made relating to COVID-19, entities do not need to analyze each contract to determine if a new contract has been entered into, and will have the option to apply, or not to apply, the lease modification provisions of Topics 840 and 842.

GASB details

On May 8, 2020, GASB issued Statement No. 95, Postponement of the Effective Dates of Certain Authoritative Guidance. GASB 95 extends the implementation dates of several pronouncements including:
•    Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities―extended by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019)
•    Statement No. 87, Leases―extended by 18 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021)

More information

If you have questions, please contact a member of our financial statement audit team. For other COVID-19 related resources, please refer to BerryDunn’s COVID-19 Resources Page.
 

Article
May 2020 accounting standard delay status: GASB and FASB

Read this if your organization is required to perform physician time studies.

Currently hospitals allocate physician compensation costs to Part A (provider) and Part B (professional/patient) time based on either time studies or allocation agreements. The basic instructions for periodic time studies are that they must be based on the following criteria:

  1. One full week per month of the cost reporting period
  2. Based on a full work week
  3. Use three weeks from the first week of the month, three weeks from the second week of the month, three weeks from the third week of the month and three weeks from the fourth week of the month
  4. Consecutive months cannot use the same week of the month

Per a CMS Special Edition of mlnconnects published May 15, 2020, during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) CMS has made the following time study options available to hospitals as follows:

  • A one-week time study every six months (two weeks per year);
  • Time studies completed prior to January 27, 2020 (the PHE effective date) for the applicable cost report period can be used with no time studies needed for 1/27/2020 – 6/30/2020; or
  • Time studies for the same period in CY 2019 (e.g., if unable to complete time studies during February through July 2020, use time studies completed February through July 2019)

If you have any questions regarding the information in this article please contact Ellen Donahue.

Article
Physician Time Studies during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

Read this if you are in administration at a college or university.

Colleges and universities have been working around the clock to convert their in-person academic programming to online learning and to quickly disburse grant funding to students in line with broad eligibility requirements, all while adjusting to their own new work environments. In the search for funding in a time when many institutions are refunding student payments at unexpected and unprecedented levels, many institutions have found themselves ineligible for the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) offered under the CARES Act if the federal work study students were included in the employee count. In a welcome change, a recent interim final rule issued by the US Small Business Administration (SBA) has been released that will change the eligibility criteria for the emergency relief offered under the PPP. One of the most notable changes in the interim rule will allow colleges and universities to exclude federal work study students in determining their eligibility. 

Student workers have historically counted as employees under SBA programs. This temporary change would provide relief for many small institutions, whose federal work study programs would otherwise drive up their employment pool over the 500 employee threshold and exclude them from participation in the PPP. While federal work study positions fill important roles throughout many campus facilities, this interim final rule recognizes the primary function of a federal work study program is to provide financial aid for students attending school and is incidental to the role of the student on campus. As expected, as these positions are mostly federally funded, the interim final rule excludes these expenditures in determining the available loan amount under the PPP.

These changes are consistent with other areas of existing federal law, as noted in the interim final rule, these workers are already generally exempt from other federal employment requirements, like Federal Unemployment taxes. In order to allow for swift action, the interim final rule is effective immediately upon posting to the federal register.

We’re here to help.
For more information, or if you have questions about your specific situation, please contact the higher education consulting team.

Article
Federal Work-Study (FWS) excluded from PPP eligibility determination

Read this if you are a CFO, CEO, COO, or CLO at a financial institution.

The preparation of financial statements by financial institutions involves a number of accounting estimates, some of which can be quite complex. As these estimates are often a significant focus of audits of those financial statements, financial institution personnel affected by the audit process might benefit from a discussion of the rules auditors need to follow when auditing estimates.

Accounting estimates

Across all industries, there are financial statement items that require a degree of estimation because they cannot be measured precisely. These amounts, called accounting estimates, are determined using a wide array of information available to management. In using such information to arrive at the estimates, a degree of estimation uncertainty exists, which has a direct effect on the risks of material misstatement of the resulting accounting estimates. For financial institutions, common examples of accounting estimates include the allowance for loan losses, valuation of investment securities, allocation of the purchase price in a bank or branch acquisition, and depreciation and amortization of premises and equipment, in addition to intangibles and goodwill. 

For entities other than public companies, the auditing rules are established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Auditing Standards Board (ASB). Under these requirements a financial statement auditor has a responsibility to assess the risks of material misstatement for accounting estimates by obtaining an understanding of the following items: 

  • The requirements of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) relevant to accounting estimates, including related disclosures. 
  • How management identifies those transactions, events, and conditions that may give rise to the need for accounting estimates to be recognized or disclosed in the financial statements. In obtaining this understanding, the auditor should make inquiries of management about changes in circumstances that may give rise to new, or the need to revise existing, accounting estimates. 
  • How management makes the accounting estimates and the data on which they are based. 

This final item—determining how management has calculated the accounting estimate in question—includes the following specific aspects for the auditor to address:

  • the method(s), including, when applicable, the model, used in making the accounting estimate; 
  • relevant controls; 
  • whether management has used a specialist; 
  • the assumptions underlying the accounting estimates; 
  • whether there has been or ought to have been a change from the prior period in the method(s) or assumption(s) for making the accounting estimates, and if so, why; and 
  • if so, how management has assessed the effects of estimation uncertainty. 

Professional skepticism

When analyzing management’s assessment of the effects of estimation uncertainty, the auditor needs to apply professional skepticism to the accounting estimate by considering whether management considered alternative assumptions, and, if a range of assumptions was reasonable, how they determined the amount chosen was the most appropriate. If estimation uncertainty is determined to be high, this is one indicator to the auditor that estimation uncertainty may pose a significant risk of material misstatement. An identified significant risk requires the auditor to perform a test of controls and/or details during the audit; in other words, analytical procedures and testing performed in previous audits will not suffice. 

CECL considerations

For audits of financial institutions, including those that have implemented the FASB CECL standard as well as those still using the incurred loss method, the allowance for loan losses will likely be deemed a significant risk due to its materiality, estimation uncertainty, complexity, and sensitivity from a user’s perspective.   

Additional factors the auditor needs to consider include whether management performed a sensitivity analysis as part of its consideration of estimation uncertainty as described above, and whether management performed a lookback analysis to evaluate the previous process used. Auditors of accounting estimates are required to do at least a high-level lookback analysis to gain an understanding of any differences between previous estimates and actual results, and to assess the reliability of management’s process. 

Auditing estimate procedures

Procedures for auditing estimates include an evaluation of subsequent events, tests of management’s methodology, tests of controls, and, in some instances, preparation of an independent estimate by the auditor. Tests of management’s method and tests of controls, including auditing the design and implementation of controls, are the most practical and likely procedures to apply to audits of the allowance for loan losses at financial institutions, both under the current guidance and following adoption of the current expected credit loss (CECL) method under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. As FASB has not prescribed a specific model, auditors must be prepared to tailor their procedures to address the facts and circumstances in place at each respective financial institution. 

In addition to auditing management’s estimate, auditors have the responsibility to audit related disclosures, including information about management’s methods and the model used, assumptions used in developing the estimate, and any other disclosures required by GAAP or necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements. Throughout the audit process, auditors need to continue to exercise professional skepticism to consider what could have gone wrong during management’s process and to assess indicators of management bias, if any. 

For public companies, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) specifies auditors must evaluate both evidence that corroborates and evidence that contradicts management’s financial statement assertions in order to avoid confirmation bias. When considering the assessment of risks, as risk increases, the level of evidence obtained by the auditor should increase. As with audits of private companies, the auditor needs to consider whether the data is accurate, complete, and sufficiently precise and detailed to be used as audit evidence.

An added consideration under PCAOB rules is that the auditor is typically opining on the institution’s internal controls as well as its financial statements. This may restrict the results of control testing performed by parties independent of the function being tested from being used as audit evidence from a financial statement audit perspective. For financial institutions, this is often the case with independent loan review, since the loan review is considered part of the institution’s internal control upon which the auditor is opining. 

Supporting evidence

As with the incurred loss method, PCAOB auditing standards will require the auditor consider how much evidence is necessary to support the allowance for loan losses under CECL. All significant components of management’s allowance for loan losses estimate, including qualitative factors, will need to be supported by institution-specific data. If such data is unavailable (for example, because the institution introduces a new type of loan offering), the FASB standard indicates appropriate peer data may be acceptable. In such cases, management and the auditor may need to understand the controls in place at the vendor providing the peer data to determine its reliability. You may provide this information in the form of System and Organization Controls (commonly know as SOC1) reports of the vendor’s system.  

Recently, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board revised its auditing rules for estimates, with a goal of enhancing guidance regarding application of the basic audit risk model in the context of auditing estimates. The revised rules require that auditors must separately assess inherent and control risk when obtaining an understanding of controls, identifying and assessing risks, and designing and performing further audit procedures. The ASB seeks convergence of rules both internationally and domestically, and has therefore proposed changes to its requirements for auditing estimates to align with the IAASB revised rules. The ASB’s proposal on these changes indicated they would be effective beginning with audits of fiscal year ending December 31, 2022; the final effective date will be determined in conjunction with its issuance of the final rules.

The best CECL approach 

The best approach to take? Management should discuss planned changes to estimate the process with your auditors to get their perspective on best practices under CECL. Key areas to review in the discussion include documenting the decision-making process, key players involved, and the resulting review and approval process (especially for changes to methods or assumptions). Always retain copies of your final documentation for auditor review. If you would like more information, or have a specific question about your situation, please contact the team. We’re here to help. 

Article
CECL: Understand the audit requirements and prepare for what's to come